Blocking Firefox? WTF? Warning: Angry Rant!
WHAT CRAP!! This site says that people who block ads using the FF extension Adblock (plus) are basically thieves. They deny it at the top of their site, but anyone who reads their page knows that this is their intent.
So while I believe this is some of the biggest crap ever (and I'll tell you why in a minute), my question to you is: 'What is your opinion on adblocking, adblocking-blocking, and mozilla endorsing Adblock?"
My take:
Theft by blocking ads??? umm... no, since in no way am I taking property, money, etc. by not viewing ads. But you say: "but since you don't view the ads, the advertisers will not have as much incentive to pay that site for the advertisement, and therefore you are taking revenue from them." But apparently:
so I, being a Firefox user, would not pay attention to the ad whether I saw it or not since I am apparently cheap. So, ad viewed, ad blocked, no change in revenue, so using their own logic against them: I am not stealing anything! Edit: Also, by making me to use a different browser to view the crappy site that has the same content as hundreds of other sites (being lazy I wouldn't), would I be any more likely to click on the ads that I are now being forcefully shoved down my throat? I say no, and I would even be more inclined not to because of the inconvenience, etc.
Ironically, following one of the links on the top of the page will give you 'Firefox myths', many of which use studies as sound as the recent iPhone keyboard test as 'proof', gives you this:
But...but...but... I thought not viewing ads was theft right? Ummm... I'm just gonna leave this one be as it needs no explanation.
Also, I tried some of the speed comparison tests they had 'proving that IE was faster'... Most of the time FF was about twice as fast, and it never got beat loading pages.
OK, moving on. I use Adblock plus with the element hiding helper because A) I hate ads and the bandwidth they STEAL (taking my time and therefore $$ by making pages take longer to load), but also because on several sites, the ads that don't get blocked are usually incredibly annoying (flashy, porn, etc.) which is were the element hiding helper comes in because I don't want to look at that crap.
If you do have adblock installed, you can't go to that page because it is blocked as 'Firefox Slander' so you will have to click on the arrow next to the ABP stop sign, go to preferences, scroll down to the bottom till you see the filter for blocking that site and turn it off.
Also, see the digg article.
And yes, I am a Firefox fanboi, so here it is.
Get Firefox!
adblock plus
Element hiding helper
On the middle link Check the comments on the "This is stealing" feedback for more angry rants, etc. similar to mine.
Oh... last thing, I promise (until I think of more):This is a public poll so you will be flamed if you disagree.
I thought of more... Join me in boycotting any sites that would give this message, and the advertisers on those sites. Pwease, pwease, pwease.
So while I believe this is some of the biggest crap ever (and I'll tell you why in a minute), my question to you is: 'What is your opinion on adblocking, adblocking-blocking, and mozilla endorsing Adblock?"My take:
Theft by blocking ads??? umm... no, since in no way am I taking property, money, etc. by not viewing ads. But you say: "but since you don't view the ads, the advertisers will not have as much incentive to pay that site for the advertisement, and therefore you are taking revenue from them." But apparently:
Quote:
Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks
Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks
so I, being a Firefox user, would not pay attention to the ad whether I saw it or not since I am apparently cheap. So, ad viewed, ad blocked, no change in revenue, so using their own logic against them: I am not stealing anything! Edit: Also, by making me to use a different browser to view the crappy site that has the same content as hundreds of other sites (being lazy I wouldn't), would I be any more likely to click on the ads that I are now being forcefully shoved down my throat? I say no, and I would even be more inclined not to because of the inconvenience, etc.
Ironically, following one of the links on the top of the page will give you 'Firefox myths', many of which use studies as sound as the recent iPhone keyboard test as 'proof', gives you this:
Quote:
Myth - "Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser" - Example
Reality - Opera (now 100% Ad free) is the fastest Graphical Web Browser in Windows. - Source
Myth - "Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser" - Example
Reality - Opera (now 100% Ad free) is the fastest Graphical Web Browser in Windows. - Source
But...but...but... I thought not viewing ads was theft right? Ummm... I'm just gonna leave this one be as it needs no explanation.
Also, I tried some of the speed comparison tests they had 'proving that IE was faster'... Most of the time FF was about twice as fast, and it never got beat loading pages.
OK, moving on. I use Adblock plus with the element hiding helper because A) I hate ads and the bandwidth they STEAL (taking my time and therefore $$ by making pages take longer to load), but also because on several sites, the ads that don't get blocked are usually incredibly annoying (flashy, porn, etc.) which is were the element hiding helper comes in because I don't want to look at that crap.
If you do have adblock installed, you can't go to that page because it is blocked as 'Firefox Slander' so you will have to click on the arrow next to the ABP stop sign, go to preferences, scroll down to the bottom till you see the filter for blocking that site and turn it off.
Also, see the digg article.
And yes, I am a Firefox fanboi, so here it is.
Get Firefox!
adblock plus
Element hiding helper
On the middle link Check the comments on the "This is stealing" feedback for more angry rants, etc. similar to mine.
Oh... last thing, I promise (until I think of more):This is a public poll so you will be flamed if you disagree.
I thought of more... Join me in boycotting any sites that would give this message, and the advertisers on those sites. Pwease, pwease, pwease.
Comments
There's no copyright on the AI forums other than the one for VBulletin, which I doubt covers ads. So I'd guess that it's at least legal to block ads on the AI forums.
I don't quite think we are under a legal obligation to view whatever ads are thrown our way. Once I was watching TV and I channel surfed to avoid watching a commercial...
I was going to mention TV ads too. Skipping ads is frowned upon and some people try to prevent you doing so and they don't like it when recorders come out that allow you to skip them easily. But, advertisers take it too far. When I watch a cable show, they now split shows into very small segments and the ads last so long that I forgot what the show was about. My brother actually got rid of his cable service because of it. In the end, you are paying a subscription already. For them to deliver nothing but reruns and adverts is theft.
Internet advertising is more understandable as sites have to pay costs but when they go too far, there needs to be a way to block them. I don't personally like Firefox and I use Safari without an ad blocker and the sites I visit tend to be ok for ads.
If Firefox has a built-in ad-blocker, I could see blocking them being justified. Otherwise no.
I practice ad blocking. I don't block all ads, but when I get to sites where the advertising is just too much... *blocked.
I don't block ads on AI (save for the occasional one that plays sound without MY consent), but I have blocked every conceivable image on MDN because it's way over the top.
What advertisers need to learn is that they aren't entitled. They can pay all the money they want, but they have ZERO say over whether or not I ever have to have their advertising visible to me. They need to take a little time and figure out why I've come to feel the need to block their invasive advertising instead of crying like babies or circumventing my blocking efforts.
I couldn't reach the site with safari and add block turned off.
Here it is:
\t
You've reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks the FireFox browser.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The Digg entry is FALSE!! No where do we assert that "since Firefox users have the ability to block ads, they must be thieves and must be blocked." AdBlockPlus denies site owners the freedom to block AdBlockPlus users, therefore all FireFox users (except those using IETab) are blocked. It's a simple matter of opposing the censorship on the part of AdBlockPlus and therefore the support offered to them by Mozilla.
The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software. Many site owners therefore install scripts that prevent people using ad blocking software from accessing their site. That is their right as the site owner to insist that the use of their resources accompanies the presence of the ads.
While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus's unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative. Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers..
Since the makers of Ad Block Plus as well as the filter subscriptions that accompany it refuse to allow website owners control over their own intellectual property, and since FireFox actively endorses Ad Block Plus, the sites linking to this page are now blocking FireFox until the resource theft is stopped.
Netscape users can simply set their browser to IE mode to continue to enjoy the site that sent you here. FireFox users can use Internet Explorer, Opera or Netscape (in IE mode) to access it. FireFox users also have the option of using the IE Tab plug-in which uses the IE rendering engine to display pages, but also disables the Ad Block Plus plug-in.
If you are offended by the Mozilla Corporation's endorsement of dishonesty please contact the Mozilla Foundation and ask them to stop empowering internet theft.
Myth - "Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser" - Example
Reality - Opera (now 100% Ad free) is the fastest Graphical Web Browser in Windows. - Source
From the Opera website:
Why we're going free
Opera has removed the banners, found within our browser, and the licensing fee. Opera's growth, due to tremendous worldwide customer support, has made today's milestone an achievable goal. Premium support is available.
'Ad-Free', in regards to Opera, refers to the fact that there are no embedded banners in the Opera browser. Previous 'free' versions of the Opera browser were advertising supported through the use of embedded banners in the software.
Here it is:
I get that part. What is the site that is being 'blocked'?
Who cares why a single web site rails against Ad-Block? Do you have some vested interest in Firefox, or are you trying to drive traffic to that web site?
If it's one site then I agree no big deal. I just want to know what site is actually refusing FF users. If it becomes a trend then that would be a problem.
It's a ballsy move IMO because my position is that I will decide the browser that I use and not the website. That's why I refuse sites that require IE. Screw "em , they just lost a visitor.
Previous 'free' versions of the Opera browser were advertising supported through the use of embedded banners in the software.
Oh, my bad, thanks for the history lesson. I was just so angry (and it was late) that I didn't follow the links quite that deep.
Who cares why a single web site rails against Ad-Block? Do you have some vested interest in Firefox, or are you trying to drive traffic to that web site?
Well, actually, sorry to disappoint, but I was not given this message by attempting to view a site (apparently not many actually have this), but was instead browsing through the filters for ABP and found this as one of them. Finding my curiosity to great to overcome, I visited and then went into a state of rage only quenched by posting in an online forum. My goal is not to drive traffic to the site (except maybe AI members, who, being smart would know what a load of crap it really is, and would become similarly angry), but for anybody that reads the above, to see why I am right and they are wrong. This is so if they ever encounter a site that endorses this BS, the 'theif'
Last thing for this post: johnrp, want to explain why you think that blocking annoying advertisements is theft?