Read the link I gave. The statistics for one of those measures was I believe 5-50% lost. Is it a perfect experiment, no, but it's probably one of the only ones out there, so we have to deal with those statistics for now. You'd have to get really unlucky for 70% of your viewership to be blocking ads, once you start to become decently popular.
I should note that ad blocking is much more common on gaming-oriented websites, as gamers tend to be more technically inclined than other internet users, thus being more aware of tracking ads and malvertising. (Using made-up statistics here) While allrecipes.com may only lose 5% of their ad revenue to ad blocking, MCF could take a much more significant 40% hit.
Don't be foolish. Perhaps there is more to making money than "you can still live with that". Sorry if this sounds greedy to you, but people deserve 100% of their money. I can't walk into a supermarket and say "you have loads of money, can I take the stuff I want for free? It won't really hurt your business". Sorry, but that would be ridiculous.
I think the most important issue here is whether ad blocking is comparable to stealing from website owners. Stealing from content creators is almost undeniably wrong, and using (certain) ad blockers tends to deprive those creators of income by deflating ad-based view counts.
Changing the channel is the equivalent of going on another website. Leaving the room is the equivalent of, well, I don't know, leaving the room? Blocking ads is not the same as either of these. Apples and oranges, attack what I'm saying, not what you want me to be saying.
You have an obligation to put up with them because you have an obligation to let people who put in the work that you are benefiting from get the money they have a right to. You don't like it, boo hoo. Life must be so hard for you, what with you not being able to just get everything you want with no regard to the detriments to anybody else. How selfish.
But of course, that's just how I see it. I'm not going to dismiss your post as complete nonsense, unlike you, am I? This being a debate and all. I think it would benefit the both of us if we gave objective arguments, not 'well you're just stupid' or equivalent.
Blocking ads is the same as fast forward, leaving the room, ect because I'm using their service and denying them the exposure they desire. The difference is tv ads are not putting my tv at risk. Disabling my ad blocker puts my PC at risk, even with anti virus and malware protection. I am under zero obligation to put my property at risk just so they can make some pennies from my visit. If they want more ad revenue then they(not the site owners really, advertisers in general) have to step up and do something to make me feel like it's worth it. Because of their predatory and reckless behavior customer confidence in them is nearly rock bottom. That is not our problem it's theirs. Until that changes no one should feel any obligation to browse the internet unprotected. In fact it's morally wrong to suggest otherwise. You seem to be advocating for people to throw caution to the wind and potentially lose their PC or hundreds of dollars just so some anonymous person can make a few pennies per visit.
Again, no obligation. If a site cares they can block people from using the site if they have ad blocker just like cable companies can disable FF in their digital services. Then it's my choice if I wanna do it or just move on. Ad companies causes this problem and it's their obligation to fix it.
I didn't dismiss your entire post as nonsense I dismissed that part I bolded. I didn't call you stupid either. I just think your idea that anyone is obligated to put their property at risk is stupid.
Anyway, rather than bicker about the "morality" of adblock (which isn't going to go anywhere since people have different morals that all ultimately say they are right) why not discuss a solution(s)? First we need to highlight the problem. Are ads at fault as a whole or is it the way they are implemented? Is there a way that webmasters could still advertise, but not make them be intrusive and pose a security threat? That is what I think people need to be discussing and working toward.
This actually is a good way to go with the topic. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), webmasters choose an ad service/publisher when putting ads on the website, and the publisher places the individual ads. If the publisher doesn't screen its ads well enough, the readers of content end up harmed. This encourages ad blocking on the site, which is usually detrimental to the webmaster's income.
There's also the issue of tracking ads. Advertisers are very focused on the ads getting the most attention from viewers, which may be a problem when collecting information about a viewer's browsing habits without permission. While all major browsers have a "Do Not Track" option as part of the W3C's "Do Not Track" request, many ad publishers refuse to honor the viewer's request, sometimes out of corporate spite.
This actually is a good way to go with the topic. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), webmasters choose an ad service/publisher when putting ads on the website, and the publisher places the individual ads.
As far as I know that's correct. So any site with terrible, obnoxious, dangerous ads doesn't care about the the visitors experience they just care about money. That's another reason why it's important to use a blocker - hit them where it hurts most and force them to care.
Blocking ads is the same as fast forward, leaving the room, ect because I'm using their service and denying them the exposure they desire. The difference is tv ads are not putting my tv at risk.
It isn't the same thing, because nobody cares if you watch the ads or not. The TV channel still gets their money. Ad blocking downright denies them that.
isabling my ad blocker puts my PC at risk, even with anti virus and malware protection. I am under zero obligation to put my property at risk just so they can make some pennies from my visit. If they want more ad revenue then they(not the site owners really, advertisers in general) have to step up and do something to make me feel like it's worth it.
Does it not stand to reason that if you're afraid of what is on the website you simply shouldn't visit the website?
Because of their predatory and reckless behavior customer confidence in them is nearly rock bottom. That is not our problem it's theirs. Until that changes no one should feel any obligation to browse the internet unprotected. In fact it's morally wrong to suggest otherwise. You seem to be advocating for people to throw caution to the wind and potentially lose their PC or hundreds of dollars just so some anonymous person can make a few pennies per visit.
'A few pennies' is a huge exaggeration and your point is null until you can realise it is a lot more than 'a few pennies'. I'm not advocating anybody throw caution to the wind. You have the option of not visiting the site.
Again, no obligation. If a site cares they can block people from using the site if they have ad blocker just like cable companies can disable FF in their digital services. Then it's my choice if I wanna do it or just move on. Ad companies causes this problem and it's their obligation to fix it.
Those shops had better step up their security instead of complaining about robberies all the time. It isn't my fault, they cause the problem by making the prices so high. :/
I didn't dismiss your entire post as nonsense I dismissed that part I bolded. I didn't call you stupid either. I just think your idea that anyone is obligated to put their property at risk is stupid.
You dismissed the part I bolded and downright didn't respond to the rest. In other words, you dismissed it all. I don't care if you don't have a response to everything, just don't hide it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
I called you delusional and I called your argument stupid. I did not call you stupid, calling you stupid would be, well, stupid. You clearly do not understand hypocrisy.
And I think I also read something about me taking this too seriously. Are you forgetting it was you who started this debate by getting super duper offended by me relating ad blocking to stealing. Am I upsetting you more by making this clear?
I'm done arguing with you. With every post you make this more and more comical and less and less an actual debate. Then you have the audacity to say I'm just taking it too seriously. Have a nice day now, remember in the future that your opposition couldn't care less about your so very highly amusing gags. Don't quit your day job.
You're just flame baiting me now. If anybody else has any questions about my views, feel free to ask me. I'll keep an eye on the topic, but don't expect me to tirelessly argue with the above nonsense anymore. It is all just ad hominem and attacking strawmen, I've little energy for it.
That's my last word on the matter, TLO. I'd love to counter all your points, but I know I won't convince you, which wouldn't be a problem were it not for the fact that you also have no qualms with just attacking me personally as well as my points. Which isn't fun for me, just for you, no matter how highly you may think of your mad comedy skills.
"I take things too much heart and you take things too seriously"
*psst* Those are basically the same thing!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
This is obviously going nowhere. If you wanna leave your PC wide open to get infected then more power to you but you're wrong to encourage people to browse the internet unsafely. I can only assume you hold this view because you have a website with terrible ads and you're mad because people ad block them or you're incredibly naive about the dangers of malware and viruses. Either way you're wrong.
those of you wondering why i don't have an active RP (so far none). i try. but whenever i get to the rules section of it my computer restarts. computer: i realise what your telling me and i give up.
It's a weird position. If I don't use an adblocker, the owner gets their money but that leaves me at risk of malware and viruses from malicious ads. If I do use an adblocker, the owner doesn't get paid and leaves me worry free from malicious ads. So if I want to be fair and safe, the only option I see is to abstain from using websites with ads. But then the lack of viewership on the site will leave it with less profit anyway and now the site owner is faced with the same problem of dwindling profits from before, only now their is no legal grey area for them to tackle. If websites want to be continually profitable and consumers want to be fair, then we'll have to work toward both better and safer implementations of ads & direct pay options. The "morality" discussion doesn't really solve anything beyond who is at fault.
You're tired? Hey, I was annoyed, now I actually find it pretty amusing. Especially imaginging the state of everyone else in this thread:
As amusing as this pic is, I'm getting kind of worried that each of your posts in your discussion are getting longer and longer to the point of one post being as long as the entire first page. You two probably need to reel it back in to the original topic; it's getting to where you're arguing about the point of arguing.
This is obviously going nowhere. If you wanna leave your PC wide open to get infected then more power to you but you're wrong to encourage people to browse the internet unsafely. I can only assume you hold this view because you have a website with terrible ads and you're mad because people ad block them or you're incredibly naive about the dangers of malware and viruses. Either way you're wrong.
Completely ignoring everything I've said and dealing a pretend final blow so you can tell people you are right. It isn't the same as being right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
My philosophy is that everything should be free, as the nature gave us this opportunity. Money was invented as a fear and to classify people into groups of people, and then nationalities. We are so much away from one individual to another because we fear ourselves, and that is because all of us. You can change that by living in harmony and peace, not in wars and controversy for things that do not actually help you.
So my answer to you is that the morality you asked for is wrong and should be vanished. Not only that is not necessary, because you should know what you want -that is supposed to be the meaning of life, to do what you've wanted in harmony and peace to all the beings and individuals, including you- should be good and not bad, and should not come from words of a screen, but this is not what you want.
You need to think that what we need must be what we want.
Also, wars are just for the feared, so just don't start or don't continue one. We weren't like that before. Adverts are manipulating people's wishes, which is a perfect weapon against humanity. And also, I have the right to see what I want and to feel what I want, we are free emotional.
I would give my opinion on this, but that would really involve me getting into politics, which isn't really appropriate. That isn't to say I don't respect your opinion or I think it is invalid, I'm just not going to go into why I disagree on this forum. But I'm sure you can guess where I'd be going.
Though I will say that I completely disagree that adverts are 'manipulating people's wishes'. They aren't manipulating your wishes. If they are, that's your problem, not the adverts. Really, the extent of 'manipulating people's wishes' is basically just the advert trying to convince you to buy a product. You make it sound way more malicious than it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
I hate ads, I don't care about the intent, they are annoying and I have 3 ad blockers installed, don't care if the ads are for a good reason or not, they waste my time and without ad block this whole page would be full of ads, I don't care about a product I won't buy, I don't care about car commercials.
I don't care about the products in ads either, but they do help a site get revenue.
And I'm not sure if this is just my computer or not, but I recently turned off Ublock for a while, and my browser is running faster. Maybe it's my terrible connection/hardware, but I now almost never use an adblock unless the ads are laggier than the actual plugin.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
اكتب الإساءة على الرمل و انحت المعروف على الصخر
"Write the bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble"
Anyway, from my last thinking I've got the conclusion that online ads are a right both to the website and the user. It is up to the user to choose or not if they want to see ads. The single right that is broken by the websites is that they broke the statement of passive sharing, which means the user's mind will be filled with informations that he/she may not be need it.
Again, I say that is the right of the user to choose if he/she wants or not to see ads and the right of the websites to make acces for users without or with ads on.
We should not make one of the 2 powers bigger. The best option is cooperating one with each other.
How is it 'manipulating' though? Does your definition of manipulating simply consist of trying to make a person think a certain way?
What exactly are you doing contributing to a debate? It is pretty ironic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
I have Adblock ultimate and Adblock plus installed, doesn't lag my computer. The ads are disgusting and cheap, they are a disgrace to my eyes, I already have about 3 or 4 tracker blockers also, those numbers keep racking up and will countinue, goes to show you why should install Ghostery,Adblock Ultimate, History eraser. It's not morally wrong, it's the users choice. 18 ads blocked on this page and I don't care about the money people make from all the stupid advertising people see, and they don't like it either.
You should care. If this site gets no money, it gets shut down.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
اكتب الإساءة على الرمل و انحت المعروف على الصخر
"Write the bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble"
Kinda forgot about that part to be honest. Easy to lose focus with all the back & forth in this thread.
무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
I should note that ad blocking is much more common on gaming-oriented websites, as gamers tend to be more technically inclined than other internet users, thus being more aware of tracking ads and malvertising. (Using made-up statistics here) While allrecipes.com may only lose 5% of their ad revenue to ad blocking, MCF could take a much more significant 40% hit.
I think the most important issue here is whether ad blocking is comparable to stealing from website owners. Stealing from content creators is almost undeniably wrong, and using (certain) ad blockers tends to deprive those creators of income by deflating ad-based view counts.
Blocking ads is the same as fast forward, leaving the room, ect because I'm using their service and denying them the exposure they desire. The difference is tv ads are not putting my tv at risk. Disabling my ad blocker puts my PC at risk, even with anti virus and malware protection. I am under zero obligation to put my property at risk just so they can make some pennies from my visit. If they want more ad revenue then they(not the site owners really, advertisers in general) have to step up and do something to make me feel like it's worth it. Because of their predatory and reckless behavior customer confidence in them is nearly rock bottom. That is not our problem it's theirs. Until that changes no one should feel any obligation to browse the internet unprotected. In fact it's morally wrong to suggest otherwise. You seem to be advocating for people to throw caution to the wind and potentially lose their PC or hundreds of dollars just so some anonymous person can make a few pennies per visit.
Again, no obligation. If a site cares they can block people from using the site if they have ad blocker just like cable companies can disable FF in their digital services. Then it's my choice if I wanna do it or just move on. Ad companies causes this problem and it's their obligation to fix it.
I didn't dismiss your entire post as nonsense I dismissed that part I bolded. I didn't call you stupid either. I just think your idea that anyone is obligated to put their property at risk is stupid.
This actually is a good way to go with the topic. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), webmasters choose an ad service/publisher when putting ads on the website, and the publisher places the individual ads. If the publisher doesn't screen its ads well enough, the readers of content end up harmed. This encourages ad blocking on the site, which is usually detrimental to the webmaster's income.
There's also the issue of tracking ads. Advertisers are very focused on the ads getting the most attention from viewers, which may be a problem when collecting information about a viewer's browsing habits without permission. While all major browsers have a "Do Not Track" option as part of the W3C's "Do Not Track" request, many ad publishers refuse to honor the viewer's request, sometimes out of corporate spite.
As far as I know that's correct. So any site with terrible, obnoxious, dangerous ads doesn't care about the the visitors experience they just care about money. That's another reason why it's important to use a blocker - hit them where it hurts most and force them to care.
It isn't the same thing, because nobody cares if you watch the ads or not. The TV channel still gets their money. Ad blocking downright denies them that.
Does it not stand to reason that if you're afraid of what is on the website you simply shouldn't visit the website?
'A few pennies' is a huge exaggeration and your point is null until you can realise it is a lot more than 'a few pennies'. I'm not advocating anybody throw caution to the wind. You have the option of not visiting the site.
Those shops had better step up their security instead of complaining about robberies all the time. It isn't my fault, they cause the problem by making the prices so high. :/
You dismissed the part I bolded and downright didn't respond to the rest. In other words, you dismissed it all. I don't care if you don't have a response to everything, just don't hide it.
-
I called you delusional and I called your argument stupid. I did not call you stupid, calling you stupid would be, well, stupid. You clearly do not understand hypocrisy.
And I think I also read something about me taking this too seriously. Are you forgetting it was you who started this debate by getting super duper offended by me relating ad blocking to stealing. Am I upsetting you more by making this clear?
I'm done arguing with you. With every post you make this more and more comical and less and less an actual debate. Then you have the audacity to say I'm just taking it too seriously. Have a nice day now, remember in the future that your opposition couldn't care less about your so very highly amusing gags. Don't quit your day job.
You're just flame baiting me now. If anybody else has any questions about my views, feel free to ask me. I'll keep an eye on the topic, but don't expect me to tirelessly argue with the above nonsense anymore. It is all just ad hominem and attacking strawmen, I've little energy for it.
That's my last word on the matter, TLO. I'd love to counter all your points, but I know I won't convince you, which wouldn't be a problem were it not for the fact that you also have no qualms with just attacking me personally as well as my points. Which isn't fun for me, just for you, no matter how highly you may think of your mad comedy skills.
"I take things too much heart and you take things too seriously"
*psst* Those are basically the same thing!
This is obviously going nowhere. If you wanna leave your PC wide open to get infected then more power to you but you're wrong to encourage people to browse the internet unsafely. I can only assume you hold this view because you have a website with terrible ads and you're mad because people ad block them or you're incredibly naive about the dangers of malware and viruses. Either way you're wrong.
i use em for security reasons.
like many users of the minecraft forums i'm a member of the server total war (IP:167.114.100.168:438) the server includes a 1:1500 scale map of earth.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) ┻━┻ ︵ \\('0')// ︵ ┻━┻ ಠ_ಠ ಠ__ಠ ಠ___ಠ ಠ____ಠ (╮°-°)╮┳━┳ (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
#teamlitten #teammoon
those of you wondering why i don't have an active RP (so far none). i try. but whenever i get to the rules section of it my computer restarts. computer: i realise what your telling me and i give up.
It's a weird position. If I don't use an adblocker, the owner gets their money but that leaves me at risk of malware and viruses from malicious ads. If I do use an adblocker, the owner doesn't get paid and leaves me worry free from malicious ads. So if I want to be fair and safe, the only option I see is to abstain from using websites with ads. But then the lack of viewership on the site will leave it with less profit anyway and now the site owner is faced with the same problem of dwindling profits from before, only now their is no legal grey area for them to tackle. If websites want to be continually profitable and consumers want to be fair, then we'll have to work toward both better and safer implementations of ads & direct pay options. The "morality" discussion doesn't really solve anything beyond who is at fault.
무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
-
As amusing as this pic is, I'm getting kind of worried that each of your posts in your discussion are getting longer and longer to the point of one post being as long as the entire first page. You two probably need to reel it back in to the original topic; it's getting to where you're arguing about the point of arguing.
Completely ignoring everything I've said and dealing a pretend final blow so you can tell people you are right. It isn't the same as being right.
What is this post. I'm sorry, I didn't realise the purpose of a debate was for both people to just say "well, nobody is right!!"
I think you should quit debating and move on to a happier hobby. Want me to agree? Convince me.
This is the last. I promise this time. All on-topic.
-
I would give my opinion on this, but that would really involve me getting into politics, which isn't really appropriate. That isn't to say I don't respect your opinion or I think it is invalid, I'm just not going to go into why I disagree on this forum. But I'm sure you can guess where I'd be going.
Though I will say that I completely disagree that adverts are 'manipulating people's wishes'. They aren't manipulating your wishes. If they are, that's your problem, not the adverts. Really, the extent of 'manipulating people's wishes' is basically just the advert trying to convince you to buy a product. You make it sound way more malicious than it is.
I don't care about the products in ads either, but they do help a site get revenue.
And I'm not sure if this is just my computer or not, but I recently turned off Ublock for a while, and my browser is running faster. Maybe it's my terrible connection/hardware, but I now almost never use an adblock unless the ads are laggier than the actual plugin.
اكتب الإساءة على الرمل و انحت المعروف على الصخر
"Write the bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble"
How is it 'manipulating' though? Does your definition of manipulating simply consist of trying to make a person think a certain way?
What exactly are you doing contributing to a debate? It is pretty ironic.
You should care. If this site gets no money, it gets shut down.
اكتب الإساءة على الرمل و انحت المعروف على الصخر
"Write the bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble"