Ad Blockers Should Be Illegal

Ad blockers deprive sites of needed income

[azlinda]

I'm very surprised that someone somewhere has not begun a class action suit against all those who provide ad blockers. Whatever happened to personal responsibility, both on webmasters' and the users' sides? When someone uses an ad blocker, they are, in reality, defacing (changing) someone's website and depriving them of potential income needed to continue to operate the site. Seeing ads is a small price to pay if the users are getting the information they want. It seems so simple to me that if you don't like seeing ads on someone's site, you have the right to leave. No one is holding you hostage. I have never used an ad blocker, and there are some sites (news sites) that I have left because the ads are overwhelming. There are those who will argue that people who use ad blockers never click on ads anyway. I feel that is not true, because somewhere along the line there will be that one ad that a person will not be able to resist.

[cajuns]

You are exactly correct!

[MayankParmar]

Yes, it should be illegal.

[engine]

I entirely sympathise as i'm in the same boat.

It's be very difficult to make that "illegal."

One reason the Coalition for Better Ads was established [webmasterworld.com] was because the many publishers had ads that were so intrusive they were an annoyance.

[azlinda]

publishers had ads that were so intrusive they were an annoyance.

It's not good practice, but they still have the right to do it. If users don't like the ads, they can leave the site as I do. That is still not a good enough reason to punish everyone else with ad blockers.

[TorontoBoy]

I support ad blockers and use them extensively, It is up to the consumer to define what they wish to receive, and not all up to the site to push what you wish. I also restrict scripting, until I believe there is nothing malicious on the site. Consumers are paying for the download bandwidth to see your site. They can view all or parts of your site/script/images, or none. This is their choice. Ad blockers are not inherently illegal in any way, in any country, and I fully support them.

TV programming has ads, I walk away and do something else, and come back 4 mins later. People mute the TV when ads are playing. There are programmable devices that can detect an ad and auto fast forward. You cannot force people to read your ads. The web simply makes this so much easier.

You could have an all or nothing proposition, as some sites do, but expect to have a high failure rate. Overall there is simply too much crap ads on the internet to not use an ad blocker. Less visual clutter (no ads) makes a site look nicer and concentrates the user on the site's content and not the ads. I much prefer this.

I believe that all ads are downloaded but they simply do not show up on the browser. Is this not convenient?

[azlinda]

Toronto Boy, I view it as they are STEALING my bandwidth when they come to my site using an ad blocker. I have never used intrusive ads on my sites. Those people with ad blockers are NOT paying for the work I do on my site, nor are they paying for the hosting and other associated fees, so they have no right to my free content.

[NickMNS]

If users don't like the ads, they can leave the site as I do.

The user must first go to the site, then these obtrusive ads are uploaded to their device. The user bears the cost of that data transfer no matter how small the data transfer is, over time the consumption of bandwidth adds up. Your argument would be valid if one would first ask the user if they would like to be bombarded with obtrusive and often offensive ads, then they could make an informed choices as to whether or not the cost in bandwidth is worth incurring. Unfortunately this is not how it currently works, now you click on a link from search, or other and have no idea what you will find when the page loads.

I am an AdSense publisher and I use an ad blocker. When I go to sites and see that the content is good and that there appear to be non-obstrusive ads I unblock the ads and refresh the page.

My personal favorite is when I land on a page with the ad-blocker activated and a message instantly appears asking me to turn-off the ad-blocker, the message blocks all the content except the ads /spammy content (typically taboola chum bucket garbage) that are not blocked by the blocker. "Yeah okay, I'll be sure to bounce"

The bottom line is that yes there are many people using ad-blockers but it is far from being everybody. If you are having trouble making money with your website and you think that forcing people to see ads they don't want to see is somehow going to make the difference between being profitable and going out of business, then you are gravely mistaken. There are so many things to focus on in this business that spending time trying to show ads to people that don't want to see them in my view is massive waste of time, resources and money.

[TorontoBoy]

If you feel they are stealing then ban them. You live in an ecosystem open to the world. You invite all (hopefully you are talking about humans) to see your house and offerings, from anywhere in the world. They are sent to your house by the ever helpful Google concierge, which you encourage. It is not like they want something you did not already offer up, and for free.

Ads have been heavily abused in the past. This is not about your site. Technology has evolved to mitigate that abuse. The web is not an easy place for smaller companies to survive, but this is the reality. All web browsers do download your ads, ad blocker or not. Even if they see your ads there is no guarantee they will click them.

I care less about ad blockers than all those nasty bad bots that mercilessly scrape, deface or otherwise try to break into my sites. That behaviour I have issues with, and I track them down and ban them.

[azlinda]

When I go to sites and see that the content is good and that there appear to be non-obstrusive ads I unblock the ads and refresh the page.

Nick, you and I know to do this, but the average user who uses ad block hasn't the faintest idea of how to whitelist a site.

[NickMNS]

the average user who uses ad block hasn't the faintest idea of how to whitelist a site.

The average user doesn't use an ad-blocker. No one I know that isn't tech savvy uses an ad-blocker. So the chances are actually pretty good the an ad-block user knows how to white list sites, after all they installed it in the first place.

[lucy24]

While we're at it, let us also outlaw the Mute function on all remote controls, since its sole function is to avoid hearing the advertising that is the broadcaster's primary source of revenue.

[azlinda]

The average user doesn't use an ad-blocker.

Ad blocker is the default in some browsers, so they don't have to know how to turn it on.

[azlinda]

While we're at it, let us also outlaw the Mute function on all remote controls

I never use the mute button. Be my guest.

[azlinda]

Mute function on all remote controls, since its sole function is to avoid hearing the advertising

That is totally untrue. That is not the sole function. Many times people have to mute the television during the programming also because they need to take a call or are otherwise interrupted.

[NickMNS]

Ad blocker is the default in some browsers,

Which ones?
The only one that I know is Opera where it installed but not switched on by default.

[ChanandlerBong]

If your business model is failing because of what millions of people are doing, you have three choices:

a) change what millions of people are doing
b) change what you're doing
c) good luck with a)

[topr8]

>> I view it as they are STEALING my bandwidth when they come to my site using an ad blocker.

it's quite simple you can detect the ad blocker and then not serve them content.

i totally agree with what ChandlerBong so eloquently said!

[QuaterPan]

Some work around :

1- you can block users, and ask them to turn off their ad blocker, to access the site.
2- as for Ad block plus, you can get whitelisted (at no cost, excepting if you are big company), if your ad are not intrusive. Considering how many people are using Ad Block plus, this should be something to consider.
3- you can use self served ads, which won't be blocked.

As for browser with ad block turned on by default, I didn't see any, but, the privacy mode of Firefox acts indirectly as an ad blocker.

But you know what is worse? ... [theverge.com...]

[TorontoBoy]

The Brave browser has an ad blocker turned on by default. I did not see much difference in speed, as I have an ad blocker on almost all my browsers.

[azlinda]

Google turns on default adblocker within Chrome

Users of latest Chrome browser on Windows, Mac OS, Linux and Android will have some of most intrusive types of ads blocked automatically

Comment: Can we really trust Google as judge, jury and executioner of online ads?
Samuel Gibbs

Thu 15 Feb 2018 09.39 GMT Last modified on Thu 15 Feb 2018 14.38 GMT

Google will start automatically blocking intrusive ads within its Chrome browser for desktop and Android from Thursday 15 February.

from: TheGuardian

[leebow]

It would be possible for Adsense / other companies to release a server side script version of ads - like php and a curl - that could loads ads that adblockers could never block.

The ads would then actually be part of the site, not external, like an iframe.

They couldn’t be detected as the divs could be called anything instead of “ad”.

[QuaterPan]

Google turns on default adblocker within Chrome

This is different, since they are blocking only intrusive ads, and in the GCS you are warmed , and have a couple of weeks to fix problems, before getting impacted. I think it's a compromise, and better than ad blockers which are blocking everything.

It would be possible for Adsense / other companies to release a server side script version of ads - like php and a curl - that could loads ads that adblockers could never block.

The ads would then actually be part of the site, not external, like an iframe.

They couldn’t be detected as the divs could be called anything instead of “ad”.

Ad blockers will block the redirection link, so publishers will not be credited. Also, if a server side script is provided, you can be sure that some web publishers will abuse it and find exploits.

[azlinda]

@leebow That's the best idea I've heard yet.

[NickMNS]

If you referring to the Better Ads Standards, then yes, and this is one of the best thing that has or is going to happened to publishers in a long while. IAB's Better Ads Standard lays out some very clear standards for what is and isn't acceptable in on-line advertising, things such as too high ad density, use of pop-overs, pop-unders and so on, will cause ads to be blocked. If your site uses these types of ad practices you will be notified that your site does not comply with the standard, and then if you choose to do nothing after 30 days ads will be blocked by default.

So the "average" user, using Chrome and any other browsers that adopt the standard will be able to surf the web knowing that they will not be subjected to obtrusive ads. Those users will thus be less likely to use other ad-blocking technologies that block all ads indiscriminately. This should result in the demise of such parasitic companies such as Ad-Block plus and improve the ad eco system from everyone.

[QuaterPan]

Ad blockers will block the redirection link, so publishers will not be credited. Also, if a server side script is provided, you can be sure that some web publishers will abuse it and find exploits.

However, what might be done, would be to create a sub domain, which resolves to Adsense's server, and have all the ads things achieved through this sub domain. Adsense would still continue to handle the ads from a to z, and ad blockers wouldn't be able to block it.

[TorontoBoy]

It would be possible for Adsense / other companies to release a server side script version of ads - like php and a curl - that could loads ads that adblockers could never block.

Scripting is a really good way to do cross site scripting XSS attacks. I turn off scripting with the NoScript plugin, and only allow scripts from the original domain. It is not perfect but better than the default of running whatever script they throw at me.

[NickMNS]

It doesn't matter what technology is used, one side will find a way to defeat the other, which will results a game of whack-a-mole, or tit-for-tat.

[QuaterPan]

Where Google is smart, is that, when you run Chrome in incognito mode (which is misleading label), then all plugins are disabled. So one day, Google can push people to use the incognito mode, to claim they mind the privacy of users on the Internet, and bam, no more ad blocker plugins. (of-course there are side effects, like the fact that tracking cookies are not saved once the browser is closed)

[Elsmarc]

While it does take time, a person can contact companies and get some to advertise directly with you. That way you can put a graphic on your server for each advertiser, and put in a link for each graphic. That way the only way for someone to "block" your ads is for them to turn off graphics totally for your website. I do this and have even cut down the use of adsense by over 1/2. If a person can not get companies to directly advertise on a website, making any money at all from adsense is a big plus to begin with. If a person can not get any companies to advertise directly, there's a reason for that.

I personally use an adblocker and noscript all the time, and when I close my browser(s) all cookies and browsing history are deleted including LSO cookies. And I use a VPN that has locations all over the US (and the world for that matter) so I end up visiting sites with ever changing IPs on my end. I haven't seen an ad for several years or more.

We all want money form our website(s) to compensate us for our time and expenses, but there is no guarantee much less a "right" for a website to make money.

Ad blockers do not deprive sites of income. Ad blockers force website owners to get direct advertisers which is work. If a website is well done, some companies will directly advertise on a website. If a person can not get direct advertisers, it may be the website isn't as useful/important as the website owner thinks it is.