« Faster Windows restarts | Main | Where do you put your computer? »
Firefox is bad for the internet
Internet content is available for free, largely, and what pays for that is advertising. The excellent Firefox browser includes the ability to block these ads on websites, through a third-party tool called AdBlock Plus.
Now, here at Computeractive, we're fairly sanguine about that - true, our site is supported by the revenue from ads, and if you don't click on them, we lose out on money. But that's the user's choice - Firefox remains an good browser, and we'd prefer people to be able to read our site, even if they can't see the ads.
Some people don't feel the same way, however, which is why one web developer has started to block all Firefox users from his site.
Danny Carlton doesn't seem to like Firefox, or its users, whom he accuses of stealing his revenue, because they (or at least, the few of them who use both Firefox and Adblock) can't see his ads. If you click on that above link to his religion website using Firefox, you'll be redirected to the 'why Firefox is blocked' site instead.
Of course, if you really wanted to view the guy's websites, you could just use another Firefox add-on to fool the site into thinking you're using Internet Explorer.
So what do you think? Is it true that not viewing ads on a free website is equivalent to theft? Is Adblock morally wrong?
[via discussion at Metafilter (some strong language in discussion thread)]
I use AdBlock primarily to prevent unwanted moving images on the screen.
.
I find these animations extremely annoying and distracting.
.
It was the Vista ads on the Computeractive site that got me started using AdBlock.
.
If the adverts were static images I wouldn't have to bother with AdBlock.
.
If the advertisers don't want their ads blocked FFS don't use flash.
.
Or pop-ups. Are the advertisers going to petition Microsoft to remove pop-up blocking in it's software?
I think not.
.
This is another attack on the Open Source Community and should be treated with contempt.
.
posted-by Penguin | August 17, 2007 7:01 PM
i use safari and guess what he blocked that as well. if he feels so strongly about this he shlould talk to Bill gates abpout making internet explorer abit safer to use. as for adds i never look at them
posted-by imacomputerbuddie | August 18, 2007 6:14 PM
What have you been smoking? Why didn't you bother to actually read the site to see why FireFox is being blocked? Where exactly did I say I don't like FireFox or FireFox users? Where exactly did I accuse FireFox users of stealing? Blanket Ad Blocking (blocking all ads) is stealing. Site owners can easily block browsers the block ads, unless the browsers are using Ad Block Plus, which seems to think there nothing wrong with demanding the right of one group of people to see pages without ads, while denying the right of another group to keep their sites from being seen without ads. Becuase Ad Block Plus doesn't give me that choice, I was forced to do the only other alternative, block all FireFox users. Since many FireFox users then gloated that changing the useragent is a simple work around, I used other means to block all browsers using the Mozilla engine.
Complain to Ad Block plus for being such jerks that they won't allow site owners to block people using it.
posted-by Danny Carlton | August 18, 2007 9:54 PM
Adverts on the internet are intrusive, destracting and irritating. So much so that many people, myself included, actively choose to avoid the companies imposing their brands upon you. I appreciate they are revenue generators and every business needs a platform to reach their customers.However, the marketing decisions should be a lot more astute because SPAM causes the biggest amount of hassle and only returns about 3% revenue for it's efforts and flash animated adverts force people to taking direct action against advertising, such as using Ad Block, just so they can enjoy the internet without having their purse strings yanked every second of their daiily lives. Come on Companies, get wise to the mundane marketing methods and employ people with dynamic ideas to reach your customers, rather than P us all off!
posted-by Jim | August 19, 2007 12:02 PM
P.S. Danny Carlton's response is convoluted and barely legible. I can't believe the guy has got a website unless it's all picture adverts and no text!
posted-by Jim | August 19, 2007 12:11 PM
Personally, if I am blocked from a site because I am blocking their ads, so be it. If I really wanna view the content, I can do it with the ads and still not click on them.
I ignore the ads on TV (I pay for cable but still have stupid ads?) by using my DVR, I ignore the ads on the internet by using adblock and hosts file entries along with my router also blocking all ad sites.
Buddy, face it. I'm not clicking on your ads no matter if I can see them or not. Ban the users that come to your site and don't click on your ads too, cause honestly, the way you defined stealing they did it too.
Red
posted-by Red | August 30, 2007 10:57 PM
Oh no! The 'why Firefox is blocked' site has gone down. That's just ruined my day. :-)
posted-by Peter | May 13, 2008 11:10 PM
Add block wouldn't be so popular if the advertisers stopped annoying people.
Acceptable add: simple quiet add at the SIDE of the page, with some text and a picture of something.
reality adds:
pop up window
flashing
bleeping
making sounds
lying
sometimes forces you to wait 10 seconds to continue
forces you to manually shut it down
I wouldn't manage without add block, every time you see an annoying add you get one step closer to insanity.
posted-by steve | May 27, 2009 12:08 AM