New Internet Ad Blocker and Why You Shouldn’t Use It

New Internet Ad Blocker and Why You Shouldn't Use ItThere are addons that work with most of the more popular browsers to block out advertisements while you surf the Internet. These software solutions can be configured either manually or by selecting from filter lists, which are pre-configured to block out Web-based advertisements.

There is a new, hardware-based product that expands beyond blocking out Internet advertisements. The product is called AdTrap and is currently seeking funding over at Kickstarter. The people who are trying to get AdTrap off the ground state that the device is a zero configuration hardware solution that promises to block out advertisements before they reach your home devices.

In theory, what AdTrap is hoping to accomplish is to block all advertisements from videos, music streams, websites, and mobile applications. This means that AdTrap is completely browser independent and works with any Wi-Fi connected devices. This means that even your tablet and cellphone would be ad-free when connected through your Wi-Fi network. Sounds great. Or does it?

Take a look at Chris’ video before reading further:

As Chris has explained in the video, advertising pays our costs here at LockerGnome and at most websites throughout the world. To deny this revenue source would prohibit websites such as ours to remain in business. There is a cost associated with any website that people like Chris need to pay in order to keep them up and running every day, every week, throughout the entire year. Completely blocking sponsored advertising would be a detriment not only to the content creators and the sponsors themselves, but to the readers and viewers who have come to depend on that content at no direct cost to themselves. If something like AdTrap were to catch on, we’d see the end of free information and a new Internet filled with nothing but pay sites.

If you truly care about the sites you visit, such as ours here at LockerGnome, you should not be using any type of ad blocker. Instead, you need to support those websites that provide valuable information and just no say to the blocking of ads. It is really that simple and we need your support.

Share your thoughts with us in the comments section and let us know whether you block ads or not.

Comments are welcome.

CC licensed Flickr photo above shared by The Rocketeer

Article Written by

I have been writing for Lockergnome for eight years.

  • Ryan Cash

    I use AdBlock Plus, but I do allow the non-intrustive advertisements. As long as they meet certain criteria, then fine. But otherwise, no. If a site has to shove ads in your face, it’s not one I want to support.

    I did just check LG without AdBlock enabled, and it appears that all it appears that all items are considered “non-intrusive”, as I see no change to this website. So we’re all kosher!

    • Chris L

      Now I’m curious. What sites do you block, and what sites do you think are worth unblocking ads?

      • andrew

        As long as the ads are on the side and don’t pop out of their spot I’ll leave that site unblocked.

    • Ravens Bread

      I just unenabled AdBlocker for LockerGnome and am getting some additional display ads on the right side. In general I unblock sites that I use regularly or which ask me nicely. I reblock sites that present me with annoying ads. The quickest way for that to happen is for somebody to try and associate their product with sex. If an ad is factual, fine, if it tries to sell me something by associating the product with some unrelated quality then it’s enemy propaganda and I block it.

  • Jack Shoulder

    I don’t block them, but i do usually skip them on YouTube.

  • Shawn W Dunn

    I run AdBlock Plus, for the simple reason that I’m generally on fairly slow network links, and it generally cuts down on page load times. Especially on poorly coded sites.

    And in general, advertising just annoys the crap out of me. But I take your point, as to the advertising making non-paid-up-front content possible.

  • Arran McDonald

    Such a bad idea if they block all add’s even the ones on the free phone app’s how are the dev’s supposed to make any money.

  •!/gpowerf G.Power

    I make my living from online advertising, but I take the view that it is up to the end user to control their network traffic as they see fit.

    Only a minority of people block ads anyway, and I believe that if ad blocking does become more prevalent then advertiser and blockers will have to work together to find a happy medium.

    Telling people not to block ads is akin to telling people not to switch TV channels when the ads come up. Given that I make my living from ads I don’t make a point of telling everyone how to block ads, but I also concede that people might have good reasons to block ads or other type of traffic from their networks.

    Finally, of course I find wide scale ad blocking worrying. But I’m inclined to think that something like AdTrap will be only of interest to a few techie geeks and nobody else. If anything the threat of wide scale ad-blocking should keep advertisers in check.

    • Michael Hazell

      More and more people are moving to AdBlockers. What will you do when you guys can’t combat ad blockers?

      •!/gpowerf G.Power

        Same thing we did when the credit crunch hit and just about everything we did stopped working, change our model. If Ad blocking kills display ads (which I really don’t think it will), there are other avenues.

        I’m not belittling the challenge, I’m simply saying that there’s more than one way to make money.

        I really think it is important to emphasize that I don’t think ad blocking will kill online advertising. People block ads largely as a bi-product of dodgy techniques from the past, things like pop-ups, pop-unders, annoying overlays, etc… Things are way better nowadays, so much so that AdBlock Plus now by default allows “acceptable ads” though the filter.

        The ad blocking industry is merely the public regulating advertisers who couldn’t regulate themselves. I truly think that there’s no way that if ad blocking does become more prevalent there won’t be talks between the two sides and a happy medium will be reached. I maintain that targeted ads are the best thing since sliced bread! Some of the public can’t see it yet, it is about education, transparency from the industry as well as website owners.

        I think some of the message from the original article is good, the don’t hurt the sites you love love message is exactly what is needed. What isn’t good is the name calling and the complete blindness to the other side’s point of view. Once the insults start flying nothing gets solved.

  • James Rutherford

    As good as turning off your adblocker altogether may be, I have to use adblocker on some websites because they have too many potentially malicious ads. This has made me think about how I use adblocker though, I’ll turn it off on sites like lockergnome.

    • Ron_Schenone

      Thank you James

  • Jack Durrant

    I only use an ad blocker on websites with adverts I see as obtrusive. These include audio adverts hidden somewhere on the page that I have to hunt down and mute before I can continue looking at the website. These also include any audio adverts playing simultaneously with a video, rather than before it. Unfortunately, I have had to block adverts on XDA Developers, and surprisingly, YouTube.

    • Michael Hazell

      XDA developers do wonderful things, but I think it’s sad if they have to do down that route with advertising.

  • Joshua

    Personally, I dislike the blocking of ads mostly because ads support the content creators. However, there are some times when I view blocking of ads to be somewhat acceptable. (It should be noted that I don’t have any ad blocker installed) It has to meet the following criteria to be blocked though:
    Is it a popup? Answer: yes
    Is it a popunder? Answer: yes
    Is it flash ad? Answer: yes
    Result: blocked.

    • Michael Hazell

      I know that flash covers most of this but what about ads that still jump around the page or load some audio from somewhere?

  • Phill

    I Block Ads Because they’re fucking annoying, and i would never buy the product anyway.

    • Chris Pirillo

      So, you’re a loser?

      • Steve Thomas

        Whoa! Chris, did you really just call one of your readership a loser? Because he expressed an honest opinion? You just broke Wheaton’s rule: Don’t be a dick.

        • Chris Pirillo

          Sure. I’m a dick for calling out the loser. Whatevs.

          • Arturo Mendoza

            Chris wants to hear your opinions on everything as long as you agree with him. As soon as you disagree he starts calling you names. Someone give him a cookie so he can STFU!

          • Dane Reynolds

            Haha this I have to agree on because I was commenting on one of his YouTube videos and he blocked me, I still believe chris is about 10 years old. If you don’t like his opinion then he blocks you! Chris, I love watching your videos but dude chill the fuck out.

          • Liam Kelly

            yeah actually you are

        • Ryan Matthew Pierson

          Loyal readers don’t steal. Period.

          • Yuletide Log

            Well it is not stealing, just like piracy is not stealing. That is a true and legal fact. Stealing you have to deprive someone of a physical object. You cannot steal data.
            If you owned the one and only unique faberge egg and I could scan it (presumably without it leaving your possession) with some hypothetical atomic scanning machine and then printed it out with a hypothetical atomic reconstruction/replicator machine. It is not stealing, I have not deprived you of anything, it would most likely be counterfeiting. It’s a completely different legal matter entirely.

            There is no law against adblocking. We are not breaking any encryption system, we are not distributing your copyrighted content as our own to other people, there is nothing to see here… move along.

            We are not loyal readers we are users that have come over from another site such as Google+ or google news becuase of such a ho-ha over ad blocking it became note worthy.

            Just erect a pay wall and be done with it, you cant say how we use our computer.

      • Ads-R-Bad

        I would support chris, and next time I get a spare mini-fig Ill try and set it aside ^.^

        • Chris Pirillo

          Minifigs are good.

          • Linda Blair

            If I had to pay to keep lockergnome I would. I learned everything I know about computers….as a senior citizen…. from Lockergnome. I have to pay by the gig for internet and I’m sure the ads are costing me money.

    • Ryan Matthew Pierson

      You’re the reason I can’t make a living doing this anymore. Every time you visit a site and block its ads, you take money out of the writer’s pockets. It hurts me when hosting costs exceed revenue. I lose money, Chris loses money, and you still benefit from free content. You sir, are not a supporter.

      • Tyler Brown

        Well, it depends heavily on the advertising service, type of ad, and how you get paid. The most common way to earn revenue through advertisements is per click. Even if somebody has their adblocker off and sees the ads, a lot of the time it may not matter unless they click the ad.

        • Michael Hazell

          This is why I like the pay per display method. If they load on your site you should be paid for it.

      • Steve Thomas

        Uh, no, Ryan. You’re the reason you’re not making money. You chose your business model, and if it’s the wrong one, don’t blame us.

        • Ryan Matthew Pierson

          Then propose a business model you feel would work.

          • Steve

            1) Get a real job like the rest of us. Writing is old fashioned and cheap, everyone is a “blogger” these days, and your quality is no better than the random people I find on Google+.

            2) Do your writing in your free time because you like it and enjoy it not
            mass production style just to get clicks/impressions for ads.

            3) Set up your site on a peer to peer internet such as gnunet or a darknet. – No bandwidth to pay for.

            4) If you are really worried about making money from it then charge for the site using a paywall to pay for bandwidth. If you are then worried about not being “open” compile a .pdf or digest of your site and upload it to a torrent tracker at the end of every week or day for the free-loaders.

            Not everyone gets to be a millionaire or quit their day job.

            And no, I am not a supporter, you showed up in the google+ explore page, with your whine, whine qq – “I wantz mor clikz”.

          • Ryan Matthew Pierson

            1) Good luck finding good content without writers. The vast majority of the hobby blogs out there are fed by content produced by commercial sites. Also.. between consulting, multimedia production, social media planning, and writing… I couldn’t imagine a more “real” job.

            2) I did and continue to volunteer write in my free time.

            3) Show me one major site set up on such a network that isn’t about that type of setup as a proof of concept? It has to be commercial, and needs to pull more than 30k pageviews per day with 99.999% uptime.

            4) Paywalls don’t work, period. Ask the New York Times, one of the larget publications in the world.

            5) I showed up there because it got shared by so many content producers that agree with the situation. :)

          • Michael Hazell

            Do you guys by chance use Google Text ads? If you guys promoted that instead of banners you’ll probably get much more positive feedback with your advertising.

      • Bryce Anderson

        Time for a rhetorical question. At what point does a reader take money out of your pocket?

        1) When the reader goes to read something else instead.
        2) When the reader comes to your page, but blocks the ads.
        3) When the reader comes to your page, sees the ads, but doesn’t click on them? (you mentioned that most of your ads are pay-per-click)
        4) When the reader clicks on your ad, but then doesn’t buy the advertised product or service from the sponsor?

        By my reasoning, even #4 is “taking money out of writers’ pockets.” Not just the writer of the particular site. All of them. Every site the ad servers contract with. Because if money isn’t flowing into the pockets of the advertisers, they won’t pay for ads, so the site owners can’t get paid for their clicks. All the money ultimately comes from advertisers, who need to see the sales to justify the money they spend on ads.

        I can’t even tell if I’m making sense. It’s getting late.

      • Ads-R-Bad

        Lol you want people to be on your side to support ads, and yet you are bashing them? Hah Look dude if you really are a techy… you can host a site for free without any costs. I have been doing it for the last 10years, and yes sorry I was wrong the only cost you pay is time spent in hours. Want money? go be a politician… Want ad revenue? Setup a survey section for people to do via sponsor pay or some other site. Want to see how well your visitors support you? Then setup some donation buttons.

        • Marcel Combrinck

          Sorry Ryan, I have to agree. You chose to provide a service, and to make this your primary source of income. You have to adapt to your users, you can’t expect them to adapt to your business model.
          If people don’t find what you’re offering appealing, make it more appealing. And yes, you are selling ads, and offering content as an incentive.

        • Ryan Matthew Pierson

          Free hosting doesn’t help you if you have any real traffic. Add to that the fact that free hosting providers are going away because they, too, are ad supported. The free hosting argument sounds great on paper but those very providers will send you a bill if you get too much traffic. Look at their terms of service.

          • Michael Hazell

            Ok, then show me a few links where they are saying this.

      • Mickey P.

        Well Boo Hoo, my heart bleeds. With comments like that mate, it’s easy to see why you ain’t making a living. To damned right, I’m not a supporter. When your ads stop me visiting your site, I gain a few minutes of my life back, time that I would have wasted surfing the internet. Generally, I go on to find out something simple and spend an hour reading random BS but you don’t hear me whining about it. LockerGnome, forgive me, means nothing to me. I don’t require anything from them and I don’t feel the need to give them anything. You, Ryan, want to make money from passing traffic. Fine but quit bitching about the fish not taking your worm. We don’t like a hook in the mouth. 😉

  • Steven

    While ads are important, I strongly feel people should only display certain kinds of ads in certain ways or they deserve to make no revenue from them at all. For an example, I have absolutely no tolerance for audio ads that you have to search for and mute before you can even use the site, or ads that pop up and make the whole screen unresponsive until you find the X button on the ad. I very harshly believe that people who put up ads like that deserve absolutely no revenue from them of any sort. Ads should be put up in a very limited way where it is completely unobtrusive and absolutely safe. For sites that do follow that, I don’t block them. Lockergnome, for an example, is fine. But there’s some sites (like Youtube) I just won’t visit without adblock because of how annoying and obtrusive it can be, and in some cases, even dangerous.

    Plus, there’s other ways to give ads that adblock cannot block. Much like how Chris mentions TagJag and GoDaddy all the time. That’s legitimate advertising that adblock will never be able to stop. I see no reason why that can’t become more of a standard, as long as it’s quick and to the point.

    • Ryan Matthew Pierson

      I have to disagree with a point here. If I don’t agree with how Apple prices its products or sets up its display tables, am I still allowed to pay what I feel is fair and walk out with product? No. I have to play by the rules or leave. I think the same goes for websites. If you don’t like content, don’t go there at all. Advocating that people go there but block ads means that you see something of value, but would rather WE pay out of pocket for you to enjoy it.

      • neji

        ad blocking is like DVR. You don’t want ads -> DVR the show. Don’t like ads on websites -> use an ad blocker. Its the way consumers are wired. Its up to you to figure out how to stop people doing it. Raise awareness (this article does an alright job), accept donations to turn off ads? etc etc etc

        • Ryan Matthew Pierson

          Ad blocking is not like DVR. Networks get paid for show views, and fastforwarding through a recording doesn’t take money out of their pockets. Denying impressions takes money out of our pockets, and for that reason I risk what little income I do make writing. My only alternative is to take on a second job and just stop producing content. The sites you love suffer, and disappear.

          • Bryce Anderson

            The correlation is certainly more direct in the world of online ads. But if you think that people DVRing TV shows and fast-forwarding through the ads doesn’t push down the rates the TV shows can charge for ads, I feel comfortable assuming you’re wrong.

          • Ryan Matthew Pierson

            Take it from someone that once sold ads for broadcasting. There is value, even to the fast-forwarded ads. You still see them on your TV as you zip through them and if even just for an instant ads are designed to flash the brand long enough to make an impression in your mind.

          •!/gpowerf G.Power

            But there are ways to automatically skip over the ads with DVRs. If you use something like MythTV for recording, there are a whole variety of methods to detect ads that actually work very well. This is no different to ad filtering on the Web.

          • Michael Hazell

            Some people, such as me, write at their tech sites all the time but it is virtually free. Blogger in my case gives me free hosting and $20 a year is nothing for the domain. I don’t have all the time in the world to write but I don’t have ads on my site either. That might change some day but my entire goal is to focus on the content and my passion for what I do, not turn it into a business.

      • Bryce Anderson

        The anti-adblock crowd seems to think that somehow ad blocking is going to reach 100% saturation, hence driving every website out of business. But we all know that that’ll never happen.

        Now, the cost of serving a page is trivial compared to the cost of paying for content creation. So whether an individual chooses to avoid the annoyance of ads by using an ad blocker or by not going to the site, the financial effect on the content creator is the same. And in either case, the same pressure falls on the content creator to serve more “valuable” (read: annoying) ads to make up for the lost revenue.

        But at least in the adblock case, the person visiting the site might end up sharing a link with his friends. Unless they all have ad blocking software too, that will lead to ad revenues. If an article is valuable enough to read, it might be valuable enough to share.

        So, netizens, get out there and mooch like the wind!

        • Ryan Matthew Pierson

          40% saturation means ~40% loss of revenue from ad impressions. It doesn’t take 100% to put a company out of business. Even Hostess had loyal customers, but they weren’t enough.

          • Glaeken

            Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t add revenue paid on clicks? If this is the case then I would think that anybody who runs an add blocker wasn’t going to click on the adds anyway. So the net affect is zero.

          • Ryan Matthew Pierson

            It’s a combination of impressions and clicks.

          • Michael Hazell

            Which makes more? Impressions or clicks?

          • Kayza Kleinman

            What you fail to realize is that most people who make sure to use these tools won’t visit your site if you won’t let them use the adblocker. It’s that simple

            I won’t visit any site that won’t let me use an ad blocker AND won’t commit to controlling their ads and keeping them within bounds. How much money will that make for you?

            You are well within you rights to block people who use things like AdBlock, and I’m not about to start a campaign against you. But, you certainly don’t have the moral high ground if you choose to use inappropriate, offensive or intrusive ads.

            I would also point out that your claim of theft also costs you credibility. If you put something out in public, the the public has a right to look at it an read it without doing something or looking at something else. Yes, you do have the legal right to make viewing ads the price of admission, but in that case it’s your responsibility to put your content behind that wall. And, be prepared to take the loss in trafic.

      • Bryce Anderson

        And might I ad that the analogy to stealing a laptop is simply absurd? Seriously, on so many levels. First, the most obvious one: comparing a $1500 laptop to the $0.00015 it costs to serve a web page? Geez.

        But if we’re comparing the two transactions, and saying that the page equals the laptop and the ads equals your payment… nah, doesn’t work. By the time you realize the transaction wasn’t worth it, you’ve already made the “payment,” having been annoyed by their ads. Those of us who install ad blockers do so precisely because they’ve been on the losing end of that deal too many times.

        • Ryan Matthew Pierson

          You greatly underestimate the costs of serving a webpage. You assume that the writer, editor, and content distributors all work for free. Every article has costs involved. Hosting isn’t quite as cheap as you put it. We’re not Google, so buying bandwidth in that kind of bulk isn’t within our power.

          • Bryce Anderson

            I assume no such thing. What I am assuming is that, if I comply with your “don’t like my ads, don’t visit my site” request, you still bear all the fixed costs of running the site.

            I said the cost of *serving* the web page is trivial. It is. The cost of creating and managing the content, engaging with and managing the online forums, etc., are not part of the marginal cost of serving an additional page. They’re fixed costs.*

            If you ignore the costs that you bear as a web content creator, even if the content you’re offering never gets a hit, then you start to see exactly what the cost of free riders is. My impression is that it’s small.

            If you have other numbers, I’d be interested in seeing them. Boil it down to a ratio: the ad revenue generated by one unblocked page will pay the marginal cost of how many page serves? 2? 10? 50? 1000?

            * In retrospect, not all. The cost of dealing with the forums scales with the number of users participating on the forum. But if someone is trolling your forums, any ad revenue they’re costing you is the least of your problems.

          • Lola

            You don’t need to serve a webpage you can quite easily post this on some social network or free blogging service. Or even have people pass it to each other peer to peer, copy and paste. That is free.

            An hour of your time to write this is not really worth that much. Think about all the starving developers who write more useful code in 1 hour than you write in blogs in your lifetime.

            A laptop always has a minimum price, this is due to natural resources, actual physical matter that has to be mined out of the ground by someone, and then each laptop has to be constructed manually by someone. The more laptops you make the more man hours it costs, a laptop always has a set amount of man hours.
            You could do this blog during your weekend, you cannot make a laptop in your weekend. Every-time someone reads this blog between now and the end of time does not cost any more man hours to you, it’s probably even cached on google by now.
            But using your system, get enough views on your blog in that one weekend you could then go out and buy a laptop. A laptop that the person who actually made it for you will take over a years salary to even be able to afford.

          • Michael Hazell

            I wonder if Google will ever start a hosting business. I’m sure that they could make a lot of money off of that. For example, my website is powered by Blogger and because of that I have had 100% uptime all the time because any Google server in their pool can serve my pages. I’ve never seen WordPress scale that much.

        • Michael Hazell

          Or some people just block out all advertisements period.

      • Justin Goss

        Except that you are involved in a business where exposure is everything. The more visits to you page you have (regardless of whether or not an ad-blocker is in place) the better. Ad-blockers should be considered a cost of doing business..
        The people who visit you site tell other people. And the percentage of those who use ad-blockers are extremely low and always will be.

      • Dill Dinner

        Play by the rules or leave? Then write some code to enforce your rules.

        For every guy who’s blocking ads there may come another who isn’t. So stfu and quit whining and be happy for those who come without a blocker. (Spoken by someone shoe doesn’t use a blocker btw)

      • Scott

        It’s not a fair comparison. Most people have very few sites that they visit explicitly – they find this because it came up in Google or appeared on Reddit or Twitter. Maybe they don’t even know what site they are visiting.

    • Michael Hazell

      I agree. I don’t tolerate audio or video ads. Actual videos like Chris does is fine. Videos and Audio ads embedded somewhere on the site and added to the sidebar or something is what I don’t stand for.

  • John Everett

    I wonder if it would be effective to get sponsors to pay for “inline” advertising- Like on a podcast where the host will interrupt what they are talking about to say, “Here’s a few words about Netstamps. Do you hate going to the post office?” …etc. Because my experience has been that people don’t really see a lot of advertising, they have trained their minds to tune it out.

  • Phillip

    I have a custom list of blocked ad domains on my OpenDNS setup. As long as an ad doesn’t pop up or pop under, and doesn’t move or make sounds, I’m ok with it. The problem is that many ad companies flood you with wiggly, chattering ads that make the site content hard to focus on.

    If you site content providers would be a little more demanding about what kinds of ads you would absolutely not allow on your pages, then maybe I could agree with you.

    Otherwise, I’ll keep blocking all ads provider domains, and you can cry about it all you want.

    • itched

      But you just won a Wii U along with a million dollars for being Walmart’s 1 millionth customer of the day on some random website!

      • Mickey P.

        Absolutely 100% genuine….. Honest!

      • Michael Hazell

        Man I hate those BS ads. I also hate when people have dynamic JavaScripts on their pages as some ads actually make a popup that you have to click ok for and then it instantly redirects you to an ad page. Those types of ads can die in a fire.

  • Alexander_Sigsworth#

    Absolutely agree.

  • Tom Buchanan

    I use AdBlock Plus on my Firefox browser. I hate ads, mostly because they are intrusive and not adequately targeted. I especially hate video ads that are loaded onto Hulu and other video providers because they waste up to two minutes of my life to see generic TV spots that I otherwise try to avoid. Ughhh!

    Yeah, I understand the argument that content needs to be paid for, but I don’t want to see ads.

    A few hours ago I had a problem loading a page in Firefox and used IE, which is intentionally left plain-jane, and was confronted with a truly obnoxious Target Department Store flash ad that spread itself all over the page, and then kept flashing and moving. As long as that kind of crap-ad is in existence I’ll be using the deepest ad blockers I can find.

    • Michael Hazell

      In that case you might want to look into the AdTrap device that was discussed in this page. You’ll have to find it on KickStarter as they didn’t link to it.

  • KingKilla

    I hate adblocker too, I never used one of those. People need to understand that those ads keep the web alive. So guys don’t use adblocker and you know sometimes ads are useful as well

  • johnwerneken

    Agree. Lockergnome is amongst the many free-as-in-beer sites that are mostly advertising-supported, where the presence of the advertising while somewhat noticeable as it would be if revenue were to be expected, is NOT intrusive. Unlike say the NY Times or Facebook, where I just block all of them. And if that puts those sites out of business, good, what they do and the niches they fill will be done by and filled by firms that are less arrogant about the alleged superiority of their content.

  • Filipe Postiga

    I agree with the idea of supporting people’s work but in a lot of cases you get the ads in your face, in some website you enter and you get 10 or more ads at the same time… It’s a difficult decision to take when it comes to not get annoyed, or it’s not, probably people will always pick the ad blocker…

  • Nino Brunori

    This is a 100% honest statement, comment or what have you.

    I have 0 problems with ads themselves but when you tube forces me to click on an ad because it partly covers a video that’s when I draw the line.

    There is nothing wrong with an ad off to the side and I can even tolerate having to click on the next page to read the rest of an article when the rest of the webpage has ads on it but when popups and ads literately annoy you into a response is when I welcome ANY alternative to get rid of them.

    I was reading an article on CNN when the entire page shifted down just to show me a Toyota that I was never going to buy then shifted the page back to normal. That was the day I went to Firefox with adblock.

    I make a point and call it spite or protest but I swear I will never purchase or pursue any ad that annoys me even if it’s a cancer cure to save my mother.

    The argument goes both ways, they need to pay the bills but getting in your face just to get that .3 cents a click or whatever forces my hand. Some of this has to be just a way to maximize profits like hidden fees or forcing you to pay a fee in order to pay your phone bill.

    A lot also has to do with greed, no set of standards or regulation. In the end it boils down to maximizing profits no matter what.

  • Guest

    All I want is those damned pop-up ads and ads that sound like the person is screaming at a mic pushing out 198db through my $20 speakers.

  • Guest

    All I want is those damned pop-up ads and ads that sound like the person is screaming at a mic pushing out 198db through my $20 speakers.

  • Bill Glendening

    All I want is those damned pop-up ads and ads that sound like the person is
    screaming at a mic pushing out 198db through my $20 speakers blocked.

  • CB

    I use a DVR so I don’t have to watch the ridiculous amounts of ads on tv these days. Why shouldn’t I block website ads? You get paid for them being there. If ads hadn’t become so pervasive ind intrusive most folks wouldn’t bother running add-ons or programs adding to overhead to block them.

    • Ryan Matthew Pierson

      We don’t get paid when ads are blocked. They have to actually render to the page before they’re counted. In most cases, we’re just paid per click. No ad, no click, no income.

      • Carlos Bedia

        Now we just need a plugin that “hides” ads but still loads them. The user can choose to “reveal”. Universal CSS class for ad spots? Maybe ad blocking users and content providers can meet in the middle?

        I used to work in an industry that relied a lot on advertising especially on moving more towards online content over traditional methods. When I started working in that industry I understood this is how I get paid indirectly or not. Over time I did benefit from ignoring ads that did not interest me and advertisers gained metrics on what works and what does not. If you want ads to not be as intrusive part of the answer may be to voice your opinion by letting them load and ignoring them because money is spent displaying them to you. I do think users have a right to load what they want to on their network or devices. I view it the same as privacy, censorship/child-safe, virus protection.

        On a more than logical scale as humans we should realize the cycle of things and if you like a particular site and content provider I urge you to not block their site. This is a handshake, salute, and respect. What these content providers are asking of you is respectful. I definitely won’t block ads on sites I regularly consume information from. Thank you for taking the time to bring this topic up. Cheers.

        • Michael Hazell

          Then that defeats the purpose of and advertisement If the ad is not shown to users under ordinary means then they are not going to buy an ad spot at this site

  • Silverbrain

    Ron, while I fully understand where you are coming from, just curious if you have a DVR at home, and if so, do you fast forward over commercials?

    • Ryan Matthew Pierson

      The network’s income from ads isn’t based on people DVRing over them. It’s based on viewer totals for the show. :) Good try.

      • Silverbrain

        I own a DVR, and I usually fast forward over all commercials. Exceptions being football and other live sports. Commercials are what pay for the programming, just like web ads are used as income for websites. That said, the article for me does bring up a point to me that with me using my ad blocker, it’s similar to me skipping over commercials in that I am greedy and want free content, which isn’t a good thing, and not really just to those providing the content I enjoy consuming.

      • Silverbrain

        I own a DVR, and I usually fast forward over all commercials. Exceptions being football and other live sports. Commercials are what pay for the programming, just like web ads are used as income for websites. That said, the article for me does bring up a point to me that with me using my ad blocker, it’s similar to me skipping over commercials in that I am greedy and want free content, which isn’t a good thing, and not really just to those providing the content I enjoy consuming.

        • Tyler Brown

          I can understand advertisements paying for over the air content. But when you get a cable subscription, isn’t the money you’re paying for the cable subscription also going to those who own the channels that are part of your package, such as Disney and Viacom?

          • Bryce Anderson

            They are. But if those channels didn’t carry ads, they’d have to charge the cable company a lot more to carry the channels, which means your cable bill would rise.

          • Michael Hazell

            And then no one would be able to afford it so really the networks and carriers would be hurt, not the consumer.

          • Silverbrain

            AFAIK Directv has to pay FX or whomever for the right to broadcast their channel. When FX and Directv last battled over a contract agreement, it got to the point where FX pulled that right until Directv paid them more money. So I think the money spent on your cable bill goes to the cable company to pay to have those channels.

          • Michael Hazell

            DirecTV should have not gave in to the TV networks. It’s all about money these days. And that is just another example on how some TV networks can run over TV providers like bulldozers.

          • Michael Hazell

            You are paying the cable companies to use their service. The actual programs require separate funding.

      • Ben

        Or, it’s ok for Ryan to defraud the advertisers who finance the show because when he cheats the system by skipping commercials the content creator is not immediately impacted. So this has nothing to do with what’s right, it’s just griping. Took me 8 seconds to find a viable script to detect browsers using adblocker. I presume this article was meant to advertise the hardware not warn about it. How could someone say stealing ad sponsored tv is fine because only the advertiser gets f*cked but don’t steal my web content guys cause it makes me cranky. No one is that obtuse. Good article marketing…

      • Ben

        Or, it’s ok for Ryan to defraud the advertisers who finance the show because when he cheats the system by skipping commercials the content creator is not immediately impacted. So this has nothing to do with what’s right, it’s just griping. Took me 8 seconds to find a viable script to detect browsers using adblocker. I presume this article was meant to advertise the hardware not warn about it. How could someone say stealing ad sponsored tv is fine because only the advertiser gets f*cked but don’t steal my web content guys cause it makes me cranky. No one is that obtuse. Good article marketing…

        • Ryan Matthew Pierson

          Woah, hold on now. When did I ever say that I DVR through shows? I said they’re different. You’re putting words in my mouth and accusing me of actions that aren’t true.

  • howtoplaza

    I guess blocking ads on websites that make revenue from ads is like stealing. Why do you want to access the content if you don’t want to inconvenience yourself even slightly? Then why not completely block that website rather than desiring to consume the content but not tolerating the advertisements?

  • Tyler Brown

    I have to say, this post has made me think about how I use adblock plugins, what sites I usually whitelist, and stuff along the lines of that. I initially started using an adblocker back in the day because back then, ads were annoying, got in your way, and a lot of the time ended up being malicious because the ad services didn’t care about quality, just the $$$$.

    Another factor that comes into play, is whenever using an adblocker, my browsing experience is usually far cleaner. Especially on sites that like to put advertisements in the middle of an article.

    As video has also become increasingly important to what we do online, that has also changed the advertising landscape. On sites like Youtube, I’m perfectly fine with video advertisements within proper points of the video, assuming the video is long enough, or at the beginning of the video. What I don’t like are long advertisements on extremely short videos. Afterall, the internet has shortened our attention spans. I think the worst form of advertising in video comes with how ustream and JTV do, their ads, although I haven’t had either service in my whitelist for a while. I’ve had many times where my connection would have some hiccups, or the streaming service was hiccuping, and it would play an ad EVERY time you would load up the video. “oh hey, its the same ad I saw 60 seconds ago because of stream or connection issues.”

    So I am very torn on the issue of using an adblocker. But, that is why I do ad websites to my whitelist.

    HOWEVER, if a site I whitelist chooses to use flash as their choice of medium for showing that advertisement, it will be blocked regardless. As I mentioned, I do use Flashblock, and that is for a very good reason. Flash is enough of a memory hog, and has TERRIBLE performance on Linux. Last thing I need is a ton of flash ads or unnecessary flash items just bogging down my system. And that is not me wanting to just simply access their content without supporting them. Hell, if it weren’t for Youtube still requiring flash for partnered videos, and JTV and Ustream still using flash, I would simply remove flash from my browser all together.

    • Michael Hazell

      You can also enable click to play for all plugins, which would block flash instantly and would also block other plugins that might have been running on your pages.

  • yournot

    I am paying for internet access in my home. I am not paying to watch ads in my house.

    • Quasii

      I pay for petrol in my car. I am not paying for Mcdonald’s drive through as well!

      • MalikDepthside

        I want free McDonalds!

      • yournot

        Poor analogy. It’s more like paying for gasoline (I am American, that’s what we call it) AND billboards but having no say in what’s ON the billboards. This method is a short range business model, like those apps that give you money to download other apps, there is no way to sustain it over time.

    • Michael Hazell

      But then again you are accessing content that is not yours.

  • Tory Wright

    Entrepreneurs can make a decent living without ad revenue via public funding. Ad blocking does stunt the traditional business model and for that reason I don’t block ads. I do however block popups; otherwise they would DDOS my browser. Even if communication, book keeping and distribution technologies made the monetary system obsolete; products and services would still need attention and support. I won’t paint the advertising industry as an innocent victim but I will be fair.

  • Jamie Munro

    There’s an argument that I don’t see in the comments: if people wouldn’t pay for your content in the first place, then it doesn’t have much value. And if that’s true, it doesn’t follow that anyone should expect to be able to make money or pay the hosting bills off content that is valueless. It seems that Marco Arment is covering his costs with The Magazine by charging for it. Clearly people will pay for content if there is an expected standard of quality, and meeting that standard is a requirement to get people to continue to pay. With dozens and dozens and dozens of these tech pundit sites out there, maybe actually expecting people to pay is a way to set yourself apart and give people an expected level of publication quality.

    Perhaps also, if people can’t make money off a tech site they should re-evaluate and see it for what it is – a hobby – not a business.

  • Epoch98

    Just a quick question do you still see add revinue if a person who uses an add blocker allows your site to load its add?

    • Bryce Anderson

      Generally speaking, it depends on whether the ad is pay-per-impression or pay-per-click. Most likely it’s the latter.

  • Chris

    I use AdBlock because most sites offer me no alternative to viewing ads. I’d be very happy to pay around $5 a month for a site I frequent just to get rid of ads (Ars Technica comes to mind). I buy iOS apps to avoid ads. I buy TV shows on itunes to avoid ads. I hate ads.

    Is there a pay-to-remove-ads option on your site? If not, perhaps you’re not offering your product the way your customers want.

  • Ads-R-Bad

    My antivirus allows me to block sites, and sorry to say I block any and all adware I come across. Maybe consider some donation buttons or a subscription service that allows the more frequent users to support LG, something that gives maybe a free monthly gift for support. Ads are bad and just create holes in a website.

  • Brad White

    We need to take this a step further. People are also skipping ads on the radio in their car. As soon as the pop music station starts playing ads they switch over to the next station! I propose legislation that locks the radio turn-knob so you can only switch it once per hour so you have to listen to the ads. Also, we need to build in volume knobs that will never turn down so people can’t mute ads. It takes a lot of money to run a radio station and its not fair that people can just listen for free without listening to the ads that help pay the bills!

    • itched

      Yeah! I pay 10 dollars a month so I don’t have to deal with ads on the radio! That and the radio plays really terrible music around here!

    • Nino Brunori

      People STILL listen to the radio?

      You have XM which the CABLE COMPANY should mimic.

      We had AFN in Europe which bought shows at a minimum because they didn’t run ads.

      I leave my TV on at night and if I wake up say 3am I get to watch 10 hours of Penis Pumps, Enlargement pills and P90X.

      In the 80’s it was the Physic Hotline, Sex Chat, Subliminal Tapes, Televangelists and How to Get Rich.

      All this was opened up because of FCC regulations were lifted in the early 80’s during Regan’s great trickle down garbage.

      As far as your Car Radio goes I can put 12,000 songs on SD chip and never have to listen to a single commercial again.

      In all reality, while I’m driving for about an hour I listen to 3 Dog on my GNR radio mix I made from my Fallout 3 game.

  • arkivx

    This site sucks, and if you don’t like ad blockers make your site a paid subscription, you worthless parasite.

    • Michael Hazell

      Well you liked the site enough to leave a comment didn’t you? :) If you are looking for alternatives then why not go ahead and look at mine (hover over my avatar)?

      • arkivx

        Ha, i came here with my adblocker on to tell this self entitled asshol he isn’t entitled to ad space on my browser.

  • Rex

    No one has mentioned one form of advertising that works, Google text ads. They’re quiet and non intrusive, don’t hog bandwidth and more people click on them. Win for everyone.

    • Ravens Bread


    • Michael Hazell

      Oh yeah….everything is about the banners and flash based ads. I don’t believe in flash based ads though.

  • maniandram maniandram

    it doesn’t apply to me – I have no money.

  • ideafaktory

    The end of the display-based ad business model is near. As I wrote here (over 2 years ago), there are alternative opportunities: Confessions of an Ad Blocker

  • Jake Zachariah

    One of my first times to lockergnome and it will probably be my last. Never seen writers sound so pompous and irritating yelling at their readers to click on ads. I pay for my internet and i decide what gets downloaded. If i block ads, that’s my choice and there is no debate. If your business model doesnt generate cash flow, then your business model sucks, dont blame your customers.

  • Michael McAllister

    I use AdBlock Plus, but I completely disable it on sites I frequent and know are safe. Do you hate me, @MattRyanTV:disqus, under this scenario?

  • Justin Goss

    I have a scenario for you:
    Let us say that their are a fixed number of people on the internet. For this argument, let us say one thousand. You set up a site that displays ads and tracks impressions. Your content is good and you expect that people will visit. You would like those thousand people to visit your site and generate revenue.
    Now of that thousand, fifty people use an ad-blocker of some kind. Now if those people lived in a vacuum, then I would support your argument that they are not “supporting” your site. But, they don’t. They comment, cite your page in other locations, mention you in social networking, or to friends face-to-face. This actually encourages visits to your page from people who don’t use ad-blockers (which are most people on the web).
    In a traditional marketplace, one positive experience begets, on average, three word of mouths. A negative experience begets 20 word of mouths. I would venture to say that number is increased exponentially in the digital marketplace. So instead of trying to piss off the people who visit your site by complaining about their viewing habits, encourage everyone you can to come see what you have!

  • Leo Saumure

    In my opinion, the way content creators sell ads, and the way consumers are advertised to, is total crap. Content creators are told, we can target ads to your audience because we know so much about them. Consumers are told, we’ll only show you ads that apply to you. And what do we get? Pop-up ads, flashing and blinking ads, auto-on audio ads, and most of them them are about getting rid of belly fat! And this is despite the fact that my life is an open book online.

    Advertisers are selling us all a bill of goods, and are delivering crap!

    Advertising can work. I listen to the TWIT network, and I have purchased three different, yearly services because Leo targets his ads to his audience. I can’t see Leo promoting a product to get rid of belly fat. Real targeted ads work!

    Content creators need to take a hint from this method of advertising. You want to get paid? Then think about what you’re selling to people. Is it more work for you? Of course it is. But who said making money should be easy?

  • MalikDepthside

    Why not make your content behave like an add so its blocked by ad blockers, then addblockers would have to be shut off in order to see the content, and if someone isnt willing to turn it off to see your content, they were not interested to begin with

    • Michael Hazell

      But then again they can add an exception for a particular element.

  • IgorK07

    Perhaps I could interest you in insurance that covers losses of ad revenue caused by innovative ad blockers? We offer competitively priced packages for specific ad or popup blockers, and will even provide you with a temporary replacement webpage while you recoup the costs necessary to operate your own.

    Note: Failure to read and consider the above offer deprives me of ad revenue which enables comments such as this one.

  • james marshamelski

    Ad blocking OK…maybe it isn’t fair.
    Tracker blocking on the other hand is something I absolutely refuse to forgo.
    Sometimes they go hand in hand.

    With the number of “dirty” tricks out there I find it a bit hard to feel sorry for ad supported sites. Even though most of them are probably really not that dirty.
    Just a thought…maybe its time to reconsider the ad business model. I have noticed the quality of ads seems to have generally decreased lately anyway. When I see “One Weird Trick ____” everywhere I have to suppose the cow is about milked out and the bottom of the barrel is being scraped.

    I wouldn’t mind shelling out a couple of bucks every now and then for worthwhile content. Beats being tracked and served junk ads. Might work better for producers of worthwhile content as well. Maybe.

  • james marshamelski

    Ad blocking OK…maybe it isn’t fair.
    Tracker blocking on the other hand is something I absolutely refuse to forgo.
    Sometimes they go hand in hand.

    With the number of “dirty” tricks out there I find it a bit hard to feel sorry for ad supported sites. Even though most of them are probably really not that dirty.
    Just a thought…maybe its time to reconsider the ad business model. I have noticed the quality of ads seems to have generally decreased lately anyway. When I see “One Weird Trick ____” everywhere I have to suppose the cow is about milked out and the bottom of the barrel is being scraped.

    I wouldn’t mind shelling out a couple of bucks every now and then for worthwhile content. Beats being tracked and served junk ads. Might work better for producers of worthwhile content as well. Maybe.

    • Michael Hazell

      There are also other sites that don’t run ads on their sites and don’t rush to turn their website into a internet business.

  • TG

    While I totally understand the need for advertising on websites, I absolutely hate the intrusive, extremely loud, obnoxious ads some site insist on running. I usually don’t return to those sites unless I absolutely have to. And while we are at it, I can understand having short ads in front of videos on websites, but sites like CNN that run the same ad in front of EVERY SINGLE video is ridiculous. I will not watch videos on CNN for that reason. It’s OK to have advertising on your sites, but let’s be realistic. These are humans going to these sites for entertainment and/or information. The experience is supposed to be pleasant so the user will return.

  • TG

    While I totally understand the need for advertising on websites, I absolutely hate the intrusive, extremely loud, obnoxious ads some site insist on running. I usually don’t return to those sites unless I absolutely have to. And while we are at it, I can understand having short ads in front of videos on websites, but sites like CNN that run the same ad in front of EVERY SINGLE video is ridiculous. I will not watch videos on CNN for that reason. It’s OK to have advertising on your sites, but let’s be realistic. These are humans going to these sites for entertainment and/or information. The experience is supposed to be pleasant so the user will return.

  • Butch

    Opinions are free. Services are not. You are not a service for your audience. The people that provide you the products to showcase on the other hand… *knock on wood*. Tech bloggers are simply people who pushes out press releases with their opinions attached to it, but if you believe your content truly has more value than that, do a premium subscription service instead and see how many people are willing to subscribe.

    Don’t treat your readers/viewers with disrespect that they have the option to use ad-blockers freely. You will not grow this way. Write or produce things that gives your audience value that you think they or other publishers are willing to pay for. Otherwise, start looking at other occupations.

  • zbob750

    While I agree that advertisements are important, I do not believe that you, or anyone else, has the right to stop someone from working on something (In this case AdTrap) just because they disagree with it.

    If they get this right, it could damage the way online advertising works, sure. But it could also likely be modified to block other things, used for other purposes. Getting rid of this is a bad idea. Even if I don’t agree with their original purpose their are a lot of uses for hardware-blocking certain IP addresses/software vendors/~.

  • saltedmonkeyballs

    You’ve made your case. we’ll just to agree to disagree. I’m blocking ads no matter what.

    • Chris Pirillo

      There’s no disagreement. You’re a thief.

      • Justin Goss

        Wow. You are full of yourself. I think you are drunk on your own kool-aid.

      • Sam Shepard

        There is a disagreement… please backup your accusations with some legal facts.

        You cannot steal data, you cannot steal something someone is giving away free access to. Just because there are advertisements does not correlate that it paid for the content. As far as the user is concerned advertisements are just there, no contract has taken place to pay for anything. It is not even mentioned in your terms of service that the advertisements are required to access this site. As far as the user is concerned this site is FREE.

        Just because you morally believe it is wrong does not make it legally wrong.

        What happens if we read your site using RSS or using lynx?

        Also be grateful to Google that your site is linked on there at all otherwise no-one would even know it existed.

        On a slightly different note your site is breaking the law in Europe. In Europe your site should give an opt out of all cookies, and a notification. Also there should be a page which lists all the cookies used on the site and what they do. Therefore it seems as you are breaking the law, whatever moral objections you have become moot anyway.

        • Michael Hazell

          LockerGnome is a United States based website and therefore I don’t think it has to follow EU regulations. If the EU cares so much they can block the site.

          Lynx text browser? Nice tool when you are low on bandwidth. I use Elinks under Ubuntu.

          Google is a really nice tool to have. Without Google most of my site’s post would probably never be discovered. I thank them for their service.

      • arkivx

        You keep using that word, I don’t think you know what it means.

  • linuxbeetle

    Maybe sites sould work with networks as it is We as people are hit with adds all day the company makes it the poor mans problem by saying suport us dont block adds on are site. theres a big problem here chris I dont think you should look at your crowd I think you should fight for your crowd thats your wright dont fall to these companys that setles in court for billons of dollars companys are picking on the poor man these days and its not wright.

  • Vance Frickey

    The problem is that many recent ads (like the one that shouts “Congratulations!” every few minutes when you use Facebook, or the ones which actually shut the user’s system down and require that the user buy a password to get control of their systems back) are SO intrusive and obnoxious that they pretty much REQUIRE that you use ad-blocking. If Internet advertisers would self-police to keep that sort of ad content from preventing Internet users’ enjoyment of the Net, I think you would see much LESS ad-blocking.

  • Micah Madru

    Hey, I donated to the fine folks at Ad Blocker Plus. They provide me with a great service and I want the service to continue. The continual blocking of annoying and intrusive advertisements on the web.

  • linuxbeetle

    why is there ads for T. P. every body needs it but companys spend lots of money on ads for T.P there will always be trade. kids trade toys for toys ads just increases the percentage that someone is going to buy it.

  • Matt Whitehead

    Reasons people use ad blockers:
    Annoying ads
    Privacy issues
    Security issues (malware has gone over ads in the past, click or no)

    Then you have people like me who almost never click on ads because I’ve been on the internet forever and my brain automatically tunes them out. This is likely why they’ve gotten more annoying by popping out and auto-playing, etc.

    Then you have people on touch devices who want to block ads for several other reasons:
    Performance issues. A flash ad? Really? More JS? sigh
    Accidental clicks that force you to hit the back button
    Difficulty in getting the ad to go away. (wait, let me zoom in to hit the x. GAH! It moved!)
    Text moving in the middle of trying to read an article because of some stupid ad (small screen makes this bad enough to mention) Even some of the LG sites are guilty of this one, though I didn’t narrow it down to a specific cause (may not have been an ad).

    Fix these and you might have an argument that ad blocking people will listen to. Good luck. I don’t think it’s possible. Chris is always talking about user experience… Blocking ads fixes user experience issues, thus people will do it.

    • Michael Hazell

      I agree totally on the Flash and JavaScript part. Especially if you are running on an old machine, Flash ads and dynamic scripts can slow down page load times and then the dynamic-ness of Flash would constantly be consuming CPU, making the computer stress more to display a simple webpage.

      I don’t trust JavaScript in advertising at all. There is just too many risks involved. One time on a site some JavaScript displayed a dialog box that I couldn’t get rid of. I had to click ok and as soon as I did that I was taken away from the page to one of those “You’ve one $1000!!!” BS pages.

      I block advertising completely. The only thing I’d think about supporting right now would be Google text ads, as at least I know that nothing will pop all over my screen or load something dynamic. Oh and it also won’t leave a JavaScript induced popup minimized to my taskbar in LXDE under Ubuntu.

  • Adblockerforever

    Freedom! I can use whatever I like. I block all ads. Not buying into this BS.

  • Carlos Balderas

    I wanted to comment on the G+ thread, but the comments were disabled (and I definitely do not blame Ryan for doing that).

    I never bother with the ads, unless I suspect that they’re the ones that may produce malware or something that can do harm to your computer. Reading some of the comments here and on other places, it’s seems clear that a lot of people think they’re entitled to everything. Just think, what if places like LockerGnome didn’t exist? You could get the same info, but instead of ad-sponsored websites, one could charge you big bucks for the same content. If one wanted to do this all without ads, it’s their choice. However, people do have to be able to support themselves in any way. If ads bother you, why not send them money? If you can’t do that ads or donate, then maybe you shouldn’t visit the ad-sponsored websites.

  • What’s the Point?

    Usually I do not AdBlock. But I do usually run with JavaScript disabled and then whitelist sites if I deem they really need JavaScript. Allowing arbitrary JavaScript code is a security and privacy risk, I also block and whitelist cookies in the same way. This has the same effect on most sites as ad block.

    If you site is running advertisements from it’s own server either just using an image and link, then you would be fine. However if you are loading different JavaScript and cookies from other site’s then it is going to get blocked.

    Also there is a huge difference between displaying an ad and someone actually clicking on it and acting on it. I do not regularly click on advertisements and maybe the times I do are accidental. Why is this? Well one it is because I just ignore them, the human brain is an amazing ad blocker. And two it is because they are just not relevant. Right now the ads are for a free trial of LogMeIn/Hamachi and a degree at a Seattle University. I only use the free version/already use LogMeIn, I have no need for the “free trial” of the paid version – and if I did I would already be using it. Also I am not in the United States and already have a degree so the university advertisement is irrelevant to me. Lack of click throughs could also lead to advertisers wanting sites blocked in countries they do not serve their advertisements for, which is worse than a ppv internet.

    The money an ad is worth is from the click through and when people the referral it, hence as the advertisements are irrelevant to me it makes no difference if I block them or not.
    If you were to claim that an advertisement is actually only worth just the page impression then I would say why not just ad block by having the advertisement open up in a sandbox in the background and not display on the page, responding with a fake cookie. Or even just display:none the html element after it is loaded. There is no way for them to tell the difference.

    Chris’s point in the video about supporting the producer implies that we should click on the advertisement and buy a product, that way the advertisers actually get worth in keeping the advertisements on the site. However I would rather just pay a small amount directly to the site. To be honest I am not a fan of blogs, they seem like people just write controversial and sensational articles just to get people to come to their site for ad clicks/impressions. They are usually factually incorrect and just someone’s rewording or something that was originally from a forum post or press release, usually a month later.
    I would be quite happy if they all went pay to use because like the WSJ, I would just close the page and all the useless content would be naturally filtered out.
    You see the people who write/code free stuff and give it away without advertisements (maybe relying on donations/pay what you want, or even hosting somewhere free) are usually the people who contribute more the world and society than bloggers who constantly complain about ad blocking. Get with the times, if you don’t make money anymore then you need to change your business/job.

    Finally the point comparing digital content to actual tangible goods is incorrect. Digital content is easy and cheap compared to real life goods. You can make a program in about a month in your spare time with no investment and then have it out available to be bought by theoretically 2 billion people. Real life goods require manufacturing, you cannot just copy and paste replicate as you can with digital content.
    Also real life goods are well… a necessity, you need food, you need clothes, etc. You don’t need that useless 99c program. So people will pay more for real life goods. Do I buy myself some new clothes because my old ones are getting old, or do I buy my ingame avatar new clothes? Ingame clothes are simply just a new entry in a database, it costs nothing. Okay there would be a design cost for the graphics/model, but there is also a design cost in real life goods so this cancels out, or may be negligible as free designs become available. The cost digital goods should sell for has to take into account a few things, the cost to make (including resources and salary), the cost to distribute (server) and then how many people will buy it (some programs get over 1million downloads). Does a developer really deserve to make a million dollars off a program it took him 100 hours solo man time to make? In the developer’s greedy eyes, yes, but in the eyes of people who need food and clothes, no. At the end of the day people do not really need “content”, I would most likely make it myself with my friends or have other hobbies to pass the time.

    This article probably took about 10mins to write and lets 10mins is worth $10 of your time and server bandwidth. That means if you expected to get 1000 views each person only needs to pay 1c until you make money on this article. If your defense would be (“but servers and internet access cost so much”) well my response would be – do you really need that much server time? How about the company downsize and get rid of the useless chaff and just go back to chris hosting his own website in his basement and posting his videos on youtube. Or check out google wallet per page.

  • Anthony Milbauer

    Actually my problem, and probably others as well, is the fact that ads are an attack vector for malware and tracking. No thanks. Clean it up somehow (good luck with that) and let the sensible ads be shown all they want. Until then I’ll be avoiding them.

  • Wilson

    This is why dealing with the tech audience is pointless; some of them are just horrible self-righteous pricks who care for nothing but themselves. They want a free ride. Hilariously, most are Android users which makes sense.

    • Carlos Balderas

      I hope you weren’t using this to attack all Android users. I’m one of them that doesn’t expect a free ride.

    • Michael Hazell

      Why the innocent stab at Android users? Troll…

  • Tory Wright

    How about a thought experiment in the context of a free and open society. We ourselves would have to support the products and services that we like and use or run the risk of losing them. In that case we would have to go through that tedious process of researching testing to find another that would suit our needs.

    Ads aren’t the novel or interesting content that we look for but it’s valuable to us in our daily lives. We use them to find things that we need and want. Businesses can go out of business due to lack of support. In times of such rapid change especially with technology becoming more and more competitive; the situation in the previous paragraph becomes more likely. Understand that right now someone somewhere is blocking an ad for something you like and use. The cause does not justify the means; it is the means.

    Things are changing and it requires public initiative. Like it or not you are essentially an advertiser. Blocking ads is not a proactive solution.

  • Dave Winter

    What about all these comments providing content for you FOR FREE? Attracting more user interaction than the original post.

    This is our way of paying you for the content we just consumed.

  • Phil Grainger

    Publishing isn’t what it used to be. Perhaps if you can find an elegant way to deliver advertising your site has a future. Otherwise, Bad luck.

  • Tio Zao

    Never used ad blocker, but i’ll start after reading this article. It’s not stolen money, it’s money you never had at all. If this site cannot pay your bill, just close it and do something else.

  • James Tyranski

    I both agree and disagree. I hate intrusive ads that disrupt my browsing experience with ads that wouldn’t even appeal to me. If advertisers were able to better target my interests non intrusively, I wouldn’t block. Same with my tv viewing, I skip commercials with my dvr.

  • Fess_ter

    Two market solutions for you.
    The stick: Develope adblocker sniffing/detection from the server side. Then you can block content to the ad blockers.
    The Carrot: Require login to read so that you can give a kickback from ad revenue to oyal non adblocking readers. Would prob require adblock detection tech.

    • Michael Hazell

      Even if @pirillo:disqus did this the developers behind Ad Block would find a way to get around it.

  • Chi Hang

    I don’t block ads because sometimes I actually gained through targeted ads like some products or events. However, most of the time I will just ignore it unless it is some very interesting ads that can attract my clicks.

  • Thomas Houps

    i have ad blocker but is never on unless i get a website that has graphical ads, or websites that shove it in your face. i never have it on when using YouTube because it supports the content creators

  • krudd

    Here’s a solution, get a real job. Nobody needs the internet. You can make money by doing this on street corners, and there’s no ad blocker there.

  • krudd

    The biggest and most effective way to advertise is through word of mouth, not ads. If you want to advertise, then talk to people. Don’t just grab a pulpit and hope people pay attention.

  • annie j. mouse

    Find a different way to make money that doesn’t require me to allow arbitrary third party code, doesn’t require me to be subjected to intrusions of privacy. Noscript, adblock and request policy are part of my security and they aren’t going anywhere. Along with mailinator and.bugmenot these things have become necessary.

  • Andrew

    Thanks! Great promotion article for the AdTrap! Heven’t heard about it but now I am in!

  • Murray mcmaster

    Chris Pirilio

    I blocked you on G+ and won’t be back here to read more of your insults. As was pointed out on g+, the world doesn’t owe you a living. You need to figure that out. Maybe you could invent a new business model that actually works. Or develop an ad policy to reassure readers that you won’t whore them out to the world and put it in a prominent place on your site’s homepage. Along with educating your readers about white listing responsible websites. Perhaps you could build an ad blocker that only filters the ads that many here & on g+ have stated their displeasure with. There is a world of opportunity in what you are perceiving as a problem. Do something constructive about it. I am certainly not interested in your judgement. You’re not qualified.

  • screwyourAdrevenue

    i hate ADs with all my heart and soul…I’ve only ever clicked on an Ad by accident and now i don’t even have to look at them. AdBlock Plus a god-send

  • thelicoriceman

    Why isn’t there an adblocker that just sets the CSS display to none so the ads are still served up, but we can’t see them. I have never clicked an ad in my life anyways, so viewing them is all the revenue one would obtain from me.

    •!/gpowerf G.Power

      This doesn’t solve the bandwidth constraint issue that some people might have, particularly when on the move and tethering to their phone when bandwidth can still be very expensive.

      • Michael Hazell

        But if those 10 kbs of data can really make a difference in the long run. That’s why bandwidth saving is a nice feature of ad blockers.

    • Michael Hazell

      Well a performance issue still arises when doing this. And of course available bandwidth has an effect as well.

  • ICT_Advisor

    I’m not a fan of pop-up ads. End of discussion on that point. Reading through the comments, some interesting analogy’s offered, etc. But there’s a huge gap nobody is talking about in the comments thread why Ad-Blockers are very popular. Virus’s and Cookies, which started this whole mess in the first place. Criminals of the cyber-world woke up most people to the “problems” associated with advertising, such as phishing, graphic malware, metadata collection, etc. Remember when double click spent more time in court than they did making money? That kind of negativity has never gone completely and opened the door to privacy law and responsibilities. The FUD war began, regardless if you think those challenges have been eliminated or not.

    Competition is a challenge. Your primary competitor is one of your own tools provider, like Google’s Youtube. You don’t pay for using their system do you? They are a brand that generally speaking – is trusted. They use inline ads and people are willing to allow that because it’s not a firm that’s willing to allow phishing or other scams to occur – though it has been known to happen. If you stopped using youtube, then you have a decent argument, but you do. You also face the fact that youtube’s audience hasn’t paid a dime to use their services, so why start now? Google knew that and relies 100% on ads and pushed the envelope, as has Facebook. But is it quality product? Is it worth paying for to watch some video about a clown riding a bicycle backwards? Of course not, thus it’s free. The other angle is, if its popular enough, revenues do come through consumer demand of the publisher, equating into record deals, fame, fortune are clearly the business model they decided, was to ‘risk it all’. Success stories are all over the world and it’s driven by the simple concept of supply and demand. Not popular – no revenue. PSY got 700,000,000 views on a gamble. That turned into a AMA appearance and I don’t think you will ever see him broke in the future.

    Look at Walk off the Earth, they did cover songs on youtube and made them better than the original. Result, a record deal with Sony Entertainment.

    You can argue all you want about why ad blockers hurt revenues, but the reality is, most ICT experts will advise users to use ad-blockers, anti-virus programs, etc, because the bot world is here and they outweigh all other considerations – including YOU making money.

    Parents have a fast paced life, they don’t care about supervising what their kids do, they want it done for them, kids don’t care about marketing, they want content that’s royalty free (better get used to that culture, it’s here to stay) and our elderly couldn’t trust you or compare what is and isn’t safe, even if they went back to school to figure it out.

    Paywalls are going to be the future along with in-line and in-store (ads hosted by your web server) to ensure security of the user. The big boys are already doing it (NYT, WSJ, Globe and Mail, etc.) and they are starting to move away from pop-up ads too.

    Sites like yours are going to have to create content for free up front, show value (demand) and then offer subscriptions and safe ads as your product offering. That’s the future, so mount up and start figuring out your business plan to attract readers, because if you offer value and stop giving away all your content for “free”, you can make a living. But stop whining and telling people what they can and can’t do when the visit your website – you’re just going to drive them away and where will that leave you?

  • andrej stefanovski

    honest (read: ignorant) question: someone likened AdBlock to DVR in a post several hours ago. I understand why the two are not comparable. how does the ‘read later’ community fit in the picture? are they more of a DVR? do you get money from Ads if they’re only viewed or does someone need to click through? I, for example, have never clicked through on an online advertisement unless it was a mistake because they shove it in the middle of the content and I miss-click.

    Do the likes of Instapaper or Pocket, etc. count as a view and thus help fund you or introduce another path for, what has been referred to as, ‘freeloaders’?

    I am, as I implied, ignorant to the workings of online advertisements. My use of AdBlock has come from an influx of sexually charged ads showing up on websites I would never expect them. If I’m showing someone a website or even just an interesting post/article, I would rather that inappropriate content not be there.

  • Kayza Kleinman

    Yes, I block ads. There is no site that is so valuable to me that it’s worth the garbage that too many sites throw at you. Some ads are SO intrusive that you almost can’t use the page because of the ad. Other ads a “nsfw” (which means that I can’t use them around my kids either.) And others are noise and bother others. If I have to wear headphones to look at your site, forget about it.

    On one site I do use on a regular basis, the site recognizes the adblocker I use. It popped up a message asking me to not use the blocker – but it offered me something very valuable in return. It made a commitment to keeping the ads non-disturbing. Oh, I see the ads, but I don’t have to worry who sees them, I don’t need headphones, I don’t have to worry about bandwidth constraints (yes, they do still exist) and I can get on with what I came to the site for. And, guess what: The site is so useful to me that when I am shopping for products that this site covers I will sometimes go to that site to find links to places that sell particular models.

    In other words, by being appropriate about it, the site gets more advertising revenue than they would have if they had tried to shove their advertising in my face.

    • Michael Hazell

      I wondered how they can recognize that you have an AdBlocker installed. Maybe some kind of script to see if something has been loaded and if it hasn’t it displays that message.

  • danialjose

    After reading this all comment I decided to install “Adblock Edge” instead of “Adblock Plus”! No more acceptable ads!

  • danialjose

    After reading this all comment I decided to install “Adblock Edge” instead of “Adblock Plus”! No more acceptable ads!

  • danialjose

    Go and learn from wikipedia!

  • Dane Reynolds

    Yes blocking ads is bad… but we as a consumer, we hate scrolling the web and then finding a new window open that says ” congratulations you’ve won a trip to the moon”

    or on youtube when we watch a video we don’t want the go compare man screaming in our faces.

    when we double click our web browsers we don’t expect to be bombarded by ads.
    i ask when you walk down the street, do people force you too look at what there offering? NO, why should it be different online!

  • David

    Very well, I will respect the wishes of the staff of this site and stop coming to it, especially
    after the ugly comments from Chris Pirillo on Google+ and in comments.

    In the end it is not the responsibility of the customer to make you a profitable business. The pool has been poisoned when it comes to internet ads by people using animated ads, popunders, takeovers, autoplays and the like, and it may be sad that this hurts you as well, but it will not get me to turn off my adblocker.

    I did stop watching broadcast tv. I moved entirely to Netflix. Most of my time listening to the radio is spent on NPR, which I support to ensure they don’t have to listen to advertising. I also support several podcast networks that I listen to on a daily basis. I buy all of the Humble Indie Bundles even when I don’t play most of the games. I buy Reddit Gold as well. All of these companies wanted my money and because I value their products or want to support them I gave it to them. How about giving your readers more opportunities to support you without just subjecting them to ads?

    And lay of calling people dicks. It isn’t nice even if they are dicks.

    • Chris Pirillo

      If you’re blocking ads, I didn’t want you here to begin with.

      •!/gpowerf G.Power

        Chris, that’s really not nice. Your readers support you in a variety of ways, not just by looking at ads in Lockergnome.

        All your readers, even those who block ads help make you more famous, and ultimately your product is you. The more people who subscribe to your channel, that comment on your blog or videos the more your product grows.

        You monetize via a variety of channels, not just ads within Lockergnome. You promote products in your videos, you do talks, you appear on TV. You can do that because you have created a credible product. Obviously ad blocking is a pet hate of yours, but don’t bit the hand that feeds you over a little pet hate.

        For all you know you are insulting people who pay for Gnomie subscriptions, or actively create free content for you by commenting on posts and videos.

        • Chris Pirillo

          Hang on. Since when must I respect those who circumvent / cheat systems?

      • Dane Reynolds

        That’s a disgusting thing to say to someone who Is or might be a fan, so what your saying is you only want the people who get you money?

        • Chris Pirillo

          If you’re pissing on my business model, you’re FAR FROM a fan.


          • Dane Reynolds

            Chris, every day I watch your TLDR and your Vlogs. Don’t you dare say I’m not a fan.

          • Chris Pirillo

            Dane, if you’re blocking ads, you’re not supporting anything I do.

  • gbyers72

    When your a content creator yourself you realize the inportance of ads, meaning that I despise and will not use ad block

  • Dane Reynolds

    I am definitely buying one of those adblockers, I am sick of searching the web and being bombarded by stupid ads ‘Free trip to the moon’
    The Internet is a right, not a privilege!

  • TheEvilInfant

    Here’s the thing that any article like this seems to fail to take into consideration. I’ve visited at least a few sites who have admitted that ads they’ve displayed have exposed their users to malware or viruses with the basic response to the problem being “if you find out an ad is delivering malware let us know and we’ll take care of it.” Deviant Art being one of the more recent places I’ve seen this, but sites like Yahoo and Google have been reported letting things slip through, and you don’t need to click the ads to get infected.

    Now while a lot of these sites are trustworthy themselves the fact of the matter is they let a 3rd party filter their ads for them, and only play catch up after the problems occur. I can’t blame them for trying to make money, but people also have to do whatever they can to keep themselves, their computer, and their information safe. It’s not unreasonable that people would use an ad blocker when there’s these kinds of risks involved, however small.

  •!/gpowerf G.Power

    Not really. It is easy and almost impossible for the Ad Block dev guys to prevent. What you do is that you reference a JavaScript file that you know is blocked by the ad filters, and then check.

    You cannot detect if the user has installed AdBlock Plus or not, but you can detect the effects that it has on the DOM and what the browser does or does not receive.

    For anyone who is truly bothered about ad blocking I would suggest they implement such a feature. With LockerGnome’s notoriety I am sure it will make the headlines.

    • Michael Hazell

      For my local online newspaper outlet, I have to use AdBlock. If I don’t the ads are too intrusive and they annoy you. I’ll never turn off AdBlock, EVER on a newspaper site because they don’t know where to draw the line between ok advertising and excessive advertising.

  •!/gpowerf G.Power

    People might be interested to know that AdTrap has just made it through the $150k goal with 12 days to go.

    The AdTrap story has been really popular not just here in LockerGnome but overall in the tech press. Not all the stories have been positive some have pointed out the harm that ad blocking can do… But hey, I guess there’s no such thing as bad publicity, AdTrap is now backed and the project will be getting a healthy injection of cash.

    • Chris Pirillo

      Cool. Now maybe it’ll be easier to block anybody who uses it.

      •!/gpowerf G.Power

        You can block anyone who uses ad blockers easily already. This will work exactly the same as existing ad blockers and detection will be the same, the only difference is that Ad Trap can filter a whole network and something like ABP just a single browser.

        • Michael Hazell

          AdTrap has updated lists that can block those scripts that try to inspect the DOM you know. These people are always going to be head of you and are not afraid to block any new attempt that advertisers make.

      • Michael Hazell

        As long as site runs ads that are not flash based, and are not intrusive, then I will not turn on my ad blocker for that site. So far your site seems kosher, so nice job Chris :)

  • TucsonMatt

    Wow! This was an interesting article. I’ve followed Chris for years – back when he was doing Gnomedex and on cable TV. I’ll have to say that I’m disappointed with his hostile remarks in the comments though. I’ve lost a bit of respect for him as a result. Having owned my own business for over 25 years, I’ve long ago learned that you never know who you may be offending and while you may be directing your comment at someone who blocks all ads, you may offend someone who doesn’t who may stop coming to your site and who actually did allow ads.

    I’m seeing a bit of a disconnect here, though. At least a couple of times, it was mentioned that most of the ads on the site are pay per click rather than pay per impression. If that is the case, the odds are that someone who is using an Ad Blocker would most likely never click on an ad anyway so you would be only losing money on the, apparently, low number of pay per impression ads that are also not served.

    When I’m on my home computer with the 27″ screen, some ads are OK. When I’m on my small netbook, the combination of small screen size and slow performance can make using the Internet without an Ad Blocker painful and nearly unusable. Here in Tucson, AZ, Comcast just implemented a data cap each month. If you’re surfing and sites are serving more and more ads that are video based and take a lot of bandwidth, it could become a problem if they use Netflix and other streaming services that take a lot of bandwidth.

    If your business model is primarily depending upon pay per click ads that ad blocker users wouldn’t click on anyway, it seems as if you’re risking alienating a lot of people for little reason.

  • KenBankers

    Well Chris and Ron since you asked nicely i might click on an add here every now and again BUT DANG CHRIS WHY BE SUCH A DICK. I almost unsubscribed from your Youtube, website and FB pages. I will say this however i do love the site and if you have a donate button i would be more then glad to get a subscription of some sort to get rid of the adds all together. that might be a good start have a Members side of your site that we can log into ( payed for ofcourse) that would have all the same stuff for like $5 or $7 a month that would remove all the ads. And add a few perks like maybe a members forum to help you guys with writing idea’s and maybe guest authors with opinions on things like Win 8. might even help you exspand your buissness modle a bit. ( i know i can spell ben up to long.)

  • eccles11

    Put your hand up if you would have ever considered using an ad block if all ads were unobtrusive text/image ads that didn’t interfere with you getting to your content.


    • Michael Hazell

      I might if the image ads stand out to much, but I would not block something like Google’s text ads.

  • Steve Html

    Okay, no problem w/ ads. BUT , too many sites I’ve visited “Are you sure you want to leave this site” or installing crap I don’t want or need. “Installing XYZ downloader” , I don’t need their downloader ( yes you CNET, PCWorld among others ). I’m tired of sites I have to close from task manager, sites installing garbage , sites trying to take over my box …. internet telemarketers ….. BANG ! next …..

  • null

    Wow! I came here by chance while searching on a related topic. And I must say! After I read the comments, I am extremely euphoric that I am currently using an ad-blocker. I get why this Ryan dude is pissed, but way to take a huge dump on your audience when you cant milk em. Ads are important, but have you heard of the 100% workable age old method called “word of mouth” ?. Well even people with ad-blockers can do that. In fact i was just about to do that. Came across two new ebooks that I wanted to share with my social circle.

    “How to Social Media for Dummies – Pissing off followers that are not giving you money NOW will ensure they never WILL!”
    “SECRETS UNLOCKED! How to run a decent following tech blog and yet act like a child.”

    Yeah, im a dick too. Whatev.
    (A lot of people genuinely gave you many helpful pointers though)

  • fdhealy4

    Lets see, you want me to unblock adds so your business can stay in business. I don’t want to see your adds. Maybe you should get a different business model.

  • Red Flag

    The people who would use Adtrap are the same people who would not click on the ads anyways. I don’t see an issue.

  • Paul

    Honestly if your business model is to profit from annoying people with ads, you get what’s coming to you. I literally never click on ads or pop ups. Blocking these ads will generate exactly the same amount of revenue I do now, zero. However I will be more happy with my web surfing in the end.

  • MIke

    I bought three and will get more to give as gifts. I no longer have those annoying ad blocking my view of the news or causing my ipad to crash. Do people actually pay attention to a pop up? I only hope they make the same thing for a television. I was trying to watch Schindler’s Listyesterday and the pop ups kept coming and I could not read the subtitles so annoying..

  • George Washington

    When ads become obnoxious and much too frequent or slow down my iPhone and computer, out goes that site. There is a balancing act that sites need to observe. I forget the site that promised Trailers and Clips, but every video was preceded by an ad. Sometimes the same one, over and over. As to Aps, I’ll pay, if they have prove to be top quality.

    This is like DVRs for TV. Some shows have so many ads they are horrible to watch. without taping first on the DVR. Some are so bad that taping and fast forwarding them is equally horrible, when there seem to be ad sequences every few minutes.

    I don’t have all the answers, but feel that I’m representative of most users and viewers.
    We don’t want to be force fed advertising, especially when it’s not at all relevent to our interests. The producers need to understand this and find their own answers that meet the demands of their customers.

  • theothersideof thecoin

    Sorry Chris. All ads & advertising methods are not equal. Many are malicious, intrusive and annoying. If you allow those types & methods on your website, I have no problem paying to get rid of all of them.

  • Board Walk

    I totally disagree. All websites are pay sites. The sponsors are paying bill for you while we pay the price of listening/seeing there shit. Everybody is paying. If sponsorship of the content of a website can no longer be obtained by advertising then fine. Required payment all that wish to visit your site. If funds cannot be reached in this manner, two scenarios exist. One, the value you request is exceedingly high and can not be afforded or two, the content of the site itself is not worthy of being online at all. I look at it like this. If it come to all pay sites, that’s not a bad thing. It solidifies and centers those sites to do what they want with the most strongest support and backers out there. I’ll gladly pay to view if the content is deemed worthy but not with my time wasted on ads that are force upon me. I know they say time is money and money is time, but I’d much rather have all the time I can cause we’re all here just a short while. Come to think of it, I’m wasting my time telling you how I feel when I could be getting an AdTrap. There ya go. Enough said.

  • Board Walk

    I totally disagree. All websites are pay sites. The sponsors are paying bill for you while we pay the price of listening/seeing there shit. Everybody is paying. If sponsorship of the content of a website can no longer be obtained by advertising then fine. Required payment all that wish to visit your site. If funds cannot be reached in this manner, two scenarios exist. One, the value you request is exceedingly high and can not be afforded or two, the content of the site itself is not worthy of being online at all. I look at it like this. If it come to all pay sites, that’s not a bad thing. It solidifies and centers those sites to do what they want with the most strongest support and backers out there. I’ll gladly pay to view if the content is deemed worthy but not with my time wasted on ads that are force upon me. I know they say time is money and money is time, but I’d much rather have all the time I can cause we’re all here just a short while. Come to think of it, I’m wasting my time telling you how I feel when I could be getting an AdTrap. There ya go. Enough said.

  • robert

    It’s not worth the hassle of putting up with ads on websites so I wouldn’t view your content unless it was ad-free anyway. Catch-22

  • Hansi Wurschtl

    Blocking ads is just fair to the ad networks and those paying to display ads. After all, they want the ads to be effective. Now if I don’t have the slightest interest in seeing or let alone clicking on ads, the ad is useless from the perspective of the ad creator. Hence I disable them everywhere.

    I find it nefarious from website owners to ask users to allow ads to be displayed when they know that 99% of these ads are ineffective because they’re being ignored anyway.

    To anyone who says blocking ads is “stealing” forgets that by analogy this argument resolves into “not blocking ads but not consuming them is stealing from ad creators”.

    Just like ad creators calculate the inefficiency of ads (which is very, very high!) so should website and content creators calculate the loss caused by users blocking ads instead of assuming – and whining about, then asking/demanding – that everyone allow ads on their site if one likes them sooooooo much.

  • Cisco

    So its up to us to put up with your potential over use of ads? It’s not up to us to control the content that could contain malware on our machines. And because why? You couldn’t figure out a better economic model then a shit payout from an ad pimp?

    This sounds like a you problem, as in YOU should adapt to the customers needs, not the other way around. Did you fail out of business and journalism 101?