[joe_kr]

I've seen the OmniWeb screenshots, and place this in a separate topic because it's not omniweb perse... but a software issue.

I see OmniWeb is continue to offer extensive ad-blocking capabilites.

Is this right? Pop-up blocking is one thing... but Banner blocking?

I guess... another way to look at it... is would it be ok if someone distributed software that "blocked" the licensing/payment requests from Omniweb software... allowing you to use it unhindered?

In essence, it seems the same. Why interrupt your browsing experience with undesirable pop-up windows asking you to license this product?

This is an honest question... because many sites depend on ad revenue to remain going. I know some people will insist that they can do whatever they want to their webpages after they've been sent to them (via browser). Does this not apply to software to?

[wataru]

Are you under any obligation to watch ads on TV? Must you watch the previews when you go to a movie? No, you have a choice. This is similar.

[joe_kr]

Originally posted by wataru:
Are you under any obligation to watch ads on TV? Must you watch the previews when you go to a movie? No, you have a choice. This is similar.

so, it would also be ok to 'crack' nagware?

I don't want to get into the ins and outs of advertising... but I think the key difference is that tv advertisers get paid regardless of whether you watch the ads or not.

And I'm not saying you are "obligated" to look at them...anyhow... just let them load. I think it's common courtesy for sites. I personally don't distinguish between sites that I regularly visit and I happen upon. Both are presumably providing information that I'm looking for.

[Mastrap]

It is my choice what I look at on the net. After all I pay for the bandwidth.

There are people out there who use text browsers to filter out any images at all.

[Synotic]

Originally posted by wataru:
Are you under any obligation to watch ads on TV? Must you watch the previews when you go to a movie? No, you have a choice. This is similar.

It's not the same thing. You're under no obligation to look at banner ads either. If there were simply no commercials on tv at all, or everyone "blocked" them do you think the shows on tv would still exist?

Although ads can sometimes be annoying, I do think it's wrong to block a site's ad... especially if they're nonintrusive. The site owner is paying to let you use their services or view their content. You can't make money off a website anymore.

So yeah, I don't agree with it.

[entrox]

I'll just post one example of what's wrong with banners:



This is the reason I block banners, pop-ups and ads in general. With OW5's site-specific preferences, I can unblock a select few sites if I deem them worthy and perhaps even click on an ad. But I won't tolerate **** like that - especially not whack-the-monkey-style flash ads.

[The Milkman]

Originally posted by joe_kr:
...
I guess... another way to look at it... is would it be ok if someone distributed software that "blocked" the licensing/payment requests from Omniweb software... allowing you to use it unhindered?
...

This is not the same thing at all. When you choose to use software there is always a user license you implicitly or explicitly agree to. I haven't read the one that comes with Omniweb but there's probably something in there that forbids you to block the payment requests and such. If you do it anyway then you're breaking the law.
Surfing to a website is not subject to such an agreement so it's probably not illegal to block ads. Whether it's right or not is another question and up to the individual.

Greets,
Mm.

[nickm]

Some forums do have policies on blocking ads, but in general you aren't agreeing to anything when you block ads.

I agree with entrox; I can't abide ads that are so obnoxious that they overshadow the content. Frankly, I consider any moving ad to be obnoxious.

I'm all for text ads, like those on daringfireball.net, and look forward to the opportunity to leave those on while turning off the obnoxious ones.

[Arkham_c]

I use PithHelmet on Safari to accomplish the same thing. On TV I use a TiVo and skip through all the commercials. I have even re-encoded/re-burned some of my DVDs to take out all the forced previews at the beginning.

The bottom line is that these businesses are relying on an obsolete method of revenue. If they want to come up with a new business model, more power to them. But as far as I am concerned there's no ethical issue.

[Sven G]

Advertising is often unethical (also because of the inherent mechanisms involved): why not try to (collaboratively) convince people that your product is better, instead of resorting to stupid, compensatory surrogates? (For any business, of course.)

That said, I've also seen institutional sites that have pop-up windows as their basic means of navigation!

[eevyl]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Advertising is often unethical (also because of the inherent mechanisms involved): why not try to (collaboratively) convince people that your product is better, instead of resorting to stupid, compensatory surrogates? (For any business, of course.)

So, if you start a new software you should just wait that people "collaboratively" get convinced of your software's own existence?

I mean, I hate pop-up ads and obstrussive ones, but I prefer to view the ones that do not block my browser experience, and in fact some times provides me of info about services, software or whatever thing that I didn't know of.

I indeed find a bit "unethical" to provide full-ad blocking yet be a nagware application, but that is my opinion of course.

[Nebagakid]

I think that people can put them out there, and people can choose to ignore 'em anyway they want.

[cpac]

there was a long discussion about this quite a bit ago - you could probably find it with a search.

In general, the consensus (if there was one at all) was that blocking ads is up to the user/visitor to the website, but that, in general, you should load (and occasionally click on) ads from sites you support.

Personally that translated into leaving everything on New York Times.com blocked (really, even if every mac user in the world used Omniweb to block the NYT ads, it wouldn't make a dent in their advertising revenues), but loading ads from smaller pages like As the Apple Turns or MacNN.

So it's good to make people aware that some websites depend on having the ads they carry loaded, and that if they like the free content, they ought to continue to load ads, but it's by no mens "wrong" and certainly not "illegal" to block whatever ads you want to.

[MadBrowser]

I run a Las Vegas informational Web site called RateVegas.com.

Banners make so little money that I simply removed them from my site because I too think they are annoying.

We rely on other forms of revenue. Banners are old news.

[kovacs]

I don't block images and I don't have a problem with ads when used with moderation and when the ads are not too annoying like the ones mentioned above. I don't visit versiontracker anymore because their page is just littered with annoying ads, MacUpdate uses ads in a much better way, they use Text ads in combination with less and cleaner image ads.

[Nebagakid]

yeah, the new Google AdSense Text Ads are much better for multiple reasons, one is that there is not text

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by joe_kr:
so, it would also be ok to 'crack' nagware?

I don't want to get into the ins and outs of advertising... but I think the key difference is that tv advertisers get paid regardless of whether you watch the ads or not.

And I'm not saying you are "obligated" to look at them...anyhow... just let them load. I think it's common courtesy for sites. I personally don't distinguish between sites that I regularly visit and I happen upon. Both are presumably providing information that I'm looking for.

Not the same...no one forces you to read the banners or click on them, but they're still there to give sites revenue. Just like TV commercials are still there, and movie previews are still there.

Then again, I still use PithHelmet because most ads are annoying as hell.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by MadBrowser:
I run a Las Vegas informational Web site called RateVegas.com.

Banners make so little money that I simply removed them from my site because I too think they are annoying.

We rely on other forms of revenue. Banners are old news.

Old news, maybe...hope they aren't around forever, but it doesn't seem likely in some cases.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Stradlater:


Old news, maybe...hope they aren't around forever, but it doesn't seem likely in some cases.

In principle, I agree that ad blocking is unethical and shouldn't be done.

But then... I see those damn "If this banner is flashing, YOU'VE WON!!!" banners, the "Alert! You have 4 new messages waiting!" banners, the ones that try to fool the user in some way into thinking they need to click on them, rather than simply advertising whatever service they're providing and let the user choose for himself. They are so dishonest, and show so little respect for my intelligence that they raise my blood pressure and make me gnash my teeth. And then when they start doing stuff like the flashing red banners, or even worse, the damn banners that look like Windows 3.1 windows and which are constantly shaking around like they are having a seizure, they start to really distract me.

I often try to surf with ad blocking turned off. I have tried it many times. But then I see these dishonest, annoying, insulting, aggravating ads, and it goes back on every time.

GOOD AD: Try our product, it has <some feature>! Click here if you're interested.

BAD AD: <blink><font size="4 gazillion" color="bright, eyeball-stinging red">ALERT! YOUR COMPUTER IS BROADCASTING AN IP ADDRESS! CLICK HERE OR YOUR COMPUTER WILL EXPLODE!!!</font></blink> - and then the link goes to an online casino site

[hmurchison2001]

Yes skipping commercials, Blocking Banners/Pop-ups and the like are all unethical. But it's going to happen because when you give advertisers TOO much power they abuse it. I would not block the banners of sites I routinely visit but those sites that have gotten a little too crazy with the annoying banners will be blocked.

Until sites start offering "license" agreements with their site the ethics question will remain subjective.

[MrBS]

Sites usually don't get paid if you look at the ad, only if you click through. So not clicking's just as bad as not loading the ad.

If sites showed a bit more discrimination on what they put in their adds it wouldn't be such a problem and I wouldn't block them. Flash ads with sound effects are guaranteed to have me drop into the privacy panel and block them. Flashing ads too. Or pop-under after pop-under. Or blatant lies.

If sites had less intrusive ads there wouldn't be as much backlash against them.

Viewing a site does not make you obliged to click through their ads. A site puts up content to generate traffic. That's all they get. Or they make their site a subscription based one and try to sell access to their content. Once they get traffic they can put up ads and try to entice people to click on them, they can solicit for donations, they can try to sell things or they can just be happy with the traffic.

Just because someone goes to a site you've put up on the internet does not oblige them to download your ads, click through your ads, give you money, buy your stuff, wash your car or anything else.

~BS

[Moonray]

You are also not obliged to store the cookies these sappy ad-sites want to keep 30 years on your computer.

-