[Softpedia]Microsoft, Google, Others Threaten to Sue Adblock Plus Creator

[MoonSpot]

Maybe advertising agencies should be paying for our internet access so they'd have some right to subject users to endless advertisements. They obviously just want to mimic the cable companies of old model of subscription services where we pay to be droned at by ads for substandard reality TV programming.

In my view so long as people are paying for internet access they have every right to use adblockers and blocker should have every right to be available to them.

The ONLY exception would be google in Kansas (or anywhere else they've roled out the same model), where they are in fact subsidising the user. Any other company that claims to be subsidising users is completely full of £% until proven otherwise, cause they'll lie and say they do and we all know their full of £+%&.

[cesrai]

Cool, let's develop our own and put it up on Github anonymously. Who they are going to sue?

Github, if you are going to do it I will help as much as I can.

[Trik'Stari]

You might be on to something: Google might want cheap fiber so they can blast us the fuck off with multiple 1080p video adds everywhere: it's the advertisers that want faster connections so they can get even more intrusive! well not really but the thought of it I find funny

I wouldn't care about that ads if my video would actually fucking load after the ad. Instead I constantly get ads that load, and then the video just endlessly buffers thanks to century link being like "Well, you've used enough of the service you pay us for, go fuck yourself".

 

Roll out google fiber and I would be willing to pay almost anything for it, roll it out everywhere and put the others out of business or force them to get with the fucking times.

 

-snip-

Edited December 11, 2014 by colonel_mortis
Removed off topic content

[Thony]

So should virus makers sue companies that create anti-virus software? /jk

Unless ADs somehow advertise you something u are interested in, there is no freaking way im watching ADs.

One ad in a 1000 is a movie trailer and thats the only time i dont skip

[Trik'Stari]

So should virus makers sue companies that create anti-virus software? /jk

Unless ADs somehow advertise you something u are interested in, there is no freaking way im watching ADs.

One ad in a 1000 is a movie trailer and thats the only time i dont skip

I watch ads for things I want to support, like DSC or if it's an interesting movie. Maybe the occasional video game.

 

I really wish I could stop seeing healthcare.gov ads though.

[Thony]

I watch ads for things I want to support, like DSC or if it's an interesting movie. Maybe the occasional video game.

I really wish I could stop seeing healthcare.gov ads though.

99% of ads are just like door-to-door sales person. Nuff said.

[Trik'Stari]

99% of ads are just like door-to-door sales person. Nuff said.

They are, but since I don't want implementation of pay gates I just wait 15 seconds and hit skip ad. If I can't skip I minimize the window and walk away for a minute or two.

[MoonSpot]

 

I really wish I could stop seeing healthcare.gov ads though.

 

Are you suggesting that Obama is subsidizing Google/youtube in order to payback his campaign contributors with taxpayer monies?!?!?!

[/offering of democrat conspiracy to local rightwinger]

[Trik'Stari]

Are you suggesting that Obama is subsidizing Google/youtube in order to payback his campaign contributors with taxpayer monies?!?!?!

[/offering of democrat conspiracy to local rightwinger]

I don't put anything like that past ANY politician regardless of political "orientation". There's really no difference between either party these days, both do everything they can to maintain the monopoly of money and power they have over the rest of the world.

[silberdrachi]

Morally i see why its wrong to use adblock, but i don't see how it can be illegal to use it. That's where i think the problem exists.

 

I am allowed to alter webpages as i see fit client side that's why things like greasemonkey/tampermoneky exist, and all those hundreds of other plugins that change CSS and other things. By offering a free service and supplementing the cost with ads doesn't guarantee that anyone will see them or click them, nor does it require that the person using said service clicks on any of them. You can block a user from using your service for using adblock (and others) if you want, many sites do. But i don't think that Google can say "You provide a product that cuts into our profit, therefore we can sue you."

 

I think this is just the companies realizing that the old paradigm of ads on the internet is long dead. There have been tons of studies that show that people are so used to seeing ads on articles and webpages that our brain just ignores them entirely. They did studies using eye tracking cameras to see where your eyes looked on a webpage, and they just slid right over ads and continued looking at the real content.

 

Ads in the future have to offer something constructive to have people give a damn. The era of just showing flashy pictures and using voice overs to get people's attention is dying, it will have to be replaced by something like paid article advertisements like BuzzFeed and the New York Times have been doing. Articles written in a way that they are interesting to read, and just happen to subtly project a brand influence. I see nothing wrong with that (so long as they are marked that they are paid for, and by whom).

[AlexGoesHigh]

i use adblock mainly for malware, until ads get cleansed from malware i stop using it, also when some site stop having bullshit like autoplaying video ads, i had to remove imgur from my whitelist because of that

[LukaP]

I watch ads for things I want to support, like DSC or if it's an interesting movie. Maybe the occasional video game.

 

I really wish I could stop seeing healthcare.gov ads though.

even the internet is telling you to stop being a fat fuck

-snip-

Edited December 11, 2014 by colonel_mortis
Removed off topic content

[pokeplun]

Ubisoft?

Publishers as in traditional publishers of books and magazines.

[wrath]

adblock makes browsing not annoying

i use it cause i hate when every click on sites makes other pages and ads pop up ,let me see what i want not what others want me to IMO

[mr moose]

Yeah his analogy doesn't really hold water. A better one would be something like this:

"The city you live in has built a new park. To finance this park, they put up a bunch of billboards. Anyone who enters the park HAS to look at the billboards. The put up security cameras to ensure that everyone watches the ads. Some people start wearing sunglasses to avoid looking at the ads, and now the company who built the park is hunting down the sunglasses manufacturer".

 

I dunno, I think that might be over complicating it a bit, It's a little bit different because adblock also blocks ad revenue, so in this scenario is the park not being paid for because people are wearing glasses?

 

I think there are two distinct issues here, one is legal the other is ethical.

 

On a legal note I can't see google or MS having a leg to stand on because what we do with data that is made freely available to us is our prerogative, the only legal obligation we have is not to modify/change it and send it out again, we can modify it for home use but not for rebroadcast.   I don't think adblock does that does it?

 

On an ethical note I don't believe we should use adblock at all and people should just avoid websites with ads that are too much or illegitimate.  This would force site designers to only allow good ads.  I can see how the white list is supposed to achieve this,  however do we really want a third party dictating all this when if we vote with our browser then we will no longer need to install more software?  It's bad enough that we need anti virus as well as anti malware, on top of firewalls and filters, and security systems god knows how many bits deep (you probably do).  My point is, I don't visit ZDnet because the ads are atrocious, if everyone else did the same then ZDnet would either cease to exist or change their ad policy to get viewers back.  

[ComradeHX]

Cool, let's develop our own and put it up on Github anonymously. Who they are going to sue?

The internet.

[Cookie Monster]

Adblock is essential for people stuck in Australia with low hard data caps and extremely slow internet connections. 

 

Adverts, particularly video ads, are a waste of rare bandwidth. Being forced to spend 2 or 3 weeks with your internet capped at dialup speeds because you've gone over your bandwidth cap isn't fun.

[mr moose]

Adblock is essential for people stuck in Australia with low hard data caps and extremely slow internet connections. 

 

Adverts, particularly video ads, are a waste of rare bandwidth. Being forced to spend 2 or 3 weeks with your internet capped at dialup speeds because you've gone over your bandwidth cap isn't fun.

 

Then don't visit sites with ads like that.  The average data cap for DSL appears to be 100G, that's an awful lot of ads you watch if that's what busts your cap.

[cubercaleb]

Then don't visit sites with ads like that.  The average data cap for DSL appears to be 100G, that's an awful lot of ads you watch if that's what busts your cap.

You would be suprised.

[Texhnlyze]

Adblock is my best buddy when using the internet. I just hate those annoying fake messenger pop ups as well as those fake webcam crap. People even thought that I was visiting adult sites because of that. If adblock was to disappear, I don't even know what I will do anymore.

[NICKT]

I use adblock because I don't support advertising in it's current format.

 

Companies pay people to advertise their shit and if it's paid by views then when I watch or see that ad the owner of the content I'm watching will get paid for my view, even if I don't plan on buying whatever is being advertised, ever.

That just screams illogical and crazy to me.

Ever since I first installed it I haven't turned it off since, I see no point to.

If during the ad is playing I get up and don't see the ad? Person still gets paid, so they're not being paid by views technically, but by theoretical views, theoretical purchases.

 

If I want to support some fuck-nut on the internet who wants my money and I feel they've earned it? I'll buy a shirt or something, something tangible where we're both getting something, or I might subscribe if I'm financially viable to do so, but I refuse to watch ads.

[LAwLz]

I dunno, I think that might be over complicating it a bit, It's a little bit different because adblock also blocks ad revenue, so in this scenario is the park not being paid for because people are wearing glasses?

Yeah my analogy wasn't that good either. =/

 

On a legal note I can't see google or MS having a leg to stand on because what we do with data that is made freely available to us is our prerogative, the only legal obligation we have is not to modify/change it and send it out again, we can modify it for home use but not for rebroadcast.   I don't think adblock does that does it?

It's kind of a stretch to even say AdBlock is modifying the website. It simply makes it so that your browser doesn't fetch elements that's on a black list. It's not like I "modify" my mail if I don't pick up the junk mail from my mailbox.

 

 

What exactly are they suing AdBlock Plus for? I can't really see what law AdBlock Plus might be breaking.

[Cookie Monster]

Then don't visit sites with ads like that.  The average data cap for DSL appears to be 100G, that's an awful lot of ads you watch if that's what busts your cap.

Youtube video ads eat a lot of data if you don't use adblock.

[SpaceCore]

@TehStranger?

"hoping that such a decision would lead to fewer users deploying such solutions."

Hope is the first step towards dissapointment.

 

everything on the internet is subject to the "Streisand Effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

 

people will only make more adblockers. I guarantee it.

Google & MS stops supporting them on their browsers?

We jump ship to new browser.

 

there is no wining a code battle. just submit lol.

[HalGameGuru]

Thats not the point, take your movie example, you have paid your money for the cinema ticket, whether you watch the advert or not is irrelevant, as you have still paid, so a portion of that sale is going to the advertisers, they will make their money back regardless of you seeing it

 

see what I mean?

 

Not to be nit-picky but that's not how that paradigm works. When you pay for a ticket some goes to the movie studio itself, some goes to the cinema, NONE goes to the advertisers. The advertisers spend their money to have their stuff up before the movies, its an opportunity advertisement, it is expected some people will see it but neither required nor expected that ALL will see it. 

 

You do see a lot of larger firms starting to lose focus on commercials and opting for product placement when possible. Many cable TV shows get sponsored by car manufacturers or materials suppliers showing off their wares in the show, I know White Collar on USA had a big thing with Ford on the new Taurus, Burn Notice had a deal with Hyundai, I think The Walking Dead had a Hyundai deal for a couple seasons as well. prominent logos or exclusive provision deals with coke or pepsi at venues, that kind of thing. 

 

The content provider agreed to serve up the ads with the content, no one ever agreed to consume the ads with the content.