Example of ad-block in Safari

[Shirasaki]

That's not your decision to make. If you would like to buy computers for everyone here, then you can feel free to dictate what they look at & run. A website is able to do this as well; they can put their content behind a subscription-only wall. You are not the Emperor of the Internet.

And no one is.

 

[The Doctor11]

I feel like ads are just your main concern. There's also other content blockers like tracker blockers which pull your location, device, and a lot of other info for who knows what purpose. I personally don't want Google, Adobe, and random other trackers running without my knowledge. I understand if a website wants to run analysts but tell me in plain English what is going on, not doing **** behind my back.

Also i know for a fact everyone is annoyed when you click a link and are ripped out of your website and get sent to the AppStore.

Another thought is what about reader? On a website you can tap on the reader icon and it takes the pictures and text and makes everything look nice, but takes away all the ads. Is that ok or should that be illegal too?

In reader the ads have already been loaded its just creating a different view of the site.

Hmm. Everyone is selfish first, and generous later as long as they have spare resources. This is the law of nature. I am the same, and I believe you are the same.

If anyone can stand between content creator and customer, to provide a win win solution for everyone, I bet this would be great. However, it is also extremely difficult to do.

9to5mac seems to have a pretty good win win solution.

Web publishers, too, need to look at what more they can do to reduce the impact of ads on the browsing experience. One thing you may have noticed us experimenting with, for example, are sponsored posts. Instead of a bunch of Google ads surrounding our site, there’s a single piece of editorial which we craft. Banner ads are removed for the day that the sponsored posts run which speeds up the site and brings more focus and goodwill to our sponsors. The sponsorship reaches all consumers of 9to5Mac across Facebook, Flipboard, Apple News*, Pulse, Pocket, adblockers, Instapaper and RSS. The site runs quicker and everyone is theoretically happier. Most importantly, we get to keep our day jobs of writing great material for you. We can even use these to step up the quality of our ads from a reader’s perspective, like our recent campaign with Incase that saw 9to5 readers get exclusive access to a new collection of bags before anyone else.

 

[The Doctor11]

That's not your decision to make. If you would like to buy computers for everyone here, then you can feel free to dictate what they look at & run. A website is able to do this as well; they can put their content behind a subscription-only wall. You are not the Emperor of the Internet.

You can subscribe to MacRumors to get ads removed. Would you like to provide a reason for why you have not done this?
Also I don't think you get to decide what you look at when you go to a website. When I came to this page did I specifically agree that this right here would run on my computer?

I don't think I did.

 

[Zorn]

You can subscribe to MacRumors to get ads removed. Would you like to provide a reason for why you have not done this?
Also I don't think you get to decide what you look at when you go to a website. When I came to this page did I specifically agree that this right here would run on my computer?

I don't think I did.

I do subscribe to some sites I am most active on. When you say you didn't agree that "this right here" would run on your computer, are you referencing my reply itself? You are posting in a forum, where by design others can respond to you. It isn't obvious or expected that when I visit a site for the first time, tons of unwanted scripts and videos are going to run.

When someone does a Google search, and opens one of the first results, and is then inundated with popups, flyovers, and a video that just begins playing without their permission, I would posit that the individual had no idea all that garbage was going to be there, nor did they want any of it.

 

[2984839]

You can subscribe to MacRumors to get ads removed. Would you like to provide a reason for why you have not done this?
Also I don't think you get to decide what you look at when you go to a website. When I came to this page did I specifically agree that this right here would run on my computer?

I don't think I did.

You didn't agree to it, thus you are not prohibited by law from blocking it if you choose.

 

[The Doctor11]

I do subscribe to some sites I am most active on. When you say you didn't agree that "this right here" would run on your computer, are you referencing my reply itself? You are posting in a forum, where by design others can respond to you. It isn't obvious or expected that when I visit a site for the first time, tons of unwanted scripts and videos are going to run.

When someone does a Google search, and opens one of the first results, and is then inundated with popups, flyovers, and a video that just begins playing without their permission, I would posit that the individual had no idea all that garbage was going to be there, nor did they want any of it.

Ok so the first paragraph can be summed up with "If the site is meant to do something it can run that code as you should expect it."
But the second one could be summarized with "If the user does not know what garbage is going to run its not ok to run without consent."
But you listed three different types of ads. So it seems you know what is going to run. So shouldn't that make it ok to run because you know what to expect? Websites are by design are meant to have ads after all.
Feel free to correct my summarys if you disagree with the way I worded them. I would not want to put words in your mouth, I just want to make your words plain and stupid that way there is no grey area.

You didn't agree to it, thus you are not prohibited by law from blocking it if you choose.

Oh really Sherlock? You should be a lawyer.

 

[Zorn]

Ok so the first paragraph can be summed up with "If the site is meant to do something it can run that code as you should expect it."
But the second one could be summarized with "If the user does not know what garbage is going to run its not ok to run without consent."
But you listed three different types of ads. So it seems you know what is going to run. So shouldn't that make it ok to run because you know what to expect? Websites are by design are meant to have ads after all.

Not quite what I meant - a forum's whole purpose for existing is to have a back and forth discussion with replies. A website's sole purpose is not to be a place to come see hot new advertising. The three examples I gave were just some obnoxious possibilities, there would be no way to know in advance which, if any, a site employs.

Someone doing a Google search would not have any idea if a site is going to just have a banner, or play videos automatically, or run Javascripts. It is the user's choice if they don't want to see those things in the same way that it's the website owner's choice to not give it away free without a subscription. The site owner is simply hoping that they will make more money from ad revenue than they would if the content was pay-only.

Sometimes this gamble pays off; sometimes it doesn't. That's okay - this is how a free market works. If the content is not valuable enough for people to pay for it, and the owner doesn't feel he's making enough money in ads, the owner can certainly take it down, or pay to keep it running if he just wants to have a soapbox.

 

[CTHarrryH]

The issue to me is that ads have gotten so prevalent and so intrusive that you almost have to ad-block to actually use a site. Like so many other things what started as OK, has gotten out of hand.
That plus so many sites are really only there to push ads and not to actually do anything else - let alone Facebook and Google whose only purpose in life is push ads and sell something. If you want to charge for a site and then don't allow ads - and your site is worth it - I'll pay.
Also I have apps that I've paid for and they started without ads and now are full of ads.
This isn't even a rant about those that any click (even to close) brings up the app store and a new tab. I will "never" purchase anything from a web add or click link. If I like the product I might separately go to the site and buy but never from a click.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Reddit uBlock/Purity Link

I cannot wait for iOS9 and this app to be released! I hate ads so much... currently I use a DNS-injection ad-blocking script on my TomatoUSB router to block all adds on devices connected to my network. It works but it's... messy.

It should be illegal to steal access to something people put work into and in many cases live off the money that work makes.

Could you please explain how it's not stealing access to websites?

That's silly. The server is voluntarily giving me the content, per the creator's instructions. I can filter that in any way I want since it's being delivered to me. If the content owner doesn't like this scheme, they don't have to instruct their server to respond to me. Or they can require credentials to view the content.

I like this analogy: The water company puts certain additives in our water - for health reasons. Tap water is slightly slighty basic, so pipes don't corrode and to keep some microbes in check. Tap water also contains a tiny bit of fluoride, to prevent tooth decay. However, it's not illegal for my to install a system of filters in my house to make water a perfect 7.0pH and to remove all the fluoride. Once it enters my home, I can do whatever I want with it for my own consumption.

As for hard work and living off something, that's nonsense. We don't reward sweat-of-the-brow mentality. Just because someone worked hard doesn't mean they deserve anything. I can work very very hard working up a hard sweat, but get nothing done. Does someone owe me for that? No! If the content is worth paying for, then charge money for it. If people won't pay for it, then it must not be worth paying for.

 

[Marshall73]

If I was a subscribed to something And the website showed me adds, I would simply write the website asking for the ads to be removed for paid users. If they did not remove the ads would unsubscribe. In your case of the local news paper you might even be able to take it the step further and put pressure on them to remove the ads by calling your local news stations tip line.

It should be illegal to steal access to something people put work into and in many cases live off the money that work makes.

Could you please explain how it's not stealing access to websites?

The website is open to the world, if you want to gate it you can require ad blockers to be disabled or use a username/password to login and charge. If you CBA to do this then that's on you.

Of course, when most people come across a site that requires ad block to be removed they just go somewhere else.

 

[Shawzborne]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

its not going to happen

 

[steve62388]

I'm really looking forward to an ad-blocker in iOS.

I don't give two hoots about websites losing ad revenue. If 'responsible' sites are concerned then maybe they should have made an effort to reform the industry.

Ads have been surreptitiously tracking us for years and companies had to be beaten into submission by law makers just to offer an opt out (which some still flout). They have used pop-ups, pop-unders, impossible to close windows, installed mal-ware, used scare tactics for selling software, claimed your computer had been locked by law enforcement, redirected to app stores, played annoying audio, wasted system resources and network bandwidth, chewed through your battery, caused crashes, made countless pages look garish and ugly, been overly sensitive to a misplaced mouse click or finger touch and placed in easy to accidentally activate locations. Did I miss anything?

So you will have to forgive me for having absolutely zero sympathy for 'legit' advertisers. Maybe they should have made an effort to get their house in order, one bad apple spoils the bunch and all that. My heart bleeds.

Google can't be looking forward to these developments.

 

[iPhysicist]

It should be illegal to steal access to something people put work into and in many cases live off the money that work makes.

Could you please explain how it's not stealing access to websites?

I know your still a Teenager, and there I see the Problem others have with your opinion. You where born into that internet ad money machine and don't know what it was like when you had to buy magazines to get product informations. I know those magazines too are usually packed with ads. And even worse they are usually not free of charge.
But in the offline world, when I read those print magazine it is different from the internet. The ads are different and, may I say it's "a little more honest advertising". The ads do not pop up during my read and stay there for 60 seconds. Even full size ads can be skipped over with no effort and don't open a new page where even more advertising takes place if you touch them accidentally.

When sites like this say "We have to sell ad space to provide you this content and the forums for free." its not the entire truth. It is the other way around. They provide content and forums to make you visit this site (as often as possible) and make a profit with ad placing. I have to say that MR is very moderate with ads in comparison to other sites. But (hopefully) they still make more money than needed and call MR a business. I am OK with that but still want to skip the ads. And (hopefully) MR is OK with that too. Do the advertiser know that you as a individual use an adblocker? No. They can't know it, because the ad blocking happens on your side of the connection. But they also do know that they exist and can assume how much ad blocking takes place when they compare the "clicked ad" to placed ad ratio.

Thats similar to the magazine world. The advertiser knows that most people skip the ads but not all of them. Same on the internet. Not everyone uses ad blocker.

I hope you get my point even if my english is not perfect.

 

[bushido]

In reader the ads have already been loaded its just creating a different view of the site.


9to5mac seems to have a pretty good win win solution.

the mobile 9to5mac website is the worst kind of cluttered POS if you ask me

---

every time i see the Clash of Titans ad redirecting me to the AppStore i just want to throw my iPhone against the wall. i CANNOT wait for an adblocker without having to jb

 

[LeoNatan]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

Cry some more. The dumbest thing I've read in a while. Go write your retarded letters.

Meanwhile this is why people should always use adblockers without exceptions:
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...ereport-and-all-i-got-was-this-lousy-malware/

Edit: After reading the thread, Doctor here seems to be a child, or at least have a very childish mentality.

 

[LeoNatan]

Also, if you are a developer, here is an open source content blocker app:

https://github.com/krishkumar/BlockParty

Just run it from Xcode, enable and enjoy. Works very well.

 

[Weiser878]

Estimates are that it can save up to 40% of a user's monthly data too.

I'm very much looking forward to it. I didn't even know there were ads on MacRumors because I was burned so badly before I run several ad blocking extensions now on my Mac and I never come to the site on mobile because of the ads unless I happen to see an article on FB or twitter that looks interesting.

Even Facebook is a different experience when I use a different computer. I had no idea all the crap that shows up. I get a clean sidebar.

Adblockers were a direct result of my old computer lagging badly from having several tabs open and seeing it was tons of scripts running.

 

[Mak47]

There are some valid points being made here. On one hand, website owners need ads to generate revenue. On the other hand, so many advertising solutions make browsing a terrible experience that it's hard to sympathize with their financial needs. I have no problem with seeing some ads here and there, but so many sites pop up full screen videos, force link you to the app store or run so poorly as a result that a change is clearly needed.

Obviously, web ads don't generate a lot of revenue. If they did there would be no need to wreck the user experience by forcing so many of them on visitors. While this will have a negative impact on websites initially, hopefully it will inspire sites that create content of actual value to come up with some new ideas.

Look at The Loop for example. You don't see tons of pop-up ads or craziness on that site. It uses a sponsorship model that gives a single advertiser exclusive promotion for a specified period of time. A solution like that wouldn't be inhibited at all by an ad content blocker. It isn't obtrusive, doesn't ruin the experience and provides a lot more value to the advertiser.

If site owners are forced to find better, more valuable solutions it will be a positive in the long run.

 

[londrum]

I'm a website owner myself, and the percentage of my visitors that currently use an adblocker is too low to worry about (and i don't worry about it). But there will come a point, probably in the next few years, when I have to do something about the lost revenue — and the only way of doing it is to block access to the site and ask visitors to whitelist it. That is the future for people using adblockers — more and more sites will block access.

People always argue "well make your ads less obtrusive then, and there won't be a problem" — but they are unobtrusive.

The problem is that adblockers affect every website at once. It's a bit like carpet bombing an entire country to get rid of a single wasps nest. Visitors might be justified in turning on an adblocker for one particular site they've visited, but then it kicks in for every other site they visit afterwards, whether they have unobtrusive ads or not. Responsible website owners could end up losing 30-40% of their revenue because of one dodgy site the users visited ages ago -- that is too much money to just shrug off.

 

[Shawzborne]

This forum thread I don't believe is a place for every website owner in the world to complain about how ad blockers will reduce their current revenue plan. It's to discuss how awesome iOS 9 adblockers will function in the future

 

[professional445]

i used an ipad to browse the web for the first time a few weeks ago after just using computers and was shocked to see 6 DIFFERENT ads (3 square ads, 1 pop-up iOS ad and 2 banner ads) on the same page (same screen too, without scrolling) and this is just normal, apparently!

kinda surprising, did not know the extent of what my PC / Mac's adblock was blocking for me

cant imagine anyone NOT using adblock tbh

 

[Fzang]

Illegal or not, just like software piracy: People. Do. Not. Give. A. ****.

Businesses making money off peoples' goodwill to not disable ad block aren't businesses, they're charity organizations.

You either innovate or you die. There will always be someone else waiting to take over your spot in the stagelight.

 

[Menel]

I'm a website owner myself, and the percentage of my visitors that currently use an adblocker is too low to worry about (and i don't worry about it). But there will come a point, probably in the next few years, when I have to do something about the lost revenue — and the only way of doing it is to block access to the site and ask visitors to whitelist it. That is the future for people using adblockers — more and more sites will block access.

People always argue "well make your ads less obtrusive then, and there won't be a problem" — but they are unobtrusive.

The problem is that adblockers affect every website at once. It's a bit like carpet bombing an entire country to get rid of a single wasps nest. Visitors might be justified in turning on an adblocker for one particular site they've visited, but then it kicks in for every other site they visit afterwards, whether they have unobtrusive ads or not. Responsible website owners could end up losing 30-40% of their revenue because of one dodgy site the users visited ages ago -- that is too much money to just shrug off.

Some whine about obtrusiveness. But the reality of it is adblock falls under basic internet security principles. Adblock functions really ought to be wrapped into the major antivirus platforms, Norton, Windows Defender, etc.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/14/malvertising_expands_drudge/

 

[TheColtr]

Frankly I would Be more than happy to pay a monthly fee to the few tech websites I visit (MR is one of them) and have my experience 100% ad free. It's the same reason I quit Hulu Plus, I will gladly pay for something to get rid of ads.

 

[Shawzborne]

Are there any iOS 9 ad blockers that block popups atm? It seems like block party cannot do that. I tried it on my device and it only blocks ads.