If your site has those that is one easy way to make sure I either activate adblock on it or never visit the site again.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I Oppose Ad Blocking - My Opinion
- Thread starter CheMillan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You keep telling yourself that. I'm sure you're completely immune to being affected by marketing.
The more I think about this post the more I wonder what site this is. You would be allowed to link to it in this context, just put a warning for people on their phone not connected to Wifi.
I think adding adblock support to iOS 9 is the best thing Apple has done to iPhones and iOS.
One of the first things I will do when I get a 6S is install one.
One of the first things I will do when I get a 6S is install one.
I am not opposed to ads in exchange for free content. I am opposed to ads that are obtrusive, that are noisy and autoplay, that run in ad networks that can introduce malware, that include trackers and other mechanisms to give advertisers more information about me than I intend to give.
I am used to having ads in things I consume, whether it's radio, TV, magazines, newspapers, etc. But web ads have evolved to another level of invasiveness, "in your face", and creepiness. I will use ad blockers and I will whitelist sites that don't track me or don't take over with their annoying ads. The ball is in the websites' court. Get back to ethically presenting me with advertisements I may be interested in and stop slowing down my internet connection with the bombardment of autoplay, Flash, and background trackers and processes and I will relent on blocking. Until then, I will UBlock and Ghostery your asses into oblivion.
Change or die.
I object to ads - it was ok when content was great and ads were 10% or less. It had gotten to 50% ads at least and at the same time content has gotten worse I think modern web sits are designed to force you to more pages and thus more ads.
Sorry and then when I hear that people are complaining that we are ruining their way of making money - get a real profession and work and not making ad space for web sites
Sorry you won't make me feel bad about ad blocking. If I were in charge i would make it illegal for companies like Google and Facebook to collect any data on anyone and make money off of it
Sorry and then when I hear that people are complaining that we are ruining their way of making money - get a real profession and work and not making ad space for web sites
Sorry you won't make me feel bad about ad blocking. If I were in charge i would make it illegal for companies like Google and Facebook to collect any data on anyone and make money off of it
Although this wasn't directed at me, I don't see ads anywhere on the internet and TV. I buy my TV shows in iTunes so they are commercial free. Movies I get elsewhere and sometimes on iTunes when they cost $10 or less. Bronco Games, I download from Usenet which are edited to remove commercials and half time garbage and my iPhone/iPad/Note 4/Note Edge block all ads in my browsers and my apps through modified hosts files.
No ads on YouTube videos and my local news channel app/website gets the video ads removed. The website ads get removed by using Firefox. Other sites stopped forcing popups which would open to a blank page because of my adblocker simply by creating an account on the site.
It is possible to live an ad free world. If I want to buy something, I head to the web for BestBuy or Amazon and even eBay.
I'll continue to block ads till sites learn to make money in other ways. Currently for me, I see no ads. Anywhere.
Ads reached a level they shouldn't have reached, so the web is reacting.
Web browsing was becoming a nightmare in the last years.
Web browsing was becoming a nightmare in the last years.
People are acting like ad blocking is new. People have been doing it on desktops for years.
Don't like it. Don't do it.
Don't like it. Don't do it.
If you want people to pay for your service, charge them. If they won't do it, it's your fault for offering a service that is literally not worth paying for.
The only ads I have seen in the last few years are on YouTube through iOS. My eyes and finger instantly prepare to hit that "Skip Ad" button. Usually I watch YT on a bigger screen with built in blocker so it doesn't matter anyway. Protube also offers an ad free experience.
The only ads I have seen in the last few years are on YouTube through iOS. My eyes and finger instantly prepare to hit that "Skip Ad" button. Usually I watch YT on a bigger screen with built in blocker so it doesn't matter anyway. Protube also offers an ad free experience.
I don't have a problem with banner ads. It's the aggressive and intrusive pop-up ads that infuriate me. Which companies actually think that it's a good idea to infuriate their prospective customers?? A pop-up ad is exactly the same as a cold calling arse ringing up at dinnertime trying to randomly sell me loft insulation, or asking me if they can help me scam my insurance company for a non-existent accident 'their records show that I've been involved in'.
I believe ads, at least the way they're right now, are completely useless and ineffective. I never considered paying attention to them, and I find hard to believe that someone could be influenced on his consume by this kind of thing...
I can take ads per se but I do not want to be tracked around the web, and a lot of these sites simply ignore our request to not track us if we select it in our browser.
This is the equivalent of me walking into a Westfield and some dude with a clipboard starts following me everywhere making notes on the shops I go into, what products and services I look at, what products and services I buy, what products and services I compared, what I ate for lunch, times and durations of bathroom visits and on and on. Then he sells and trades that information to other dudes with clipboards so they can get a full profile of who I am in an effort to sell me john west canned tuna when I'm shopping for a music album.
You simply cannot block trackers without blocking ads. If they change that, I'll unblock ads, but I find it a creepy invasion of privacy that would be made illegal if it were to happen in the physical world.
This is the equivalent of me walking into a Westfield and some dude with a clipboard starts following me everywhere making notes on the shops I go into, what products and services I look at, what products and services I buy, what products and services I compared, what I ate for lunch, times and durations of bathroom visits and on and on. Then he sells and trades that information to other dudes with clipboards so they can get a full profile of who I am in an effort to sell me john west canned tuna when I'm shopping for a music album.
You simply cannot block trackers without blocking ads. If they change that, I'll unblock ads, but I find it a creepy invasion of privacy that would be made illegal if it were to happen in the physical world.
This is an embarrassing conversation. People are actually up in arms about the community having the choice to block ads? Seriously? I'm beginning to think that it's the advertising community complaining about this. Certainly no rational person would oppose ad blocking.
How can anyone be okay with the constant pop-up nonsense we're exposed to when trying to visit a webpage? Or the fact that some videos force us to sit through a 30-second ad that no one pays attention to. I don't know about some of you, but I visit webpages for the content, not ads. I already pay a hefty price for home and cellular internet, why should I pay more??
Asinine.
How can anyone be okay with the constant pop-up nonsense we're exposed to when trying to visit a webpage? Or the fact that some videos force us to sit through a 30-second ad that no one pays attention to. I don't know about some of you, but I visit webpages for the content, not ads. I already pay a hefty price for home and cellular internet, why should I pay more??
Asinine.
Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to believe we owe websites we visit the duty of putting up with whatever is put forth, just because we visit their site we are obligated to help them generate income.
You are right. That kind of thinking is asinine.
Even if ads weren't intrusive or slowed down the device when loading pages. I'd still have an adblocker because I can.
There some misconceptions about adblockers throughout this thread so I'd like to clarify a few things:
Have you ever looked at Ghostery's website: https://www.ghostery.com
They are an advertising company, and transparent about everything they do. They work directly with advertising companies, and you could think of Ghostery as something that benefits both consumers and advertisers equally. On our end - we have one of the best ad blockers available, but on the other end, the advertisement companies are still getting user metrics of your browsing data, and they know what ads are being blocked, the demographics, etc. - the goal is to improve the quality of ads overall and facilitate some middle ground between consumers and advertisers. But to claim that Ghostery increases your privacy or autonomy is quite farfetched. The companies who support Ghostery include: Target, Home Depot, Nike, etc. - not the EEF or any consumer rights advocate organizations (at least not advertised openly on their site). So yeah, if you oppose ad blocking and want the advertising to obtain metrics on your browsing activity, go ahead and use Ghostery! (there may be a setting to prevent the metrics but that hasn't been independently vetted).
That screenshot is literally meaningless. Taking into account the overlap of the extensions & network requests blocked prior to loading (which is what safari content blockers & uBlock do) - an adblocker might block more resources only because more resources are being loaded by default, and there's a cascading effect (one url loads another, etc.) - so a lower number could just mean that the ad blocker is more efficient.
Edit: On a side note - I'd like to see compromises between consumers, content providers, and advertisers. It's not free to host a site, so there are 2 options: free site with ads for revenue, or ask consumer to pay and not see ads. Payment could be monetary, or it could involve resources in their browser as like a cdn for helping host the site. That seems most logical to me.
Have you ever looked at Ghostery's website: https://www.ghostery.com
They are an advertising company, and transparent about everything they do. They work directly with advertising companies, and you could think of Ghostery as something that benefits both consumers and advertisers equally. On our end - we have one of the best ad blockers available, but on the other end, the advertisement companies are still getting user metrics of your browsing data, and they know what ads are being blocked, the demographics, etc. - the goal is to improve the quality of ads overall and facilitate some middle ground between consumers and advertisers. But to claim that Ghostery increases your privacy or autonomy is quite farfetched. The companies who support Ghostery include: Target, Home Depot, Nike, etc. - not the EEF or any consumer rights advocate organizations (at least not advertised openly on their site). So yeah, if you oppose ad blocking and want the advertising to obtain metrics on your browsing activity, go ahead and use Ghostery! (there may be a setting to prevent the metrics but that hasn't been independently vetted).
That screenshot is literally meaningless. Taking into account the overlap of the extensions & network requests blocked prior to loading (which is what safari content blockers & uBlock do) - an adblocker might block more resources only because more resources are being loaded by default, and there's a cascading effect (one url loads another, etc.) - so a lower number could just mean that the ad blocker is more efficient.
Edit: On a side note - I'd like to see compromises between consumers, content providers, and advertisers. It's not free to host a site, so there are 2 options: free site with ads for revenue, or ask consumer to pay and not see ads. Payment could be monetary, or it could involve resources in their browser as like a cdn for helping host the site. That seems most logical to me.
Last edited:
For those who oppose ad-block: do you propose the following too:
1. we're not allowed to get up and do something else when ads play during our shows on TV
2. when we read a newspaper, we must read all the ads there before flipping to another page.
3. when we see buses or taxis with ads, we must stop our car, glance out and sincerely look at the ads
4. driving on the freeway - we must all pull over every sky-sign, study ALL the ads, and only then proceed.
If not, aren't we doing exactly the same thing, if we drive by ads, or ignore the ones on TV. so why make such a big deal when its online?
If yes, then I salute you.
1. we're not allowed to get up and do something else when ads play during our shows on TV
2. when we read a newspaper, we must read all the ads there before flipping to another page.
3. when we see buses or taxis with ads, we must stop our car, glance out and sincerely look at the ads
4. driving on the freeway - we must all pull over every sky-sign, study ALL the ads, and only then proceed.
If not, aren't we doing exactly the same thing, if we drive by ads, or ignore the ones on TV. so why make such a big deal when its online?
If yes, then I salute you.
For those who oppose ad-block: do you propose the following too:
1. we're not allowed to get up and do something else when ads play during our shows on TV
2. when we read a newspaper, we must read all the ads there before flipping to another page.
3. when we see buses or taxis with ads, we must stop our car, glance out and sincerely look at the ads
4. driving on the freeway - we must all pull over every sky-sign, study ALL the ads, and only then proceed.
If not, aren't we doing exactly the same thing, if we drive by ads, or ignore the ones on TV. so why make such a big deal when its online?
If yes, then I salute you.
The problem with mobile adds is that they aren't passive - they're becoming increasingly obnoxious, resource intensive, and basically 'steal' information about your browsing habits that IMO is you're right to share or not share. A better analogy would be like:
1. The Ads play during the tv showing blocking the main characters
2. The Ads dynamically cover the articles in newspapers and make then weight 4 pounds
3. Ads hit your windshield while driving
^ That's why mobile (internet) ads are the worst.
If people are blocking ads, that means those ads must be annoying. Therefore, they have every right to block them.
I've held off installing any ad blockers for a long time, because I was against them and was all for "supporting companies/sites/etc. and keeping access free". But the web has just become so horrendous over the years because of the RIDICULOUS amount of ads, that I finally caved. I installed my first ad blocker 2 weeks ago and haven't looked back.
They did this to themselves. I'm just responding.
I've held off installing any ad blockers for a long time, because I was against them and was all for "supporting companies/sites/etc. and keeping access free". But the web has just become so horrendous over the years because of the RIDICULOUS amount of ads, that I finally caved. I installed my first ad blocker 2 weeks ago and haven't looked back.
They did this to themselves. I'm just responding.