Websites can detect AdBlockers, so in theory they could block you from viewing their content if you use one. IF they did that and you'd find a way to access the content regardless, then it might be able to be called piracy. As it currently stands though the situation is more apt to not giving the toilet woman in the mall a tip after going to the bathroom. Not illegal (in Germany at least), but the toilet woman will hate you with a passion.How did you come to this conclusion.
You need to read more carefully.
The suggestion is that by blocking ads you are pirating the content of the site you are visiting since you are consuming it's content without paying for it by loading the ads.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pachter talks about AdBlock
- Thread starter DarkoMaledictus
- Start date
Wouldn't it be possible to modify AdBlock in a way that ad-content is actually downloaded, but the transfer is immediately cancelled or maybe even have an option to actually download the ad, but simply not view it? It wouldn't be possible to find out if an ad was actually shown in that case. That way it would still somewhat count as view. Site would get paid. I personally never have and never will click on ads and horrible in-your-face ads will actually stop me from actually buying a product. So it's best to not show me an ad in the first place. A typical win-win situation.
This will probarly never work, i believe advertisers pay to show an ad for an x amount of time (say 1 or 2 weeks) so if that changes they have to recut older videos just to change the ads.
Haha that's almost a perfect analogy.
I like this post.
But the problem with ads on youtube, twitch etc is that I can't control which channels I watch ads on. I can only whitelist the whole site. And most of the time I don't want to do that, because a lot of people put ads on their videos who aren't in my opinion deserving of being paid for said video. I'm not talking about actual content creators here btw.
There are so many shitty shitty videos on youtube which the creators try to monetize. Most of the time when I've seen these shitty videos it's by accident and I did not intend to watch that particular video, and I won't watch it to the end. But I would have to watch the ad to be able to see if the video was what I was looking for, thus giving the creators of the shitty video money. And I don't like that. It's like they take advantage of people to make money and fuck that.
However. If I do find a channel that I enjoy and subscribe to or otherwise regularly come back to (which are mostly by actual content creators like JonTron, AVGN, and yourself), I will whitelist youtube when I intend to watch those specific channels.
Serious question, don't know if it's been answered yet: does using AdBlock actually diminish how many views the hosting site sees? Meaning, does the ad still get served and skipped, or just completely blocked?
Reddit and GAF are on AdBlock whitelist (although, since I moved to Hong Kong all the ads are in Cantonese so jokes on you internet!) and I pay for Giantbomb. I actually still listen to the podcast ads there too, cause Jeff can write some copy.
Reddit and GAF are on AdBlock whitelist (although, since I moved to Hong Kong all the ads are in Cantonese so jokes on you internet!) and I pay for Giantbomb. I actually still listen to the podcast ads there too, cause Jeff can write some copy.
People don't use AdBlock because they're "choosing to not be Robin Hood". They're using AdBlock for an improved user experience. That is literally the only reason.
The onus is up to the advertisers (and to an extent, the content creators if they're gonna whine about it) to provide a more compelling experience. Doesn't Greg Miller do something like that at IGN? Charging for pre-release podcasts and stuff? I'd rather support content through initiatives like that than sit through some god awful hair restoration ad.
ABP uses the browsers' built-in content policies features, which control which content can and cannot be downloaded based on their URL. So no, the ad doesn't get served and won't count an impression.
That's just an excuse. There are a lot of games that are DRM free, pirating them is still wrong, even though they don't prevent you from playing them when pirated.
BTW, I never suggested that it is illegal, just wrong.
It is probably possible, but it isn't a win-win situation. Advertisers will figure out that it is happening, and if they won't be able to detect it they will just pay less to everyone. What they care about is how many times the ad is displayed. If you reduce that, they will reduce the payment accordingly.
Quite a few sites do this already. And what the shit is a toilet woman?!
Hmm, is there a reason that content providers simply prevent the real video from loading until the ad content is served?
I never really visit IGN but I decided to this time to see what the ads were like:
Yeah, this is the exact sort of thing I normally try to block out.
I keep ABP disabled on GAF because the ads are non-intrusive and they make it so I don't have to pay for a subscription that, in all honesty, would be worth paying.
Sites like IGN, and others deserve adblockers because they make the ads the primary experience as opposed to a secondary or tertiary thing. When it takes like a full minute or two just to get to the front page because of all the ads, well.. sites like that don't deserve the ad revenue I generate by visiting.
Follow Google's example, or GAF's by making the ads non intrusive and put them off to the side so we can enjoy the website, and believe me, there would be no need for ABP, ever. There's also the issue of malware, but that can be blocked via anti-malware apps.
evilore, if you're listening, i would totally subscribe to GAF Gold if it was a thing.
Cleans the toilet a few times per day, but sits at the bathroom door most of the time with a tip jar and gives you nasty looks if you don't tip after using the bathroom. Commonly encountered in malls and McDicks.
You compared accessing website content with AdBlock active to piracy. Piracy is illegal. I made my post to clarify that accessing sites with AdBlock is not comparable to piracy at all and definitely NOT illegal.
Shanks D Zoro
Banned
Ads should not be intrusive. I understand that many websites use ads for their revenue stream and it is their only way to survive, but the user experience should not be compromised. GAF does a great job of keeping it simple,
It's possible and a few actually do it. However, they are too scared to piss of their visitors and prefer to make angry rants against ABP to get people to voluntarily stop using it than kick them out.
I never really visit IGN but I decided to this time to see what the ads were like:
Yeah, this is the exact sort of thing I normally try to block out.
God damn. I can't imagine the destruction that would do to a low-spec PC.
It is comparable from the moral perspective not the legal one. There are different laws in different countries. AFAIK piracy is partially legal in mine - i.e. I can legally download copyrighted material but it is illegal for me to distribute it. In other words I would still call downloading copyrighted material piracy even if it was legal in your country.
You could also argue that blocking ads, for example those that cover your entire screen, is circumventing a form of DRM, which could make it illegal in the US.
did you steal the tape?
if you don't want people adblocking, charge a subscription
If no one subscribes
I guess you'll die
It's not like 98% of gaming sites aren't regurgitating the same content
Followed by 74% failing to give any original cogent critical analysis
Except for Pachter, cuz he duz it for free
(all percentages exist in my head and are subject to remuneration if quoted)
If no one subscribes
I guess you'll die
It's not like 98% of gaming sites aren't regurgitating the same content
Followed by 74% failing to give any original cogent critical analysis
Except for Pachter, cuz he duz it for free
(all percentages exist in my head and are subject to remuneration if quoted)
People tip toilet attendants now? When will it end...
boogie2988
Banned
Well lots of people have brought up some really great points in response to my original post, and I've taken it all into consideration. But let me just say this.
We will eventually reach a point where ads are no longer a viable way for a content producer (be it forum, website, game site, etc) will not be able to exist off of ads alone and the free lunch will end.
We already see a big push for things like reddit gold. We see a big push for things like twitch subscriptions. We see a big push for product placements in tv shows, movies, and even youtube channels.
That's the alternative. Love it or hate it, they will find a way to brand something even at the cost of the integrity of the person. If you think Geoff setting in front of a pile of Doritos was bad, its only going to get worse.
I leave adblock off on the sites I love because I'm hoping to die before we reach that point.
We will eventually reach a point where ads are no longer a viable way for a content producer (be it forum, website, game site, etc) will not be able to exist off of ads alone and the free lunch will end.
We already see a big push for things like reddit gold. We see a big push for things like twitch subscriptions. We see a big push for product placements in tv shows, movies, and even youtube channels.
That's the alternative. Love it or hate it, they will find a way to brand something even at the cost of the integrity of the person. If you think Geoff setting in front of a pile of Doritos was bad, its only going to get worse.
I leave adblock off on the sites I love because I'm hoping to die before we reach that point.
There will be more tough shoveling ahead for current content providers, but your future is bright, stay the course
you define doritos, doritos doesn't define you
DexterPepper
Member
Telling people to not use adblock is like telling advertisers to stop making intrusive, shitty ads. I'm not sure what either group really expects to accomplish.
What's supposed to be the incentive for either group to stop? Calling them scumbags? People use adblock because it works. Advertisers use whatever methods they can to reach their audiences because it ultimately makes them money.
It comes down to hoping people do the right thing. Good luck convincing the majority of anything to do that.
What's supposed to be the incentive for either group to stop? Calling them scumbags? People use adblock because it works. Advertisers use whatever methods they can to reach their audiences because it ultimately makes them money.
It comes down to hoping people do the right thing. Good luck convincing the majority of anything to do that.
Is there anybody out there that actually DOES click on ads?
I run adblocker, I wouldn't click an ad even without it, they are entirely pointless from my perspective as (especially with the video ones I cant skip or close) they just make it even less likely I will buy their product.
Any site with ads that have flashing text, animation of any sort, video content I cant permanently shut off or mute loses me for good I am afraid.
Top tip for advertisers, make you ads unobtrusive, get some fucking morals and stop taking every dodgy malware hawking cuntsticks dollars to dupe me or just straight up infect my machine with their poison, and cut out the smut.
Easy way to make money right there.
Exactly, its up to the ADVERTISERS to do the right thing, nobody else.
We use adblockers because we dont want to be bombarded with shit as soon as we fire up a webpage, and we also dont want our machines clogged with malware that THEY are being paid to feed us.
RPGCrazied
Member
I never use it for GAF. Depends on the site though. If you have like 40 ads all over a site, its going to get blocked, I don't want to see that. I find on gametrailers with it turned on the player seems to play videos more smoother without all the ads killing it.
Winter John
Member
If a YouTube or website content creator tells you to switch off AdBlock while watching their content, and you don't like that, then simply do what I did, unsubscribe and stop viewing their content. That way the content creators won't feel like they're being ripped off and you won't have to endure meaningless adverts for meaningless content.
travisbickle
Member
"The internet would stop if we didn't have ads... you idiot."
As well as paid subscriptions we've also seen people use Patreon, Indiegogo and Kickstarter to fund their online projects. If ads stop being a viable business model for content creators it's up to them to find a new one. It's very much adapt or die and I know you're smart enough to find something else other than ads to pay the bills without selling your soul like Geoff did as you have plenty of subscribers (of which I am one) who will support your endeavours. If someone is willing to sacrifice their integrity it's not because of Adblock.
If a subscription model would ultimately mean an increase in content quality (and it very much could, because content providers would actually need to compete and deliver quality articles to not only attract customers, but also keep them around - clickbaiting doesn't cut it in the long term), then I'm all for it. I'm curious how many people would actually PAY to read IGN's or Kotaku's content, and who would be on the losing side in a subscription scenario.
Regarding product placement, I can honestly say I don't give a damn. I'm not going to buy a Rolex because Bond wears it in the movies and the camera is sure to display the logo, I'm not going to buy Doritos because Geoff chews them on camera. Except in a "journalists" case I may totally question their objectivity because of it.
And call me naive, but I can still see a different alternative. If AdBlock usage became big enough for nonintrusive ads (static banners, text-based "sponsored links") to generate MORE income for advertisers, then maybe, just maybe the "ads fucking the customer over" model gets dropped. If websites start noticing an increase in income when switching to nonintrusive, safe ads, then maybe AdBlock will not be necessary.
But of course, that would require ad providers to get their heads out of their arses and start actually respecting the needs of their target, so it's not gonna happen.
On a side note - anytime I see a site display a notice such as "we detected you have AdBlock on, could you please whitelist us, our ads are just static banners", I always whitelist. I don't even consider doing it when somebody calls me a scumbag for protecting my PC.
And yes, I did click an ad a couple times, when hurrying to click the escaping X sign while some obnoxiously loud sample was blasting my headphones off my head. How immoral of me to block that bullshit.
Patreon and subscriptions will eventually be used as an incentive to produce fragmented content. "Premium members" getting certain content, and so on. This might sound good to some people, but not to me.
Just because someone isn't willing to pay for exclusivity via a subscription or can't afford it, doesn't mean the content is worthless to the person. Maybe there could be a system that affords that person a version with ads. You make a good point by noting that the quality of someone's output must be up to par to keep subscriptions. But, doesn't our frame of reference for judging quality narrow when we lose more and more smalltime content creators to a model they can't adapt to?
Haunted
Member
No one appeals to the advertisers to stop their manipulative, exploitative and intrusive tactics because they're not morally obligated to do so. There are no morals in advertising. Instead it's the consumer, the weakest link in this chain of shit that's getting bullied into complying.
Fuck that.
If anything, it should be content creators and consumers sticking together, but they're just pitted against each other by those with the money.
I reiterate that Adblock plus is a defensive reaction, not an offensive action. Stump has already given the pertinent history lesson in this thread.
Fuck that.
If anything, it should be content creators and consumers sticking together, but they're just pitted against each other by those with the money.
I reiterate that Adblock plus is a defensive reaction, not an offensive action. Stump has already given the pertinent history lesson in this thread.
Yes and no.
You can download the ad, but it probably contains javascript that makes it download other scripts and images and sounds, and checks the ad is displayed, so it'd only be a minor deterrence at best.
Obviously executing said javascript in order to trick the ad server is a dangerous proposition, as it could use an exploit to install malware on the pc.
Jules Coast
Member
I'm all for using adblock and I whitelist sites that I enjoy, but people are talking about obtrusive ads on here as if the ads are reaching out of the computer and assaulting them. Chill people.
How about earning "viewing minutes" or some other kind of "support bucks" by either microtransactions (aka subscription) or by viewing ads and taking part in surveys? Why did nobody try that so far?
QuickSilverD
Member
Tech and gaming sites will always be the ones hit harder by Adblock, since their demographics then to be the most tech-savy. Eventually I think these kind of sites will have to move to another forn of revenue generating plan, like subscriptions or just somehow find a way to block people with adblock
Consider that the ads people talk about pop out, expand on the screen, play a sound and if clicked lead to really fucking questionable content if not outright try to infect your PC with malware.
In my book, that's as close as anything from the computer can come to reaching out and assaulting me.
Jules Coast
Member
Most certainly annoying but dealt with usually in a few seconds (if using the IGN gif above as an example). In the grand scheme of things it's a small price to pay (assuming no malware).
Stone Ocean
Member
My bandwidth is too valuable to waste on stuff I don't give a shit about.
Sure, I'll turn it off in places like GAF where the ads are hardly bothersome and I don't mind helping, but stuff like the IGN ads or banner ads that cover a part of the screen and keep playing videos like in Eventhubs can fuck off.
When I watch TV, I can switch channels during commercial breaks. If walking on the street, I can just completely ignore posters and handouts. Why the fuck is the internet this special place where I HAVE to give you my attention?
Sure, I'll turn it off in places like GAF where the ads are hardly bothersome and I don't mind helping, but stuff like the IGN ads or banner ads that cover a part of the screen and keep playing videos like in Eventhubs can fuck off.
When I watch TV, I can switch channels during commercial breaks. If walking on the street, I can just completely ignore posters and handouts. Why the fuck is the internet this special place where I HAVE to give you my attention?
All fair points. I'm aware that not everything can work on the subscription model, sadly, and I'm far from considering it a great solution, for smaller, less known websites especially - though those tend to be the ones that are fine with consumer friendly advertising, from what I've observed.
Getting to choose an ad-less subscription or free access while viewing ads is an interesting concept, and I've seen some sites try it, but it won't work well as long as AdBlock exists as a third option. I wonder if a site could block AdBlock users completely (in a way that cannot be easily hacked) and offer them a choice of a) whitelisting to enter or b) paying to access content with no ads. That could potentially work out, I think, as long as content was of high enough quality.
You can't assume no malware, that's the problem.
Yeah. I suspect Twitch would have done something like this - that is, blocking use of the content or at least making it much harder to access it by making people wait during a black screen. However, I'm pretty sure they just wanted to get as many people to their site as possible for the sake of numbers, and to sell it off for a nice price. I'll be interested to see how Google operates Twitch's ad service.
I can see why websites use ads as income so that the content they provide is free. But that doesn't mean their audience automatically have to accept the idea of ads. I don't like to be disturbed while viewing content with popups or animated ads, just so someone can remind me of a webgame or a drink to that i should buy.
I mean, i think it's great that the content they put out there is free, but that doesn't automatically give me an obligation to accept ads. I could care less about these multi-million dollar corporations spreading there ads in every nook of society, be it billboards outside or websites or cellphones or whatever. If i want to buy something i go out and look for it, or search for it myself. I don't want disturbing ads shoved in my face all the time.
If these websites protect these ads, that's fine. I get why they are doing that. I just don't think they have the right to demand that people accept ads because of it.
If you think your content is valuable than charge for it and see how many use your content. I don't mind that. But don't tell me that i have to accept the information that these multi-million dollar corporations want to shove in my face. I couldn't care less about what they have to say. I'd rather read or look at stuff i'm interested in, not letting someone else tell me what interesting stuff there are.
Hope i made that clear enough. Get why they use ads, but don't like the forcing nature of some peoples thought process.
I mean, i think it's great that the content they put out there is free, but that doesn't automatically give me an obligation to accept ads. I could care less about these multi-million dollar corporations spreading there ads in every nook of society, be it billboards outside or websites or cellphones or whatever. If i want to buy something i go out and look for it, or search for it myself. I don't want disturbing ads shoved in my face all the time.
If these websites protect these ads, that's fine. I get why they are doing that. I just don't think they have the right to demand that people accept ads because of it.
If you think your content is valuable than charge for it and see how many use your content. I don't mind that. But don't tell me that i have to accept the information that these multi-million dollar corporations want to shove in my face. I couldn't care less about what they have to say. I'd rather read or look at stuff i'm interested in, not letting someone else tell me what interesting stuff there are.
Hope i made that clear enough. Get why they use ads, but don't like the forcing nature of some peoples thought process.
In other words, as far as you are concerned, the people running the websites don't deserve to be paid for their work?
meanspartan
Member
I never really visit IGN but I decided to this time to see what the ads were like:
Yeah, this is the exact sort of thing I normally try to block out.
Yup. FUUUUUCK that. I even sent them an (obviously ignored) message on their Facebook to explain that they would be one of the only gaming websites that doesn't get whitelisted, and it is because of those types of ads. If I hear that they switch to just having banner or background ads that don't ruin my experience, I will whitelist them. Until then, fuck off.