Should adblockers be regulated?

My friend and I have an ongoing argument about the ethicality of the use of adblockers such as adblock.

I argue that, even though I have an adblocker installed and use it myself, I think that adblockers are very morally dodgy, as it essentially software that prevents domain owners who host adverts on their websites from getting profit from hosting the ads.
I think that ad blockers should only block non intrusive adverts so that domain owners can still benefit from the business of hosting ads, but users aren't inconvenienced by popups or adverts that play sound.

He, on the other hand, says that it is an infringement on people's freedom to not let them use adblockers and that a regulation is unnecessary and causes hassle for web developers.

What do you guys think about this?

Other urls found in this thread:

boards.Sup
cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-google-ads/#!
theverge.com/2014/9/19/6537511/google-ad-network-exposed-millions-of-computers-to-malware
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

no

If I wish to alter the experience coming through my monitor, it is my prerogative, even if that is to a company's financial detriment.
Freedom or corporate interests, pick 1.

i pay for the bandwidth i use and would-be advertisers are forcing me to pay for their ads.

when advertisers are willing to pay for my bandwidth, i'll be willing to download their ads.

>get bombarded with ads everywhere
>someone manages to rid that filth
LOL no you gotta deal with it
Here's a pro tip
If they actually put the ad into the site it can't be blocked.

this.

Friendly Reminder: Pirating media is every citizen's obligation. If I site disallows adblocker, blacklist it. Fuck crony corporatism. Bastards have enough power and money.

You can't "regulate" adblockers you fucking moron. It hides page elements. That's literally all it does.

ads

are

gay

Sorry, but if I have to pay for internet then I'll filter out whatever I don't want my time wasted with, such as ads.

literally someone on Sup Forums isnt a retard
amazing

Right click on the ad -> Adblock -> Block this add -> slide the slider to where the ad's gone

Thank me later.

/thread

If you want your screen filled with aids then go ahead and turn ad block off

I'm happy to pirate things, so morally I don't care morally about blocking adverts and will continue to do so.

Adblock allows you to clock am option to restore non-intrusive ads and also allows for specific whitelistings. Stop pushing the govt into everything.

In all fairness, I disable it for 4chin because there is not much here anyway.

Other sites .. .nah . . .. they slow my browser.

>Ad-block should only block this certain kind of ad
Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. I only turn the Adblock off on few, trusted websites that have ads that don't bother me or annoy me.

The second I get an annoying ad, it's straight back to the block list.

>people's freedom to not let them use adblockers
They don't have such a right.

Given that they are not charging any money to view their product, it is not wrong. Forget not that the only morally wrong thing is to initiate coercion. This is not initiation coercion since the product is free. they are no

The second Sup Forums posters start getting paid for their posts I'll stop using adblock. Journalists for all intents and purposes are just shills shitposting and their handlers are obviously jews

seriously. if i post my opinion here, its just shitpost. but if i do the same at the new york times, it suddenly becomes 'journalism' . fuck that

> it is an infringement on people's freedom to not let them use adblockers

Your friend is correct.

>I think that adblockers are very morally dodgy, as it essentially software that prevents domain owners who host adverts
>I think that ad blockers should only block non intrusive advert
>morally dodgy

The foundation of your position is a meaningless buzzword. Your argument has 0 substance and you come across as a moron. You created an exception: "non intrusive advert" because internally you realized the idiocy of your argument and wanted to create complexity to mask this idiocy.

Think before you speak next time.

How would adblockers be regulated?

By this logic tvs should automatically pause if you get up to pee during the commercial break.

Also this. Rich cocksuckers are getting the fuck out of control. They want to make us pay for their shit MULTIPLE times, continuously throughout the day, but they lose their shit if someone copies their media. Why do capitalists hate freedom?

>Your friend is correct.
No, he's not. The websites have a right to control their property (their website) but inversely they don't have a right to control my property (my computer, my bandwidth).

I use an ad blocker because I think advertising is amoral, invasive and a waste of bandwidth. So checkmate. And (((website owners))) whining the "morality" of adblockers just shows they have a crappy product or business model.

Fuck off im not watching a 30 secomd ad for a 5 second video

>forcing people by law to download content they don't want
It's even more fascist than censorship.

>they don't have a right to control my property (my computer, my bandwidth).
wot. that's exactly what the friend is arguing. Why are you saying the friend is incorrect?

no, fuck off. I'd pay if it is worth it.

what the leaf said. Don't shove advertisements down my fucking throat. If I want something I'll buy it. I've never bought something because I saw an ad.

Most websites give away content for free. It costs me nothing (other than ISP fees) to go to cnn.com and read about the latest hillary propaganda. On a machine level, all that is happening is a transfer of a bunch of files from their servers to my machine, FOR FREE.

It is my right to interpret, render, view, or not view that data as I see fit. If I want to write a script to turn everything into portugese and replace every image with a picture of david hasselhoff in a bikini, its my right to do so.

If they are so buttmad about not making money, put up a paywall and see how well that goes.

I've thought for many years that if they could build the web equivalent of chucking a couple of quid in a tip jar for content you liked, with all the anonymity and lack of accounts etc that implies, more people would pay for decent ad-free shit.

I have no objection to paying for something I like (in fact it irks me sometimes that I can't give something to someone beyond a useless "like" in show of support) I object to how they are trying to make me pay for it.

I can execute any code on my computer so long as it's not software meant to directly attack other computers, including adblockers. Fuck off retard

based leaf, I wish I could buy you timmies senpai.

Usage of adblocker should be conducted like sensible tipping. Like a website or content producer? Whitelist them so they can get the revenue to continue what they're doing.

Adblockers will continue to exist as long as annoying and intrusive ads exist. It's become an accepted part of browsing the Internet. Pop-up ads still exist unless you only visit big websites like Facebook. Some ads track where you go only and collect other data about you. Blocking an ad is not the same thing as bypassing a pay-gate or pirating something. They are pushing the ads on you. Most small creators I know say to go ahead and use adblockers and just donate instead. It'll probably amount to more money anyway. Your time is worth more than the tiny amount in ad revenue.

as long as people are able to track you through ads then adblockers are ethical. case closed.

...

Should advertising be regulated?

im the friend in question

It already is for pharma.

This, I would be happy to pay for a good service and user experience instead of being bombarded with ads and have my personal data stolen.

not enough, desu.

have you watched a national news TV report? every fucking ad is a medicine for some kind of disease that affects seniors. It's incredibly annoying.

Let me explain.

When you visit a website, you aren't visiting their property like when you visit a store. You make a request to website A for a page. Website A sends you the page, this includes the html, javascript (code), images etc. Only once the page as been delivered to your computer, is it's html turned into the page you see and the javascript code executed to do whatever it was designed to do.

Once the content has arrived at my machine, no one has any say over how I choose to render the webpage. If I want to apply my own style to it to change the background colour I can. If I want to stop the ads loading then I will. It is akin to telling someone they are not allowed to skip the introduction of a book they are reading in their own home.

All arguments about the fact that the content is free or not is inconsequential. If you don't want me to see the content for free, then don't send it to my machine, it is very simple. It's not my fault that 99% of content produced on the internet is of so low value that people won't pay for it.

Some websites like jewtube are filled with fucking ads to the point they make your computer run slower, so adblocker all the way. If I want to support a website I'll just disable the adblocker for that website, but If a website tells me to disable my adblock before I can view their content they can fuck off.

THIS

I'm fine with the advertisement based revenue model as a concept, but they ruined it by making advertisements as obnoxious as possible. Audio content that starts playing automatically when the page loads, annoying over the top animations, pop-up ads that fly out and cover up the site's actual content right when you are in the middle of reading it, ads plopped down right between paragraphs, splitting everything up into a list with ads between each entry. Enough is fucking enough, I'd happily get rid of my adblocker if everyone went back to simple non-intrusive banner ads at the top and/or bottom of pages.

>I've never bought something because I saw an ad.
Youre right goy. Keep on believing that.

> regulate
> independent programming
Fuck you bong, censorship plain and simple.

adblockers and script blockers master race here
anything less than add free is extra bandwidth (imblying i care) and protection from unwanted attacks

>muh add revenue
and people change the channel on their TV whats the difference if i just skip an add vs not having to see them

nothing that ad blockers do happens outside of my computer, it makes zero sense to regulate.

>It's not my fault that 99% of content produced on the internet is of so low value that people won't pay for it.

I Think you nailed it on the head, well done mate.

>adblockers and script blockers master race here
>anything less than add free is extra bandwidth (imblying i care) and protection from unwanted attacks

I have a DNS server that blocks any ad's being served network wide the device doesn't even need ad block on it, DNS Record master race

change AdBlock to uBlock Origin, now.

No, using Opera with its built-in ad blockers makes surfing mobile alot better in everyway.
It's faster, saves on your data plan and battery

who else here adblocks Sup Forums?

Except an increasing number of people, including myself, no longer visit any sites on which the ads become intrusive enough, so the traffic just stops anyway. Forbes, for example, is now a site I won't touch or link to in any way at all, when I used to quite often. And I encourage everyone else to do the same.

>or pirating something
There is literally nothing wrong with "pirating". It's not even piracy, because piracy is theft and copying files is something that's physically impossible to name "theft" because you never took anything from anyone except "potential money" they thought they were entitled to, the fat, lazy shits.

>It'll probably amount to more money anyway. Your time is worth more than the tiny amount in ad revenue.
It absolutely does. Artists and musicians in particular have shown multiple times that people will pay for shit when it's something they actually like and it's worth paying for. But when you make grindhouse garbage video games, movies and tv shows, people will make use of them to fill time or escape their shitty lives, but they won't pay for that garbage.

Lol saved.

kys

It's really irrelevant because I'll use them anyway.

...

What about those pop-up ads on Android which disable you from using your web browser. You are browsing the internet, see a link that interests you and when you click on the link this aids ridden ad pops up, you press back, it redirects you back to the ad, you press back again, the same thing happens, and the only thing you are able to do is close the tab in your browser. Is there a fix for this shit?

You have to understand what Adblocking is.

It's a content filtering, it can filter undersiable ads, but it can also filter malicious phishing websites and ads that inject dangerous code and virus into your computer.

Think really carefully about that the next time you think something as basic for content filtering for security should be regulated.

Okay, Ivan. I don't know why you typed up that big thing considering I'm pro-adblocker. Piracy is degenerate.

Most diseases affect old people more. Anyway, you're right that there's no regulation on the quantity of ads, but there is regulation on what can be said in the ads.

Didn't used to be. Thank jewgle for this, who are literally in full swing global conquest mode. That company needs destroyed with extreme prejudice.

These morons seem to forget their annoying stupidity is exactly the reason adblockers came into being.

Gross.

>I think that adblockers are very morally dodgy

Fuck you, I've been on the net for two decades. I saw ads go from shitty little image banners that didn't hurt anything to shit that literally screams at you or plays some fly buzzing in the background, with pop ups all over the place. The amount of advertisements online today that don't give users a headache in some form or another is so minuscule as to be statistically non-existent, and any regulation placed on the use of ad-blockers for the sake of those "nice ads" makes exactly as much fucking sense as legislation supporting trannies and anyone that claims to be one of the plethora of made-up-bullshit-words to be a special snowflake.

Companies shit in their own bed by treating consumers disrespectfully. Fucking grow a pair and deal with the mess you made, don't force others to open their doors to you so you can shit in their beds too.

freedom=/= money

the richest people in the world were dictators and kings

>Intellectual Property
Ye best start believin' in Meme Magic Spells, Mr. Anderson
You're in one.

sideways vagina moot, pls. If it's [Adblocker's] not on -- it's not on.

>Piracy is degenerate.
Prove it. And while you're at it prove that the entirety of modern media isn't a giant pile of shit not worth paying for. It's like cable. Telecom companies want you to pay ridiculous prices so you can watch whatever one show you want to see when they say you can see it. Fuck that. If I download it, I don't need to pay an outrageous cable bill for 99.99999% garbage and can watch it whenever and as many times as I want, WITHOUT the hassle of all the DRM and ads bullshit corporations inevitably load you up with when you pay them. Paying for this shit is just asking for abuse. Fuck these assholes. How about you make something worth buying and I'll buy it. I have a pretty decent movie collection, but I'll download them also so I can keep the movies for archival purposes and not scratch them up. We live in the 21st century, but the rich cunts want 19th century robber baron policies to keep their income flowing. It's not going to happen and they need to fucking give it up or get the fuck out of the way of society.

They still are. They're just dishonest about it now. Anyone who's lived on this planet for more than 15 years should know the word "freedom" has hardly in the history of mankind been used honestly. Freedom tends to mean freedom for the person pontificating about it and slavery for everyone else.

The hilarious part is that if corporations weren't such annoying faggots about web advertising most people wouldn't bother with an ad blocker.

Simple, fast loading banners that don't take up too much space? Meh, who cares.

Full page popups with itty bitty close boxes. 5MB of tracking JavaScript. 20MB Flash animations. And on mobile popups which lead to app store apps (with no cancel option) and images designed to make it difficult to scroll further down without accidentally clicking the image and popping up the advertised web site.

FUCK. YOU. CORPORATE.

Both are right answers.

/thread

Some websites are literally blank unless you disable adblock.

The option is there, so why don't every website use it? Because people will rather stop visiting it than watch endless streams of annoying ads.

I remember back then, when ads used to be just a static picture or simple text placed somewhere on the top of the page. Then popup windows, then flash and now you have those retarded fullscreen popup videos that are loud and lag the shit out of your computer. Not even gonna get into the whole tracking bussiness...

>Anyone who's lived on this planet for more than 15 years should know the word "freedom" has hardly in the history of mankind been used honestly.
Did you know that every man, woman, and child on God's green earth is absolutely free?
You may not like your options, but you're free to choose from them.
You choose to live in cowardice.

This was the "Protection from Tyranny" spell that the Founding Fathers and company placed on their subjects, and the spell spread quickly among the citizens, leading to the American Revolution.

Freedom is not a meme. Authority is.

>A diarrhea stream of propaganda
Get the fuck out of here, weirdo.

When all ads are unobtrusive like Sup Forums's jpgs and gifs with links, I'll consider not using adblock.
As long as there are shit ads like the one's in Sup Forums's archive, that shit is staying on. Seriously, turn off adblock for a bit and go to any thread in boards.Sup Forums.org/pol/archive
There are some ads that will even redirect you to another page automatically.

Warning: Failure to acknowledge your freedom can be hazardous to your health.

It figures that a brit would think the government having control over what they can install on their computer is a normal thing for governments to do.

Don't like them? Don't use them.

If companies want ad revenue, they cannot make offensive, retarded, poorly-targeted ads which serve only to annoy me. It isn't like they don't get paid for the traffic, the company paying for the ad doesn't get to their target market. Which wouldn't have had any effect on me anyway.

Boohoo, advertisingcucks can't make millions of shekels pretending that they can increase a company's profits.

I'm not morally obligated to display images and run code that another computer seem sends me

Good goyim. Delete your adblocker. Click on those ads. What could possibly go wrong?

cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-google-ads/#!
theverge.com/2014/9/19/6537511/google-ad-network-exposed-millions-of-computers-to-malware

Who gives a fuck about safety when you can be moral, right?

I am not blocking the ad, I am declining to request it in the first place and I am not obligated to request it at all

>not blocking ads and pirating as much shit as humanly possible
>moral
Kek. U funny, Russia.

This.
Web is a pull medium, you never block anything, you just select what you want to download.
Or are screen readers for blind people which skip downloading images also unethical?

good luck with your ransomware

by basically culling them by the ad companies by allowing them to let through non-intrusive ads, ad block is trying to do this right now