Log in

No account? Create an account
05 July 2015 @ 06:15 am
Block that ad  
Remarkably enough, advertisers find adblocking immoral. Here's an article claiming that it's like speeding. Actually, it's like telling a pick-up-artist that he doesn't have a right to sex with you.

Thanx to Metafilter
Mari Nessmariness on July 5th, 2015 12:51 pm (UTC)
I avoided using an ad filter for years. And I'd be willing to turn the current one off except for one problem: several webpages contain so many ads, all using Flash or something similar, that they would either crash my browser or my computer. We're not talking just slowing down here: we're talking the computer freezing up and/or crashing. I lost work because of this.

From my end, I had two solutions: attempt to use a laptop with additional memory, which in my experience leads to a laptop that runs so hot - no matter what I do - that the keyboard keys pop off and I run through the laptop in about six months - or install an ad blocker.

Having said that, this is not just a webpage issue. I don't have an ad blocker installed on my Samsung Galaxy tablet, since that tablet isn't running Windows and therefore isn't trying to do the seemingly impossible of running Windows AND multiple ads at once. That does make loading several pages slow, but slow I can tolerate. It's crashing the computer, or freezing my screen for fifteen minutes, all of which happened pre ad blocker, that was the problem.

Which is to say, for me to uninstall the adblocker requires tech steps from people who aren't cooperating: Microsoft, people designing laptops, and webpage designers, which makes it slightly more complex than the speeding metaphor this guy is using. I can't afford to keep buying two laptops per year, and honestly, from an environmental/social factor, the planet can't really afford to have me do that either.
Experiencing Technical Difficulties: Danielresonant on July 5th, 2015 02:53 pm (UTC)
I agree with you. I'm not running an adblocker, but I am using NoScript, which does the same thing. Not because of the ads themselves, but to keep my browser from freezing and crashing after my memory usage spikes due to an ad.
Mari Nessmariness on July 5th, 2015 03:06 pm (UTC)
Which does put this somewhat back on the webpages themselves. An ad that isn't using Flash is fine. Two ads are fine. It's when you get to more than two, with Flash, that problems arise - for instance, on this webpage, which apparently has three.

Which brings up a related problem - I have a paid account on LJ, so I shouldn't be seeing any ads, Ad Blocker or not. And my LJ shouldn't be showing any ads, Ad Blocker or not. Not only does Lj regularly sign me out, so that it can attempt to get ad views, but it's trying to slip in ads anyway - and this is not just an Lj problem. Other sites do this all the time as well.

I want to pay for content. I don't want to block ads - I fully get that's what funds websites. BUT, squawking at users who installed ad blockers only after their computers kept crashing seems to be aiming at the wrong targets.
blue shark of friendliness: cpuckd on July 5th, 2015 05:58 pm (UTC)
I have Flash either disabled (Safari) or set to click-to-play only (Chrome). That seems to cut down the number of annoying CPU-eating ads significantly, and still lets through the more benign ones.

I'm also using Google Contributor to cut down the ad load a little bit for a few dollars a month. (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on Contributor or ads.)
The Weasel King: pic#32302970theweaselking on July 6th, 2015 04:53 pm (UTC)
Also, ads are *the largest* source of malware infections. There's no such thing as a trustworthy ad delivery company for the same reasons there's no such thing as a trustworthy spammer, telemarketer, or 419 user: their business model *necessarily* requires and involves deceiving a victim, you, into giving them money.

Meaning, by putting third-party-sourced ads on your web page, you're providing malware vendors a chance to driveby your readers, and providing your readers with a dangerous place on your site that, if they click by accident, will definitely try to sell them something and will almost certainly attempt to infect their machine.

Ads are bad, because web advertisers are bad people, because if they weren't bad people they'd be bad at web advertising.

Browsers that display ads of any sort, ever, are broken, because ads are malicious anti-content.
sturgeonslawyer: Defaultsturgeonslawyer on July 5th, 2015 04:12 pm (UTC)
H'mmmm. It seems to me that the advertisers are paying for the content I read/view, and it hurts me not to have a NON OBNOXIOUS ad alongside it. Ads that cover the text, or move and talk, are obnoxious.
Kalimac: puzzlekalimac on July 5th, 2015 06:57 pm (UTC)
If we're going to use a traffic metaphor, ads are like traffic jams. They take up memory, they crash the browser, they pop up and glare in your way. If ads consisted only of still banner pictures on top or at the side of pages, I'd never have bothered to install an ad-blocker. Glaring distracting movements, sound, and pop-ups are what made me an ad-blocker. Advertisers should blame themselves for over-reaching.
Avram Grumer: Post-It Portraitagrumer on July 6th, 2015 01:46 am (UTC)
Wait, what the fuck? That article says:
Later this year, Apple’s iOS 9 and OS X 10.11 will enable developers to add extensions that will block ads in Safari (and – some think – other apps that use Safari’s webview).
…but Safari has had that capability for years; Safari has supported extensions since 2010, and I’m pretty sure AdBlock was ported over that same year. The Guardian article is about Apple bundling in a native ad-blocking capability.