Is blocking www ads theft ?

[cyberianpan]

Many websites serve ads to us - many of these websites depend partly or wholly on ad revenue. Indeed some fabulous websites - e.g. Google - have been borne of ad revenue

Personally I have grave ethical concerns about using ******************************************ers (e.g. ******************************************er ). I think this is certainly denying the website owner of any display advertising revenue and potentially some clickstream revenue

Personally I rarely click on ads (usually only as part of a Google search as knowing that someone had the means/balls to pay for it, means their product is likely good) - but I think that is beside the point

In a nutshell : is ad blocking theft [SIZE=1]*[/SIZE] ?

cYp
[SIZE=1]* now recently I've had to block p.ie ads as my PC was smoking , see here[/SIZE]

[toxic avenger]

No. Clicking on them as a returned favour to the site owner is good, but it shouldn't be compulsory. There is no moral code broken, there is nothing 'stolen'.

[Baron von Biffo]

In a nutshell : is ad blocking theft? cYp

Only to the extent that going for a slash during the ad's on telly is theft.

[merle haggard]

Many websites serve ads to us - many of these websites depend partly or wholly on ad revenue. Indeed some fabulous websites - e.g. Google - have been borne of ad revenue

Personally I have grave ethical concerns about using ******************************************ers (e.g. ******************************************er ). I think this is certainly denying the website owner of any display advertising revenue and potentially some clickstream revenue

Personally I rarely click on ads (usually only as part of a Google search as knowing that someone had the means/balls to pay for it, means their product is likely good) - but I think that is beside the point

In a nutshell : is ad blocking theft ?

cYp

im curious to know whether or not you also avoid stepping on cracks in the footpath and believe masturbation may well make you go blind and thence onto purgatory .
Theft is taking something that does not belong to you , not looking at something because its annoying is not theft by any stretch of the imagination . Thats like saying switching to another channel or making a cup of tea during an ad break on telvision is theft .

you really have little to be concerned about . I envy you..not really

[Red Boyneside]

Couldn't go back to browsing without ******************************************ers tbh.

[cyberianpan]

No. Clicking on them as a returned favour to the site owner is good, but it shouldn't be compulsory. There is no moral code broken, there is nothing 'stolen'.

I'm not so sure - I think if the site owner is serving you content and ads ... that there is an implicit contract that you take the good with the bad

Certainly as you say there is no obligation to click on them , indeed clicking on them as a "favour" to the site owner is unethical as it defrauds the advertiser (hence Google working with certain advertisers and paying according to conversions)

Of course there is a utilitarian argument that if we all used ****************************************** we'd all suffer - whereas at the moment those who don't suffer most ?

cYp

[Colonel Kurtz]

Couldn't go back to browsing without ******************************************ers tbh.

me neither - It's my screen. I decide what I want on it.

Those who seem to treat it like a TV and 'push' ads at me have missed the point. I use noscript not ******************************************er btw

[stringjack]

Of course there is a utilitarian argument that if we all used ****************************************** we'd all suffer - whereas at the moment those who don't suffer most ?

That looks like a fair play argument, rather than a utilitarian argument.

[cyberianpan]

That looks like a fair play argument, rather than a utilitarian argument.

It is - but the undelying argument is utilitarian ( that the system relies on a sufficient number to accept ads to work)

cYp

[toxic avenger]

I'm not so sure - I think if the site owner is serving you content and ads ... that there is an implicit contract that you take the good with the bad

Certainly as you say there is no obligation to click on them , indeed clicking on them as a "favour" to the site owner is unethical as it defrauds the advertiser (hence Google working with certain advertisers and paying according to conversions)

Of course there is a utilitarian argument that if we all used ****************************************** we'd all suffer - whereas at the moment those who don't suffer most ?

cYp

No, there is no contract, implicit or otherwise. Your visiting the site provides a boost to the numbers that make it an attractive proposition for advertisers in the first place. Contributing material to the site that gets it noticed, or becomes a talking point, or adds numbers to the unique or returning visitors, more than fulfills any perceived obligation.

As to 'defrauding' the advertisers, I doubt that, and, even if true, the ads they produce are often acts of fraud themselves, distorting or 'spinning' the value of the product for sale. I doubt anyone on either side, advertiser or viewer, is under any illusion or loses too much sleep worrying about either their own ethics or the ethics of the other.

Ultimately it is no different from fast forwarding the ads on Sky Plus, we all do it, the advertisers themselves probably do it in their own homes.