Adblocking Goes Mainstream - 2014 Report

I never buy anything because of advertising. I learned a long time ago that's a sucker's game. If I could block every single one I would and wouldn't feel the least regret.

 

There was a time before I discovered adblockers and I never even looked at the ads (other than subconsciously I guess, and thats scary enough) let alone bought anything. If I want to buy something I look for it - when I want. I dont need ads to buy stuff and don't want to be manipulated into doing so, so I have no problem blocking ads since the companies that advertise wouldn't make any money on me anyways.

 

I didn't mind about ads in the times when ads where ads, now the primary reason for "ads" are not ads but rather tracking, and when that started to become the primary objective, I changed my primary objective also : Blocking them, no exceptions.

Besides, what are the main effects of ads ? The advertiser doesn't pay the commisions, it's you, the customer that has to pay the price (once more). Good, and trusty products need no advertising to sell, the human mouth is and will always be the best sales technique.

It's too bad that also works against the regular guy that has to pay to get his word or website out, but unfortunately I cannot accept the ad-multinationals adding another "line-of-interest" to my user profiling database.

 

Thanks everyone for the responses.

@ pegas

I agree fully, I can't believe that the online advertising companies have still not been able to figure this out. Just produce simple static banners and a lot of people would stop blocking ads. I believe non intrusive ads are just as effective as the flashy and annoying ones. Like on this site: http://officesnapshots.com/

Tracking is indeed annoying, I wouldn't stop using tools like Ghostery for example. But I'm talking about visual ads.

 

It's not a question of them "figuring it out". They just refuse to accept it, primarily because they've managed to get their way everywhere else. On television for instance, they argued for the right to make their ads louder than the shows. Look at the fight over The Hopper. What they want is for ad-blocking to become illegal and won't settle for anything less. Like so many other things, it's a fight for control. They think the internet belongs to them and can't function without them. In reality, the opposite is true. They can't survive without the web. The web doesn't need them to survive. The biggest change would be that sites which offer nothing of value wouldn't survive. IMO, the result would be a better web with a lot less garbage.

I don't use a blocker that specifically targets ads or one that tries to define acceptable or whitelisted ads. It's all too reminiscent of the adware/spyware removers from about 10 years ago, and the battels over what what is acceptable, what constitutes spyware, and above all, who makes that decision. Adware removers being paid, bribed, coerced, and even threatened with legal action. Many had to cave in because they couldn't afford the fight. Others found the money too tempting and changed their detections. I opted for Request Policy with no default whitelist, which blocks all 3rd party connections. With RP, they can't buy, bribe, or threaten their way onto a whitelist.

Unfortunately, the 2 issues are inseparable unless the user initiates some serious control over javascript. A large percentage of those who block ads do so because of the trackers and spyware characteristics that are part of those ads. It's a lot easier to block ads outright than it is to filter javascript.

 

Yes correct, the whole ad system needs to be overhauled. At the moment I can't even white-list my favorite sites because most of them depend on Google Ads (Google Analytics). On top of that, the ads are often still animated and annoying.

It's kinda sad that the online advertising industry is destroying themselves, with all this tracking stuff and annoying (non static) ads. I think Google was quite smart to choose for text-only ads (disguised as search results), this system really works.

 

Either we're viewing completely different sites or the methods we each use to control javascript makes a difference. I block Google outright, ads, analytics, APIs, etc. They're blocked by name, IP ranges, and as 3rd party connections. So far the only site that I use that has issues with this is Stack Exchange.

All this aside, mainstream use of ad blockers isn't going to help when the browsers themselves are incorporating adware into their construction. The only answer there is to refuse to use those browsers.

 

I think you misunderstood, but what I was trying to say is that because most sites depend on the Google Analytics (and similar) ad/tracking systems, I can't white-list them. If I stop to use ABP, then Ghostery will still block it. On top of that I use a script-blocker for speed. It will only allow first party (and related scripts). So for me there is basically no way to stop blocking ads, that's what I meant with "the online ad system needs an overhaul".

 

BTW, I'm not sure what to think about this, it sounds a bit silly, I'm not willing to pay for this stuff. I have a better idea, stop with the tracking, and serve static visual ads.

https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
https://www.fairblocker.com/

 

I apparently did misunderstand. I took that to mean that the sites would become unavailable or non-functional if you didn't whitelist Google garbage. I suspect that we mean somewhat different things when we "whitelist sites".

 

No, I'm talking about disabling ad blocking on certain sites to support them, but with the current system that simply isn't possible. Like you and some other member said, ads and tracking are inseparable at the moment. This is something that those idiots need to figure out how to fix this. Because personally I think "normal" ads can be handy and informative, but they currently leave me no choice but to block them.

 

LOL, this guy must be joking:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ad-blocking-is-stealing,news-20962.html

And the makers of ABP are worried that Apple will cripple their ad blocking capabilities:

https://adblockplus.org/blog/conten...s-or-the-death-knell-of-ad-blocking-on-safari

 

Thanks for the funny reading. This guy Avram had to immensely hit in the head otherwise I don't have explanation for his outpouring.

 

Another anti-adblock company jumping on the wagon:

http://adexchanger.com/platforms/former-admeld-ceo-launches-sourcepoint-raises-10-million-series-a/

 

Article on The Economist about ad-blocking:

http://www.economist.com/news/busin...cking-ads-including-their-mobiles-block-shock

 

I just saw this on Wired, sorry guys but it's not my fault! The ad system should be fixed!

 

he sound like he's the boss. (and he's gonna decide fer us)

 

I don't know how people get by without blocking unwanted content. Some sites are okay but a lot them basically take over your browser.

 

Axel Springer SE once again lost it's case against ABP. According to the judge, ad-blocking is legal.

https://adblockplus.org/blog/axel-s...-in-unsuccessful-lawsuit-against-users-rights

 

and

I feel like I'm living in a different reality than these guys...

 

Honestly, I rather hope the average user doesn't use an ad blocker.

I think it's technically feasible for website operators to find ways to push ads and tracking that aren't so easy to circumvent. Currently we're able to choose to opt out of these, but an increasing proportion of adblock users simply means it'll force their hand sooner IMO. Alternatively we might find ourselves with a pay model that is not so easy to live with.

It's like cuts of meat: when everyone else started realising that lamb shanks were delicious and healthy, then the price went up for everyone.

 

I do not mind ADs to support a webpage or closing 5 popups to watch a movie for free, eventhough those ADs leads to malware webpages. but it is also about speed. I use flashblock, HTML5 disabler and Ghostery and the difference in loading speed is several seconds, that is more than noticeable.

 

I have to admit that I do hope that everyone start using an ad blocker, because I think that this "advertising model" for the internet must come to an end.

 

And then what in its place?

 

I doubt there's an explicit "right" to advertise (How did that even make it to court?). Even if there were, having a guaranteed "right" doesn't mean we have a guaranteed means to exercise that right. In the US, the press has a "right" to "free speech" but that doesn't obligate the government--or anyone else--to provide a venue for said speech.

Yet another example of how marketers don't know when to quit; if ads weren't so obnoxious, there may not even be adblockers.