[Previous entry: "amazon's conspiracy theory reviewer"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Guntron fire!"]
07/05/2006 Entry: "ad blocker listed on digg.com"
Ad blocker listed on digg.com I ran into this and thought, "I wonder whose host file they're going to link to," moused over the URL, and was surprised to see it was mine. It would have been nicer if they linked to the webpage instead of the hosts file itself. I'm afraid people are going to see some file and not be able to get any context on what it is or what it can do for them. I browsed the comments and read the usual list of complaints people like to repeat, which I will summarize and answer here:
1. Don't do this - its illegal or unethical. Who will pay for the web?
Considering the tiny percentage of web users who would even bother doing this, well, lets not pretend google will go bankrupt anytime soon over some ad blocking. I'd start worrying if my ISP started blocking these ad servers. Not to mention that those willing to completely block ads are probably not clicking them in the first place.
2. Why do this? Ads are just fine for me.
That's great, but they're distracting and annoying to me and many others. You say tomato...
3. There are better and bigger host files out there! Don't bother!
Sure, but that's pretty subjective. A larger file doesn't mean anything. I've seen some ad blocking hosts files which are multiple megabytes large. Usually copy and pasted from compilations like mine. They're chock full of servers which are long dead and list ad servers I've long removed because of technical issues. I made this list publically available since 1999 and have yet to ditch it, so it certainly works well for me.
4. This or that method is a better way to do this.
Please, go ahead and experiment. Find whats best for you. A hosts file with a simple installer is really as easy as it comes, imho.
Replies: 9 comments
Thanks for the Hosts file.. Saw your link on Digg.com (and yeah i agree it should have pointed to your page)..
Posted by Skip @ 07/05/2006 04:30 PM CST
Thanks for the Hosts file.. Saw your link on Digg.com (and yeah i agree it should have pointed to your page)..
Posted by Skip @ 07/05/2006 04:30 PM CST
In reference to #1:
Blocking ads may not affect Google or any other big content company, but it sure will affect and hurt the little guy. What you're effectively doing is making it harder for the small business that offers content for people to make money to sustain their service, which might mean eventually wiping them out. What we'll have left are the big Googles and Yahoos and Time Warners, and //less choice for us!//
A lot of smaller sites offer paid memberships that shut off the ads. In those cases, it //is// highly unethical to block their ads when they make it possible for you to turn them off while compensating them fairly for the content you enjoy.
Posted by Kyle Case @ 07/06/2006 04:55 PM CST
Kyle Case: oh do be quiet. If I don't want to look at your ads, I won't. Get over it.
Ethics? What hypocrisy.
Posted by Bobledman @ 07/06/2006 06:39 PM CST
Kyle Case: oh do be quiet. If I don't want to look at your ads, I won't. Get over it.
Ethics? What hypocrisy.
Posted by Bobledman @ 07/06/2006 06:40 PM CST
Kyle,
You are absolutely right. It is unethical to skip advertising. I didn't use to feel that way, you've made me see the light.
Thinking about it, this should apply to tv to! I'm going to have to get rid of my tivo. Skipping commercials is hurting the networks (content providers) because that is their source of revenue. Damn. No more channel surfing during commercials. No more getting up to get a drink during commercials. I'm going to hate getting up to pee just at the end of CSI, but by golly I don't wont steal from the content provider by missing out on the advertising!
With the spread of in show advertising, I can't get up then either! Oh no! The networks are broadcasting 24/7! I can't ever get up from the couch period! Before I can sit down and stop stealing from the networks I'm going to need to get a catheter and a really long hose.
Seriously thought. They provide content. They choose to have to it available to everyone to view and to support it by advertising. They can control what they put on their website, but I control what I gets dysplayed on my computer.
Posted by Adam @ 07/07/2006 07:27 AM CST
Kyle,
You are absolutely right. It is unethical to skip advertising. I didn't use to feel that way, you've made me see the light.
Thinking about it, this should apply to tv to! I'm going to have to get rid of my tivo. Skipping commercials is hurting the networks (content providers) because that is their source of revenue. Damn. No more channel surfing during commercials. No more getting up to get a drink during commercials. I'm going to hate getting up to pee just at the end of CSI, but by golly I don't wont steal from the content provider by missing out on the advertising!
Seriously thought. They provide content. They choose to have to it available to everyone to view and to support it by advertising. They can control what they put on their website, but I control what I gets dysplayed on my computer.
Posted by Adam @ 07/07/2006 07:30 AM CST
Man, what is it with all the double posts?
Posted by Jeffrey @ 07/10/2006 07:32 AM CST
Kyle, you are a moron. I pay $44 a month for my cable connection, $12 a month for my newsgroup service and I have donated plenty of money to the "little guy" over the years when I found a program or service that I felt DESERVED my hard-earned cash. You want to click the frigging stupid monkey? You want to have ads shoved down your throat every time you try to do a little shopping? Knock yourself out, pal!
I don't know what rock YOU crawled out from under but I remember the internet in its infancy... when I could search for something without needing ad-block, spyware-block, hijack-block, DOS-block and 3 antivirus programs running constantly lest I click a malicious link. If these are the "little men" that you speak of then SCREW THEM!
Kudos to you, lowbot!
Posted by Rat Man @ 07/19/2006 08:09 PM CST
