Techdirt. Stories filed under "adblock" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "adblock"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:32:44 PDT Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock-plus-google-play-store.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock-plus-google-play-store.shtml remove Adblock Plus from the Google Play store arguing that it interferes "with another service or product in an unauthorized manner." Obviously, some will argue that of course Google is doing this to protect its own ad revenue, but it still surprises me. Google's entire premise was built on the idea of building advertising that was non-intrusive and non-annoying such that it created value for people. The whole reason that Adblock exists is to fight back against bad advertising. On top of that, Adblock is a very popular tool, in part because it helps stop annoying advertising. If anything Adblock represents a useful way of exposing information about when and why people find advertising annoying.

As we've argued before, even though things like Adblock directly mean less revenue for us, we don't begrudge anyone for choosing to use it. To us, it's just a sign that we're not doing a good enough job delivering what our community wants in a manner they want it. That's useful. It sometimes puts us in a difficult position, because we have to deal with advertisers who only seem to want banner ads that our audience doesn't like. But we should never take that out on our community, but rather the responsibility is on us to seek out ways to convince advertisers and sponsors to work with us in ways that benefit everyone, rather than intrude or annoy our audience. On that front, we've always found Adblock to be a useful tool.

While Google may not view it totally that way, in the past, Google has generally taken the position that what's best for the user is something that it will support, even if it's not directly the most beneficial thing for Google. Instead, it took the longer term view that doing what's right for the consumer would mean that consumers would stick with them and trust them. But blocking AdBlock goes against that very concept. It's a short term move and one that the EFF (with whom we agree) sees as simply a bad move for Google.

Part of the appeal of the Google Play store is the lack of Apple iOS style walls and gates. Putting up those gates in a way that goes against user's own interests just seems like a bad long term decision.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> not-doing-its-reputation-any-good http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130315/15285222343 Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:03:00 PDT Once Again, Blocking Ads And Automating Clicks Isn't 'Stealing' Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0311086476.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0311086476.shtml block all Firefox users, claiming that too many of them use extensions like "AdBlock" and those people are "stealing" from the site. This is silly for a whole bunch of reasons. You don't need to monetize every single person who visits your site, and it's their computer. If they don't want to see ads on their computer, that's their decision. If your business model is something they don't appreciate, that's your problem, not their's. This issue has suddenly come up again, as Rose M. Welch alerts us to a blog post from a guy who threatens to start blocking Firefox users, claiming that using AdBlock is "practically like you are stealing from me."

Amusingly, in that same post, he argues that he never expects people to actually click on the ads from his site, but he relies on the revenue those ads bring in. So... let me get this straight. If people use AdBlock, they're stealing from you. But... if, instead, people come to your site and totally ignore the ads, but those advertisers have to pay you anyway, that's okay? Based on this guy's own logic, isn't he "practically stealing" from the advertisers? After all, he's granting them a service and then telling his readers to ignore the ads. Those advertisers rely on people buying stuff after clicking the ads, right? So, it's okay if people don't help out those advertisers, but if your own readers don't help you out by allowing the ads, it's theft? Yeah... okay.

Taking this concept to an even greater extreme, the EFF has stepped in on a legal dispute, where file hosting provider MediaFire is demanding Mozilla remove a plug-in that lets people skip the ad that MediaFire tries to show people before they can access the file they're trying to download. As the EFF notes:
It's my browser, and I can ignore your ads if I want to.
MediaFire's claims are like the people who claim that anyone using AdBlock is "stealing" from them and breaking their user agreement -- but as the EFF notes, there's no stealing of anything going on here, and the user agreement is never actually agreed to, and thus not particularly enforceable or even relevant.

So, once again, with feeling, it's worth reminding people that your business model is not sacred. You have no right to a business model, and if some technology comes along that undermines your business model, that shouldn't be illegal. It just means the market has changed, and it's time you change along with it. And yes, for those who ask, please feel free to use AdBlock on this site if you want to. It's totally up to you, of course. You don't need my permission.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> explaining-it-nicely http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091009/0311086476 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:24:30 PDT Don't Blame Rick752 For Blocking Ads; Blame Those Who Made Ads Annoying Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080626/0055131522.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080626/0055131522.shtml profiling the semi-anonymous Rick752, a mid-50s guy in upstate NY who puts together and maintains EasyList, an extremely popular list that powers the popular AdBlock Firefox extension. Basically, (for the 12 of you who don't know) it lets people surf without seeing advertisements. And, of course, this pisses people off, unreasonably. The article is full of examples of sites either trying to block AdBlock or begging people not to use it, along with quotes from people whining about how if ads are blocked there will be less content online.

Hogwash.

If the banner ads are bad content, then something like AdBlock and EasyList are simply a way of letting sites and advertisers know that the ads are not effective at all, but are annoying. That should be exactly what the advertisers and the sites want to hear, because that's the only way that they'll learn to make their advertising better. And the way you do that is by no longer thinking of them as ads, but recognizing that ads need to be good content.

I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that interference with a business model is either a crime or unethical. In reality, it's simply a market changing, usually for the better. In fact, it's usually a sign of what customers really want and how to offer it to them most efficiently. That's all that AdBlock and EasyList are doing. They're letting advertisers and sites know that current ads just aren't effective. Rather than whining about it, it's the responsibility of publishers and companies to come up with business models that don't annoy users, but give them something of value. AdBlock and EasyList are just communicating that message back to them. Those that complain about it are basically just saying that they're too lazy to come up with a better business model.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> get-over-it http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080626/0055131522