Why Block the Fox?

So earlier today I came across this link on digg pointing to a site called whyfirefoxisblocked.com. It seems that this guy who owns a bunch of sites decided to block firefox users from his sites and instead redirect them to this domain where he explains his reasons for doing so.

Now before analyzing his reasons, let me first say that as a site owner, you have the right to block whomever you want. As a web user, you also have the right to view or not view what you want. If I wanted to surf the web with cookies disabled, I can. If I want to turn off javascript or images, I can do that too. I can even view your web site using colors I specify in my browser settings instead of using your site's stylesheet. As a user, we are under NO obligation to view your web site the way you want us too. We may not have flash installed, so we won't see flash components of your site. As a site owner you can choose to accept this or deny us access. Do so at your own discretion and in some cases, own risk.

Now, this guy has taken his reasoning to a new extreme. He's under the delusion that if you go to his site you are under the obligation to view the ads on his site.
"Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers."

WRONG!
While web site owners have the right to display ads on their sites, web site users are under no obligation to view them. Ever heard of text based browsers or the afore-mentioned surfing with javascript turned off. You can block me for not having javascript turned on if you want, but I have no obligations to view your ads. NONE!

This perception is flawed for another reason. Someone who is using an ad-blocker is a person who would not be clicking on your ad to begin with. Heck, I could care less about ads. I just ignore them and read the content. I've trained myself to just see the content and not look at the ads, does that mean I'm infringing your rights too? The people who display these ads only get money when the ads are clicked, so if I view the site and don't click on ads, too bad. If I use an ad-blocker, oh well. Funny thing is, I use Firefox. One might say I'm a firefox evangelist, zealot even. I don't use adblock because I don't feel the need to. I've done nothing wrong but you would choose to block me, a potential ad-clicker, just because I MIGHT be blocking ads?

Someone in the digg comments mentioned that there's ad blocking software for IE 7 as well. Does that mean he's going to block that browser now too?

"Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads."

If the content is that good, then charge for it, or a version of it that is ad-free. If it's good enough, people will pay.

The web exists as a medium to share information. It's been used to make money by selling services but some folks think that just because they put up a site or a blog, someone has to pay them. I'm sorry Grasshopper, but the world wide web don't owe you a living. Create something of value that people want to pay you for and you'll get your check.

"Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing."

WRONG AGAIN!
If you have ads along side the content, we are not stealing the content if I don't click on your ads. If you are so dependent on the ads being there, then don't display the content for free! As users we have signed no contracts legally binding us into any agreement with you saying that we will view/click your ads. Putting something in your site's TOS doesn't hold me liable either. I can't be liable for a contract I did not agree too.

"Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software."

Well boo-fucking-hoo for them. It's not our fault that they thought all they needed to do was throw up a few pages of intellectual masturbation* and some ads then sit back and watch the money come flying in. It don't work like that.

Of course, All I need to do is change my user-agent string to one that is "allowed" to view such a site, and there'd be no problem for me. Of course, if someone is going to make me jump through hoops to view their site, then they have nothing on their site I want to see.

"Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.."

So, I own a store and over time I notice in my stats that 75% of people coming into my store are wearing blue shirts, 10% wear red shirts, 10% wear black shirts and only 5% wear brown shirts. Of that 5% wearing brown shirts, only 40% of them actually spend money in my store. So I stand outside my store and allow only the other 95% of non-brown-shirt-wearing people into my store. If someone has a brown shirt on, it doesn't matter what their intention is, they are not allowed to go into my store until they change to a blue shirt. I explain to them that because people wearing that color shirt don't spend as much money in my store as blue-shirt-wearers, it's like they're stealing from me if they come in. How does that logic grab ya?

Some people are just too stupid to be on the web.


* - intellectual masturbation is a term I first heard from a co-worker to describe how people try to make their arguments sound right by using big words or sounding intelligent when really all they're doing is jerking you off while trying not to sound dumb.