I saw this posted on digg, had to get my 2 cents in.
Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal
Why we have ad-blockers
I never had much of a problem with ads before. When a site kept it to a minimum, a banner up top, maybe on the bottom too, some ads on the side, it was all fine and good. It didn't interfere with the content and at most all you had to do was scroll a little. Then advertisers started coming up with ways to fool people by making their ads look like Windows dialog boxes telling you that your computer needs an upgrade or you have a virus. That was shady and dishonest and it would get clicks from more of the gullible users out there.
We also started seeing the really annoying flashing multi-colored ads. Then there were "hit the monkey", "shoot the [insertanimalhere]", and flash ads that try to act more like games to get clicks. Now we have video ads, ads with audio, and my favorite, the ones that expand to cover the page if you mouse over them. UGH! Then there's ads that sit in the middle of the content or css-styled ads that cover the content. And of course the keyword ads that will highlight or double-underline words in the text to look like links, but they're really ads.
These ad-networks all add a ton of cookies to my browser as well. Every browser has cookie-blocking capabilities, and I as a user should be allowed to block or delete any cookies from any site.
When they use tactics that interfere with a user's web experience or attempt to deceive a user, they're going too far. The whole reason ad-blockers exist is because of those kinds of ads.
The "logic" behind possible legal action
So let's say Joe Shmoe has a website. It's a popular site about electronics and gets a lot of traffic from all kinds of people. He supports his site through advertising which includes banner ads, box ads and probably some text ads from google. I arrive at his site, read some articles and leave. I click on no ads. End of story. My friend Bob goes to the same site and has an ad-blocker installed. He reads the same articles and sees no ads, eventually leaves the site.
What is the difference between these 2 experiences? When I visited the site, the ads registered an impression, or one view by a user. It probably set a bunch of cookies too. I have trained myself to just ignore ads on the page and go right for the content, but sometimes they're just so annoying. When Bob viewed the same site, he probably did not register an impression or have any cookies set. Either way, the owner of the web site made no money through ad revenue on either user.
The reality is, someone who uses an ad-blocker is not someone that would click on your ads in the first place.
NY Times article on the topic. (login required, go to bugmenot.com)
2 comments:
My gripe isn't with individuals who decide to block ads or not to click on them. I agree that pop up ads are nasty vermin. However, I do disagree with a page being reconfigured without the ads that the web designer placed there especially when that decision is not made by the end user. Example, a university nearby has many of the readers of my blog enrolled there. Any student accessing the blog from a school computer would be able to read my blog, but not be given the opportunity to help support it by clicking on one of the ads. It is sort of like junk mail. I want the right to throw it away, I don't want the mail man to not deliver it.
Nice post as for me. I'd like to read more concerning that topic. The only thing your blog needs is a few pictures of any devices.
Kate Flouee
Cell phone jammer
Post a Comment