I Oppose Ad Blocking - My Opinion

Discussion in 'iOS 9' started by CheMillan, Sep 22, 2015.

  1. CheMillan macrumors member


    Jan 5, 2015
    Los Angeles
    I’m not a publisher, an advertiser, a journalist, or a website owner or manager. I’m just an average internet user. When I first learned about ad blocking in iOS 9 I was excited but after the excitement wore off I had a reality check moment. I thought about the consequences of blocking ads and what it could do to free online content and websites that do not deserve to be blocked if ad blocking goes mainstream and adapted by everyone. We all hate intrusive, tracking ads but it’s a small price to pay in exchange for keeping the internet free and open with content we enjoy reading and watching when we visit our favorite websites everyday. I do not have nor do I plan to install any ad blocking apps on my iPhone, iMac, or MacBook Pro. Ad blocking will hurt everyone in the long run and it will have a bad domino effect. You know the old saying, "For Every Action There's a Reaction." By blocking ads we will contribute to the slow demise of websites and the internet by jumping on the mob mentality bandwagon. We all deserve a safe and annoyance-free browsing experience but this is not the way to do it, with brute force using a blunt instrument. I agree with Marco Arment and his decision. Lets keep our favorite websites such as this one open for business. I welcome your comments.
  2. b0fh666 macrumors 6502a


    Oct 12, 2012
    don't do it then... I myself have been ad blocking since forever, think changing hosts file to point to days :)
  3. JM macrumors 6502a


    Nov 23, 2014
    I disagree. While it will hurt web publishers in the short term, it will force them to create more creative advertising delivery systems. 9to5 Mac has "sponsored" articles that focus on one product. They also had an interesting article a few months ago after the ad blocking announcement with iOS 9. They asked people to think twice about blocking their site because it might cause them to charge access I'm the future, but they said until then (which they never want to do) they are coming up with better ways to deliver advertisements (such as the sponsored content).

    Here's the thing... People will adapt too if the web isn't "free" anymore. It could be argued that the web is the Freemium model and we all hate the Freemium model, right? (Not everyone of course, but hopefully my point is understandable.) a website doesn't have to offer free content, and if they charge an access fee, well then some will pay and some won't.

    Ads on-line are ridiculous, intrusive, tracking, bandwidth "stealing", device slowing, unwanted blights on the web and Apple has taken a welcome stance on them. (Please let them take a stance on Freemium only models)
  4. yanki01 macrumors 68040


    Feb 28, 2009
  5. JM macrumors 6502a


    Nov 23, 2014
    Hit reply button....

    Continuing: I get that the Freemium model is the most lucrative for games, and that ad-supported model is lucrative for website publishers, but surely there is a better way to deliver advertisements to people than the current state of the web.

    I think necessity produces creativity. Necessity to make money to continue publishing = creativity in delivering thoughtful advertisements.
  6. JM macrumors 6502a


    Nov 23, 2014
    Another thing.... Use Ghostery and see how many trackers are placed on our computers and devices.... Trackers can die a fiery death.
  7. throAU macrumors 603


    Feb 13, 2012
    Perth, Western Australia
    Ads don't normally bother me, but recently i can barely browse anywhere linked off Facebook or whatever without pages trying to divert me off to the app store to try and get me to install some crappy app.

    Screw that, and screw anyone who treats their audience that way.

    Ad blocking in mobile safari is long over due.
  8. zorinlynx macrumors 603


    May 31, 2007
    Florida, USA
    If ads weren't obnoxious and didn't slow down my device and make web pages take three times longer to load, then I wouldn't mind them and wouldn't use an ad blocker.

    The improvement in browsing when I turned on Safari Blocker was mind blowing. It was like having a new phone. Also, the lack of popups that I have to dismiss has made it a far more wonderful experience to simply browse around.

    The only reason I use an ad blocker is because ads make web browsing such a horrendous experience at times. If they were simple banner ads that didn't slow everything to hell, it wouldn't even be an issue.
  9. dfgddikf macrumors regular

    Sep 10, 2015
    If a website doesn't deserve to be adblocked, I whitelist it.
  10. Z3man macrumors 6502a

    Feb 19, 2012
    The only reason i use adblock on this site is to get rid of those extremely annoying red up and down arrows on the bottom right of the screen, even if they made them a bit less intrusive i would turn adblock off, but they are way over the top, on some sites you don't even notice them, but on here it's the only thing i notice.

    This is all assuming they haven't been changed recently, i have been running adblock on here since they introduced them, so i wouldn't know if anything has changed.
  11. Jessica Lares macrumors G3

    Jessica Lares

    Oct 31, 2009
    Near Dallas, Texas, USA
    Honestly, I don't care about ad tracking. But I don't care about viewing public records, the latest "health" tip with the distasteful pictures, or refinancing either.

    And I don't like that those ads are not only on almost every major website, but plastered everywhere on them.

    These companies wouldn't be able to buy TV, radio, magazine, or newspaper ads, so why are these same outlets that control that policy allowing them space on their website?
  12. Ladybug macrumors 68000


    Apr 13, 2006
    I disagree OP. I can remember the internet before we became saturated with ads and all the tracking. These same publishers were in business then too. The web has become so saturated with ads that they take over your device in many instances, use up all your data, and track you like you're the prey. We arent given a choice or even told when we enter a web site that there are now 66 trackers attatched to it and we have just become their next meal ticket. Most people today just think this is normal.

    Imagine going to the grocery store and having someone jump out in front of your cart every 3 steps in the store holding a big sign in front of you blocking your way. So now instead of a just a quick trip to the store we just wasted 2 hours trying to make it to the register and now they all follow me home.

    These same publishers have no respect for their audience and have left us with no choice. Mostly I just dont visit those web sites anymore so in my book they lost me a long time ago. There are a few web sites I visit frequently such as Macrumors that I whitelist, but I dont feel i owe the loss of my privacy or time to any web site that only sees dollar signs if I happen to stumble in.

    Most of those sites have taken it too far and people are angry about it. They collect the money and what do we get in return? If they need to rethink how to stay afloat after abusing their readers then so be it. They can shut the doors and keep me out for blocking them if they choose, that is their right, but I will not unblock their ads.
  13. Mac2me, Sep 22, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2015

    Mac2me macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2015
    I have gone to websites that I have to click off of because the ads are so omnipresent and obnoxious. Constantly bringing the page up to them or graying out the screen so you can't see anything else unless of course you are forced to close them by trying to click on the little bity x they've placed (many times so small that you end up launching their ad instead). I don't want to experience any of that. If you want to run a website and provide me with that experience, I simply will check the website source before I click on an article and just not go there. To me it's the website owner who has the responsibility to allow or not allow disruptive advertising on their site. And if they don't get my eyes on their pages, well I look at it as their fault.

    I'm also finding websites that seem to think I can no longer read and want to run video as soon as I log on without my permission to do so. I don't want unknown sources of videos playing on my devices. Don't like the idea of my device being commanded to auto play. Most of the time I'm in a quiet mode reading when suddenly their videos blast sound. I can read just fine and should be given the option of clicking play or not. I'm finding CNN and AOL's Huffington doing this forced auto play on their news stories a lot. You can always find similar stories carried on non-offending websites. So I intentionally don't go to these site any more if I can help it.

    From what I understand Marco Arment who designed and then pulled one of the most popular ad blocking apps after getting 2 days of super exposure in the news, did so because the discrete ads he runs on his site or an associate's were being blocked as well. Imagine that wouldn't sit well with that ad company he had no intention of blocking. However in my mind that's not the problem. I'm ok with simple, non-intrusive ads being on a page. If a page doesn't load quickly and it's due to an ad, I give the page a certain amount of time and otherwise if I'm clicking off that site. Clicking off before reading has been happening more lately as advertisers and ad designers feel their purpose in life is to hold you hostage and throw all their bells and whistles at you. Personally I would never buy a product advertised in such a manner and would make a point of remembering who that advertising client is. I think the key is making the website owner responsible for the type of ads they allow, after all they are permitting them to be there in the first place to generate money from them for their own purposes. And Advertising clients should be ultimately responsible for what "kinds" of ads they are willing to run, beyond the content. Suppose someone could start a Review service of websites and client companies and rate their ad placements. If the user could then "blacklist" those sites during browsing, I bet we'd see the face of intrusive advertising on the internet change.

    After the news came out about the large numbers of adopters of the ad blocking apps on Apple Apps, CNBC had an interview with a website publisher, can't recall his company or his name, but he basically said that he was considering this (popular ad blocking) all out war, and said there were already companies or products out there that could defeat ad blocking apps and they would use them. Guess he feels the right to degrade our internet experience at all costs. As one of the CNBC commentators said that day he feels this ad blocking has all come about because of the ways ads were being presented. And I agree.

    It's still up to the user to stay on that site or not.
  14. 0007776 Suspended


    Jul 11, 2006
    Any negative effects from it is something that website owners brought on themselves when they allowed really annoying ads onto their sites. If you keep the advertising unobtrusive I don't mind seeing it, but when an ad starts blocking content or worse starts playing sound I'm going to use adblock on your site. Also a lot of ads just look like scams even if they turnout to be for legitimate companies.
  15. Rhonindk macrumors 68040


    I agree with the OP in most - however, I would be in agreement with selective ad blocking. There are a number of ads I find to be beneficial and have used or at least looked. Then there are the others.... ugh. IMO selective ad blocking (allowing you to pick/choose) would drive change even faster than a black/white block strategy. :cool:
  16. JM macrumors 6502a


    Nov 23, 2014
    I wonder if Apple will reverse course regarding ad blocking allowances....
  17. 0007776 Suspended


    Jul 11, 2006
    I doubt it, they don't make their money off of ads.
  18. C DM macrumors Sandy Bridge

    Oct 17, 2011
    They do have an ad network that has clients that they are liable to support essentially.
  19. gordon1234 macrumors 6502a

    Jun 23, 2010
    Apple's iAd program applies only to in-app ads, which are unaffected by this. If anything, it will make Apple's ad program more attractive.
  20. andyw715 macrumors 6502a

    Oct 25, 2013
    The most used button on my TiVo remote is the 30 second skip. Ads can die.
  21. emilioestevez Suspended


    Aug 25, 2015
  22. Zwhaler macrumors 604


    Jun 10, 2006
    I don't like clicking ads because of the cookies and weird stuff it does to track you and log your data, and embed itself into the browser. Is there a difference between not clicking ads and installing ad blocker other than the amount of views the ad gets?
  23. Coupz macrumors regular

    Dec 24, 2013
    Your point has a true side. The other site is, that publishers don't care about things like do not track me from browsers. And Ad has taken a too big step in performance and data usage. Look at examples from Crystal.

    The other thing is, that it's not the worlds end when iOS have this ability. You can block ads on PC and Mac since years and on android too.

    And the "average" iPhone user will not even notice that safari can have ad blockers too.
  24. Mac2me macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2015
    An interesting discussion during that CNBC interview period I mentioned above was it was mentioned that Apple users are the ones that spend more online based on past reports. So you can see where some might find it an issue if Apple users block ads.
  25. CTHarrryH macrumors 68000

    Jul 4, 2012
    I understand your concern but ads have gone too, too, too far. There are many site where there are more ads than content. All you read talks about how much money everyone is making well too bad. Sure there are little guys who will suffer and I feel sorry for them but I don't feel sorry for all the big companies that are trying to ruin the web experience.
    Also remember this is only for Safari - all those apps that you paid for still have plenty of ads that are almost worse.

    I'd pay for good content but not for a lot of the crap that exists with tons of ads

Share This Page