Digital.Complex: Sites blocking Firefox? - Digital.Complex

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Sites blocking Firefox? what a stupid idea Rate Topic: ***** 1 Votes

#1 User is offline   aotsukisho 

  • D.C Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Owner
  • Posts: 2,521
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 20 August 2007 - 07:40 PM

whyfirefoxisblocked.com

Read it first, then form your own opinion...






Personally, I think that's a bunch of rubbish. One of the links at the top goes to firefoxmyths.com, and among those myths are that Firefox has 25% of the market share. On that site, it pretty much proves that the 25% is an inflated number. So what's the big deal? It's not like EVERYONE is blocking ads from EVERY site. Anything and everything on the www is public domain, why complain when people block what they don't want to see? The people who don't use Adblock are the very people who click on ads when they're interested. The savvy net user will realize that more often than not, ads are just a waste of web browser real estate, especially those rediculous brightly colored headache-inducing flashing ones.

Another thing is those people who make the ads... everyone hates telemarketers, but why are they still around? Because people actually buy stuff from them. That's the thing about advertising... you'll always get some people interested, no matter how much you're hated. Because of this, net advertising will always provide traffic and revenue no matter how many people block it. It's not like 100% of the world uses Firefox, and not even 100% of Firefox users use Adblock. Also, the website makes it clear that they dislike the fact that Adblock's developers don't allow websites to run a script to block just the Adblock users. I think that's a good job from the Adblock team, because if the complainers had their way, that would be descrimination. like in this paragraph:

Quote

While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus's unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative. 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..

That is not the 'only alternative'. 'Honest, hard-working' website owners will know a bit about how Adblock works, and develop a script that will be hard to block, or just implement ads that aren't irritating in the first place. So what if Firefox users are not big spenders...anyone can use IE and splurge, but everyone I know who uses Firefox has enough brains to research what they're going to buy first. It takes brains to use an alternate web browser, just like it takes brains to be frugal. If you're gonna write an article about why Firefox is so bad, be consistent. There's more:

Quote

Adblock effectively robs these free sites of their revenue. If Internet Explorer came with a feature such as Adblock, you would effectively wipe out thousands of websites, maybe more. These are the same free sites users of Adblock frequently visit. The irony is how this is self-defeating.

If a site I like has ads, I make sure I unblock their ads to support it. What's the point of google searching something, coming across a site that is either rubbish or no use to you at all, and giving them free money by having ads shoved in your face? The best sites I know don't complain if people block their ads, they focus instead on providing quality content like they should.

Quote

“[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner’s income from his original program, since “free” television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers.”

People fast-forwarded through commercials on their taped programs because the vast majority of commercials were stupid, irritating, and/or generally a waste of time. What they pretty much want seems to be a world where advertisers take complete control of your life, making sure you sit through and watch or see every single commercial, every single time. We live in a democracy, why are they so convinced in the dictatorship of forcing ads upon us? I don't remember hearing this sort of fuss when TiVo or the VCR's before it had commercial-skipping features?

Basically, my politically-incorrect opinion of this website is that some biased, bitchy fags with nothing better to do went out and tried to persuade others to think like them. For me, it was somewhat interesting to read, but without a strong enough argument to back them up, it's just propaganda. Bottom line is, running and maintaining a website costs money, ads are just there to offset the costs; not necessarily to negate them (and sometimes with profit).

This post has been edited by Vejida: 22 August 2007 - 01:13 PM
Reason for edit: I took out the link so that he doesnt get pageranked from google

0

#2 User is offline   Unyo-kun 

  • Wind Tranqulity Wavemaster (NPC)
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 270
  • Joined: 20-October 05

Posted 20 August 2007 - 11:55 PM

this site is made of fail and aids.

Posted Image
0

#3 User is offline   Joshua Pack 

  • Regular Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 21 August 2007 - 03:38 PM

I think it is for all of those stupid people who want page impressions for there ads. I NEVER click on ads. Is it because I do not want to support them, NO. is it because 100% of all ads are crap, YES. The reason why i use FF(not FX as they claim it to be) is because of the blocking of ads. A lot of the features I like about FF. the only problem i hate about FF is the Memory usage is way too high. Right now I have the same exact content and FF is 92MB of RAM and IE with the same stuff has 58MB of RAM. So clearly IE7 is a lot better. But The adblockplus is AWESOME, and the spell check is awesome!!! Those are the only two reason why i use it.

I think we have a right to block ads. Just like they have the right to block FF. I don't mind them blocking FF, because it doesnt hurt me, it hurts FF. I use both IE7 and FF2 all the time.


I just learned about IETab, yay, i like it!!!

this is related to this topic : http://www.adsensech...read.php?t=6624

now this is interesting!!!
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/23/real-...ed-advertising/
0

#4 User is offline   zetsumei 

  • Regular Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 197
  • Joined: 31-March 06

Posted 21 August 2007 - 10:23 PM

wtf are they talkin about? "boo hoo firefox is blocking my annoying ads now we cant bother people who visit our sites and now they wont click on my spyware ads boo hoo." good for them. i think that blocking firefox because it makes ur internet experience more comfortable is stupid. the only reason, i think, that they blocked firefox is because all the other internet browsers got together with the internet identity thieves and decided they wanted to take down mozilla. all because mozilla is better then all the rest and its preventing stupid ads from cluttering up sites. if i ever meet the person who started this firefox ban im gonna kick their ass XD. thats wat i think XP
0

#5 User is offline   aotsukisho 

  • D.C Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Owner
  • Posts: 2,521
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 21 August 2007 - 11:50 PM

Nice links Vejida, the forum posting you found is exactly why I'm pro-adblock...the only people who care about their ads being impressioned on everyone that visits their site aren't concentrating on content. AdemoS is the realist, he's full aware that content on websites is seldom unique, and that one blocking you access simply because of your choice of web browser will be less likely to be revisited and recommended, further impending traffic (or more importantly, advertisement impressions).

Also, that is one crappy ISP. I would understand if it was free, sort of like how Gmail works, but not if the subscribers have to pay. ISP must either not be getting enough profits from the service alone, or is getting paid a lot by the companies whose ads are being injected.

The memory usage is indeed high for Firefox, but I don't mind that... I have a lot of memory in my system (my Firefox is currently using nearly 110mb of ram). Also, IE's back/forward algorithms are crappy, if the page you want to go back to is in the cache, IE doesn't even bother checking the server to see if it's changed (dynamic pages especially). Firefox will check before it reloads, which as a web developer, I like.

I don't use IE, I hate it (especially the new one)...I use Avant, which is sort of like IE but reskinned and with more options so I can make it slightly less ghey. The only two reasons I use it are for Gmail (Gmail/its extension plus the SessionSaver extension I used back when I still had Firefox 1.0.x would often crash it) and for cross-browser testing. Now that I have Firefox 2.0, I don't really have a need to keep Gmail in Avant, but I do anyway out of habit.
0

#6 User is offline   Bass GS 

  • ??
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 673
  • Joined: 06-December 05

Posted 05 September 2007 - 09:55 AM

the newest internet explorer is ugly :( the old ones weren't that bad because they didn't have a million features that clutter up the window...
edit: look what I found on the official extension page : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/di...scussionID=3060

This post has been edited by Bass GS: 06 September 2007 - 10:37 AM

0

#7 User is offline   aotsukisho 

  • D.C Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Owner
  • Posts: 2,521
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:52 PM

and here's more on the subject: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node...090607dailynews

This is really stupid. Why do these 'webmasters' complain so much about the plugin, even going so far as to develop scripts to block Firefox, instead of just say 'well, can't please everyone' and continue with their content?
0

#8 User is offline   Enoesiw 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 19-July 07

Posted 02 October 2007 - 04:21 PM

Because it means that they lose out on a few pennies. What blows my mind is that they insist that people who use ad-blockers actually click on the ads. I mean, they say they're losing money because you're blocking their ads. The truth is, they don't get money unless you actually visit the ad's site, however, they're too blinded by greed to realize this. I also love how they insist that there's, as in that last article, an implied contract between the publisher and the consumer, where the consumer agrees to put up with ads because they're looking at the content. One thing about implications, it's not definite. If they wanna bitch about that they should at least have a page that you have to confirm that you'll look at the ads, but they don't so everything they do is in vain. (well it's already pretty vain, but you get the point.) If they really wanna complain about money they should get a real fkn job. If they have time to waste bitchin about people not looking at their ads, they have time to flip burgers at "Micky D's". (Yes I thought that last article was pathetic in regards to its attempts to appeal to your pathos.)
0

#9 User is offline   Bass GS 

  • ??
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 673
  • Joined: 06-December 05

Posted 03 October 2007 - 02:30 PM

I don't even get why they're so mad, it's not like everyone clicks on every single ad they see if it's unhidden? i ugess they have to have something to complain about.
0

#10 User is offline   aotsukisho 

  • D.C Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Owner
  • Posts: 2,521
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 03 October 2007 - 10:07 PM

lol yeah, the implied contract idea was hilarious.

If users have an implied contract to view ads in exchange for the information displayed, idiotic webmasters have an implied contract to stfu and go away. Forever.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users