Hello all,

In a way, though it is justified that ad-block plugin is taking a toll on revenues (irrespective of amount that is obtained), I guess, they need to present facts about how many Firefox users actually have Ad-block installed.

How many of them click on ads, otherwise?

The ratio of Firefox users to Internet Explorer (or other browsers)

The rights of a user to see his content? (Though this a very big moot point)

I'm a Mozilla Firefox user and haven't blocked ads - none of them.

Does it mean to say that the users do not have the freedom to block stuff that they do not want? I am a firefox user and I have not blocked any ads till now. But still, I have the right to block ads. If the other browers do not provide this feature to block ads, then it is a negative for those browsers.

And anyway, how many who dont really block ads, actually click on them?

On 8/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:

On 18-Aug-07, at 12:55 PM, Dinesh Joshi wrote:

...

take a look at this site: http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/

cool - i think firefox needs to do something so that only browsers with the addblock plugin on are given the boot

Gentlemen, I call bull. Do you not have a right to switch channels on TV

when they show ads? Are you forced to sit in a cinema hall when ads are shown? What would happen if somebody said that you would not be allowed to use a toll/non-toll road if you didn't stop and pay obeisance to each billboard?

This is trash. Adblock was created to help users keep a healthy interest in the internet, when things began to go out of hand with screaming, in-your-face, obnoxious ads that took up 75% of the screen's real estate and tripled download times. I block as many flash animations I can see, as well as ads.

I only spare text based google ads, and if everybody started to scale things down, adblock would not be required. As of now, I find it protects my right over the advertiser's, and I believe my right assumes primacy over theirs.

Why? Without adblock, I would have no choice but to view whatever they had decided to display, but they could always choose to make it minimal. It's sort of a mosquito net. And which businesses are bothered the most by it? Pesky insects from the doubleclick.net genus.

On 8/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:

TV != webpage cinema != webpage road != webpage

webpage different. Each medium is different. Each has it's own laws. Analogies do not work in the legal sphere.

Yes, webpage is different, but intrusive advertisements are the same as intrusive billboards, and there are laws against intrusive billboards. There are regulations against advertisement tickers taking too much space on a tv screen.

Talking of analogies, if adblock is deemed illegal, should we give the same treatment to pop-up blockers? How about adware removal software?

The issue here is greed. If you have good content, more people will visit your site, but if that content is hidden amongst a plethora of relevant and irrelevant ads, they may as well visit your cleaner competitor. If you have mediocre content, and try to stay in business solely by maximizing the number of ads you serve, you better take a re-look at your business model. This law works as well for newspapers and magazines.

Just as you pay money to watch tv or go to a movie, you also incur cost to use the internet in terms of bandwidth, equipment and time, although the website you use may provide free content.

However, there is no accounting for taste, and I prefer to be bothered by no more than a text based ad placed discretely, no matter what it says. If people prefer .SWFs scrolling all over prime real estate on the screen, let them disable adblock, or use Windows Internet Explorer (TM). But at least do not cast aspersions on a much-needed annoyance removal utility because your cloistered , cliché-ridden business model has been rendered redundant.

On 18-Aug-07, at 6:54 PM, Mohan Nayaka wrote:

Will setting general.useragent.extra.firefox to IE and using AdBlock do the trick?

i personally have never visited a site that 1. was useful to me 2. had irritating ads

That's quite a bit of cacophony over the issue. I tend to agree with Kenneth - don't equate the various media. Further, if you do object to a site's policies (whatever they may relate to), take your business elsewhere. To quote various others who have used this many contexts - Vote with your money! (or your eyeballs or whatever)

-gabin --

This too shall pass.

-----Original Message----- From: Nishit Dave stargazer.dave@gmail.com

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:30:10 To:"GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India" linuxers@mm.glug-bom.org Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] Firefox blocked?

On 8/19/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:

i personally have never visited a site that

1. was useful to me
2. had irritating ads

Ever visit www.irctc.co.in or www.moneycontrol.com?

--- Dinesh Shah wrote:

H!

On 8/19/07, Nishit Dave wrote:

...

Ever visit www.irctc.co.in or

www.moneycontrol.com?

I never have any problem with irctc.co.in. I am always able to book my tickets using firefox on GNU/Linux.

May be he was pointing to unobtrusive advertisements.

-- FSF of India Associate Fellow - http://www.gnu.org.in ubunturos @ freenode

Download prohibited? No problem. CHAT from any browser, without download. Go to http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php/

On 19-Aug-07, at 10:39 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

...

I never have any problem with irctc.co.in. I am always able to book my tickets using firefox on GNU/Linux.

He's referring to the insane number of ads on those sites, not usability.

we, being Linux Users, belong to the second rung of civilisation and hence do not realise that the unwashed masses love ads - they visit sites sometimes solely to look at the ads. I know my kids have more interest in the ads on TV than in some of the programs. We, of course, know that this kind of overstuffing sites with ads is a flawed business model - but I am constantly amazed at the amount of money people with a flawed business model make. Like, if microsoft hadnt existed, any professor presenting it's business model as a viable one would have been laughed out of the place.

On 8/18/07, Nishit Dave stargazer.dave@gmail.com wrote:

when they show ads? Are you forced to sit in a cinema hall when ads are

You pay to enter the cinema hall, so it's a different deal.

This is trash. Adblock was created to help users keep a healthy interest in the internet, when things began to go out of hand with screaming, in-your-face, obnoxious ads that took up 75% of the screen's real estate and tripled download times. I block as many flash animations I can see, as well as ads.

If some site doesn't allow firefox/adblock then forget it -- there will be another who will. Sooner or later they'll realize that it didn't really make a difference. Their viewership will have dropped and so too will the eventual number of clicks on the ads. The *density* may not necessarily increase (depends on the type of crowd the site attracts).

For many, the screaming ads don't really make a difference. They get used to getting content out of the trash. It's just like traveling in Mumbai -- the conditions suck big time and something should be done about it, but in the end everyone gets used to it.

On 8/18/07, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

It appears to be a IE vs Firefox battle on the sly. Suggesting the use of IE agent in Firefox proves the point. Adblockers are available for IE too. Maxthon is a browser that uses the IE engine and was once my top favourite when wanting to safely use IE. It has the best adblockers I can recollect using. It even beat firefox on that since many years. There are commercial adblocker packages available too for IE.

Hmm...interesting. You may have adblockers for IE, but Microsoft does not support / endorse any, IIRC. I need not say more about where their preferences lie, unlike Mozilla.