Do you know why firefox is blocked? Because it infringes on rights of web site owners and developers. How, you might wonder! It is so because it endorses the Adblock Plus addon that lets you hide advertisements on web sites. This robs the publishers and content owners, who want to give you free quality content in exchange for advertisements. You are stealing the content if you use Firefox and Adblock Plus. So Firefox gets blocked!
OK, good explanation, I think. However, I wonder why only Firefox! Almost all the browsers I know have some kind of mechanism, extension, plugin or other ways for blocking advertisements. Then there are text browsers like Lynx and Elinks which do not display graphical advertisements. I guess all these should be banned. Actually this also means that the television remote controls should be banned because they let me mute the volume or switch the channel to avoid commercials!
Advertisements and advertising are not bad, but forcing the readers to see them or click on them is evil. A better approach would be to use unobtrusive advertisements that are contextual. Even a simple message explaining the need for advertisements is acceptable. But penalizing the readers if they block advertisements is not a very user-friendly approach. And asking them to stop from using Firefox altogether is an ineffective way. Why use indirect means when you already have ways of directly communicating with the reader.
This is not about Firefox anymore, all browsers today provide some way of blocking ads because it improves the experience for the user on advertisement-laden sites. If some site wants to appeal to the users, a message is better and effective than such anti-user campaign.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
“Actually this also means that the television remote controls should be banned because they let me mute the volume or switch the channel to avoid commercials!”
They’d love to: A year or so ago Philips tried to get a TV on the market that prevents you from changing the channel during commercials. (Also see: Broadcast flag)
“A better approach would be to use unobtrusive advertisements that are contextual.”
Exactly. It’s been getting better lately (I guess, how would I know – ABP is doing a great job…), but the very reason adblocking software was created, were those incredibly annoying flashy giant type of ads. I don’t mind unobtrusive text links ads, and I’m far more likely to click one if it’s somewhat related to the topic of the website (e.g. “Great CSS Editor” wouldn’t convince me to switch, but I might actually take a look). Another good example are ads by the Deck, I don’t mind them at all either.
You need a good balance between ads that are so unobtrusive you don’t even notice them and getting so annoying that the user just blocks them and doesn’t see them at all. And anytime I surf the web with IE (happens…), I’m surprised how bad it still is. By the way, I find those green Intellitext links annoying as heck.
But: Why do they blame it on Firefox? I don’t get it. I’d understand it if FF blocked ads by default, but it doesn’t – and the default setting is the only setting for an average user, although you could argue that the Firefox crowd is a bit more sophisticated. So blame Adblock and all similar software, heck let’s blame hosts files. But don’t blame Firefox (or any other browser), that’s just dumb.
Apart from that it’s pretty obvious that this “campaign” is not going to work in any way, technically or in its impact. You can’t “block Firefox” if you cloak the UA and no serious website will ever go through with it. Reminds me of that No IE badge and the attempt to convice users to switch by blocking them. Surely going to open my grandma’s eyes…
August 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Am I the only one who considers ads optional unless you’re first required to watch one before getting into the site? The truth is I use AdBlock, but I only enable it on sites whose ads are intrusive and overbearing. If you want people to look at your ads, instead of blocking them you could try just making the ads more appealing or subtle.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Not only can individual browsers block ads, but you can also just block them in your hosts file by redirecting the base URLs to localhost.
While not as attractive as what some of the built in adblocks do, there is no way around it.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Good point Aaron. Blocking can be done irrespective of the browser too.
Tom and Beth, thanks for your comments. We all seem to be not against advertising, but against unreasonable advertising. I truly believe that contextual advertising can add value.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
This software doesn’t just block annoying flashy, flash ads and popups, it also kills benign text ads…. like from Google.
If you think a site’s advertising is obnoxious, you could just not use it. If there were 100% adoption of this program tonight, there would not be an internet tomorrow. Ads pay for all the sites you love…. Even this one.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Kevin, yes ads are everywhere. But it does not mean that you force the reader to see the ad. I have ads on this site, but let a reader block them if he/she is not interested, because ads are not the main content and the reader is not here for the ads. Again, it is not about being anti-advertisement, it is about not forcing the reader.