Well, judging by the responses posted, I'm assuming the site in question is ranting about Adblock, saying it's "destroying the internet", and how it's somehow "borderline illegal if not outright illegal" because it's not presenting content "as it was intended". Am I right on this one?
Now I have the same attitude as Kajet. First, I have no obligation to view someone's website. Second, I did not sign any license agreement to view any website - typically those kinds of rules agreements are restricted to forums and other places of active discussion or else commerce-related sites. Third, there's content-filtering and site-blocking software like, oh, Cyberpatrol and Netnannie that have been blocking content and site access pretty much since the internet has been around. Fourth, ISP's can (and sometimes do) blacklist sites or content.
Content filtering is a known practice and it's entirely legal. What you have is some pro-marketing ass that's whining about "lost revenues" caused by the stripping of ad content. Well boohoo. What surprises me is how this person thinks their site is going to be any more useful by blocking people who are using a specific browser because of its adblocking potential. So it's OK for you to filter people from using your site, but not for people to filter content from the net? Sorry pal, it works both ways. Block what you want, and I'll block what I want.
I think the problem in attitude stems from the attitude of businesses in general. They have it in their heads that they have a "right" to your time and money, and that if you don't do things their way you're "stealing" from them somehow. You hear them talk about "lost" revenues. Back in the old days you didn't "lose" revenue, you "didn't make as much this month". Nobody's going into their vaults and carting away their booty. What's happening is their marketing practices are failing, so in a pathetic effort to continue their business model they think "well, we'll just cram more advertising down their throats, that'll increase our revenues!" when in fact it drives people away. It's like taxes. Governments like to raise taxes because they think it'll get them more money, when in reality it squeezes everyone - people have less money to spend, businesses make less money because people aren't buying as much, businesses stop giving people raises and bonuses, stockholders don't make as much - every aspect of the flow of money is subjected to tax at every level, so if your taxes are too high it works like adding friction to all parts of an engine at once - everything slows down. Reduce the taxes to a sane level and the process reverses and you actually get more revenue provided you don't reduce too far. It's really a fairly simple concept - go out of your way to make things hard for people and they'll go elsewhere. That's the nature of a free society and the capitalist market system. It's the same reason record companies are failing and the RIAA has taken to suing people. "Oh, you won't buy our products? Fine! We'll extort the money from you peasants with our lawyers! Bwaahahahha!"
Fascists all of them. Now as for "content as it was intended"... I wonder when they'll start locking up blind people for not being able to see their damned ads "as they were intended to be seen".
|
