Why Firefox is Blocked

[BellisimaJ.]

You've reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks the FireFox browser.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: The Digg entry is FALSE!! No where do we assert that "since Firefox users have the ability to block ads, they must be thieves and must be blocked." AdBlockPlus denies site owners the freedom to block AdBlockPlus users, therefore all FireFox users (except those using IETab) are blocked. It's a simple matter of opposing the censorship on the part of AdBlockPlus and therefore the support offered to them by Mozilla.

The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads,

Continue reading here.

[jezebel]

1. FF users get pissed off at being blocked
2. FF users tell their IE user friends the site(s) sucks
3. Their IE user friends don't visit the site(s)
4. The site receives even less ad revenues than it did before blocking FF users

[bargainbloodhound]

[quote author=jezebel link=topic=16008.msg64031#msg64031 date=1187543337]
1. FF users get pissed off at being blocked
2. FF users tell their IE user friends the site(s) sucks
3. Their IE user friends don't visit the site(s)
4. The site receives even less ad revenues than it did before blocking FF users
[/quote]

I agree.  Blocking Firefox users is going to hurt the sites' ad revenue (especially since there are Firefox users like me who don't use AdBlock).

ps As someone who receives monthly income from the advertising on our sites, I think AdBlock sucks  ;D

[BellisimaJ.]

[quote author=bargainbloodhound link=topic=16008.msg64033#msg64033 date=1187546902]
[quote author=jezebel link=topic=16008.msg64031#msg64031 date=1187543337]
1. FF users get pissed off at being blocked
2. FF users tell their IE user friends the site(s) sucks
3. Their IE user friends don't visit the site(s)
4. The site receives even less ad revenues than it did before blocking FF users
[/quote]

I agree.  Blocking Firefox users is going to hurt the sites' ad revenue (especially since there are Firefox users like me who don't use AdBlock).

ps As someone who receives monthly income from the advertising on our sites, I think AdBlock sucks  ;D
[/quote]

I agree that these sites are making a major mistake in blocking FF. They may want to consider why people are using adblock on their sites.   

I use adblock selectively. TT is whitelisted. Some sites have such friggin' annoying, stupid ads, I block ads on the whole site.  These are the sites that need to consider just why they are being blocked, and adjust their advertising strategy or whatever! Stop driving us crazy with the miserable pop-ups, etc., and we won't mind viewing the ads!! So there!

[mandy]

ps As someone who receives monthly income from the advertising on our sites, I think AdBlock sucks 

A related article:

...let us focus on the issue at hand--Web advertisement skipping technology. Essentially, it boils down to this: Web site designers depend upon advertising revenue to pay their bandwidth bills as well as to pay for the staff time that goes into making a successful site. Users do not particularly want to see advertisements, but except in a few cases where advertisements are extremely annoying, will for the most part put up with the ads in order to view the Web content that they are seeking.

There is a pretty big difference between the TV and Web site business models. A broadcast TV network, by and large, has fixed costs, no matter how many customers actually tune into the show. The same amount of electricity will flow to the TV transmitter, and the satellites above will still beam down the same number of 1s and 0s. Internet content is different, as each person's computer makes an individual connection to the remote server hosting whatever Web content the user is seeking. Each time users visit a Web site, the server consumes bandwidth to send the content of the Web page back to the user--and that bandwidth costs money.

Thus, every time someone uses advertisement-blocking software to avoid the graphical ads embedded within a Web site, they are denying the Web site operator revenue that would otherwise have gone to pay for the bandwidth that is consumed during that browsing session...

full article: http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9770502-46.html

[Boucher]

Moral implications? I get the feeling I'm going to be tarred and feathered if I post to this thread. :p

Pretty soon the television channels won't let me record anything to TIVO since I breeze past their commercials as well.

Might as we also add that I got the AdblockPlus in the first place because of eBay. It was dragging down download times and I was grateful to find something to get rid of all that crap since I go to eBay for one reason alone.

Might as well also ask what is blocked? I've clicked on the hosting advertisement (to the left of here) a few times in the past month to see what you have to offer when my present hosting plan expires and I can still see it. Are the ads being blocked presented differently than the sidebar?

I don't have any ads on my site so maybe I'm not understanding the big picture.

[Boucher]

In addition there are things AdblockPlus doesn't even touch like those stupid flash advertisements. I normally close the window if I see one of them trying to load but if it's something I really want to read I'll just resize the window so the offending flash file is out of view.

Do you think they'll start preventing the resizing of windows?

And what is the whole deal about a "free internet" and peeps stealing if they don't look at the ads? Sounds about as silly as driving down the highway and averting one's gaze when a billboard is spotted on the horizon.

[regic]

Might as well also ask what is blocked? I've clicked on the hosting advertisement (to the left of here) a few times in the past month to see what you have to offer when my present hosting plan expires and I can still see it. Are the ads being blocked presented differently than the sidebar?

The 3 ads on the sidebar are hard coded into the template so AdBlock handles them the same way it does a logo or any other site graphic.

AdBlock blocks Google Ads, ads from ad server software, etc.

[Boucher]

Thanks Regic

From Mandy's CNet link - There is a pretty big difference between the TV and Web site business models. A broadcast TV network, by and large, has fixed costs, no matter how many customers actually tune into the show. The same amount of electricity will flow to the TV transmitter, and the satellites above will still beam down the same number of 1s and 0s. Internet content is different, as each person's computer makes an individual connection to the remote server hosting whatever Web content the user is seeking. Each time users visit a Web site, the server consumes bandwidth to send the content of the Web page back to the user--and that bandwidth costs money.

Thus, every time someone uses advertisement-blocking software to avoid the graphical ads embedded within a Web site, they are denying the Web site operator revenue that would otherwise have gone to pay for the bandwidth that is consumed during that browsing session...

Looking at it from a different point of view...

I feel that author is living a sheltered life. If I looked at it that way back when I had a B&M I'd be plastering the walls with 3rd party ads to pay for the air conditioning that was lost every time the door was opened or forcing prospective customers to watch a 15 second Chrysler ad before they could dip their fingers into the candy jar on my desk. Some costs are to be expected. That's the cost of doing business.

For an interactive website that promotes a service to the public (like your own) I can understand but for a site selling merchandise (as mine is) I would honestly be aghast if I had to rely on 3rd party advertising to cover the expense of users viewing my merchandise. Somehow it seems tacky to me. Besides, I don't care for the distraction it creates. When someone is looking at my site I want them to take their time and look at what I have to offer--clicking on some banner ad for a few pennies isn't part of the mix.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I don't see the need to squeeze every penny out of a situation even if I can get away with it. Reminds me of the BS going on right now in Philadelphia, and soon to hit NYC, with the video monitors in the back of taxi cabs that will run 15 second commercials while a fare is in the taxi. How frigging annoying is that? Not to mention the headaches and added costs for the drivers that is the reason they held a one day strike but I suppose this is the new age of Capitalism and we're all going to have to get used to it.

[Boucher]

...clicking on some banner ad for a few pennies isn't part of the mix.

I don't mean for that to sound presumptuous or anything as I have no idea what kind of income those ads may generate.