[Recently a bunch of malware apps appeared in Google ads trying to look like actual legitimate apps.](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-abuse-google-ads-to-spread-malware-in-legit-software/)
It must have been very successful because even [the FBI posted a warning](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fbi-warns-of-search-engine-ads-pushing-malware-phishing/).
As usual nobody takes responsibility.
Whenever this comes up for a new website i visit, i just think "well guess ill leave forever". Literally no website is important enough to make me want to disable it
Exactly, I once reinstalled OS, started browser without AdBlock and damn, like over 50% of sites are ads, fuck that. Or on youtube, 3x 30s ads from youtube, then 2 minutes sponsor from youtuber, then after 5 minutes another ad(s). Back when it was 1 ad before 5-10 minute video it was fine, but now...
100% I’ve lived with this rule since I started using adblockers what practically a decade ago? And it hasn’t done me wrong yet. The internet is a big place no one website is that important
Amazing how many people still do not know the definition of the word theft, yet continue to throw it around in such a matter of fact way. Using an adblocker could possibly be considered piracy, if you take a very loose interpretation of the word (still legal everywhere, regardless), but it is not in any way theft.
I disagree. While it’s not legally theft, I’d say it morally should be, however unpopular that may be with todays modern entitlement. The sites using ads are giving you a product in exchange for viewing their ads. It’s almost guaranteed to be in the terms of service for the websites that have notices to unblock ads. They’re providing their product, which could sets them money, and you aren’t holding up your end of the deal.
I know this probably won’t make sense to Avis users of Adblock and that’s ok, I don’t expect to change any of your minds as you wouldn’t be using Adblock in the first place.
Nothing to do with "entitlement". The English language is not subjective.
The word theft by definition means to take something without permission of the owner, to which the owner then no longer has possession of.
Reading the content on a site with an adblocker does not deprive anything from the owner of said content, hence objectively not theft.
This is equivalent to going into a book store and reading a book without buying it.
> The English language is not subjective.
It absolutely is subjective, there’s constantly examples of language being subjective, the biggest being our judicial system.
> The word theft by definition means to take something without permission of the owner, to which the owner then no longer has possession of.
Not necessarily, there are different legal definitions of theft. Canada has “theft of communication services” as a crime. The telecommunication service I would argue is not significantly different than hosting a website.
> Reading the content on a site with an adblocker does not deprive anything from the owner of said content, hence objectively not theft.
It deprives them of pay for their content and negatively impacts their business.
> This is equivalent to going into a book store and reading a book without buying it.
Not really, i see it more like going to the library and never signing up for a library card or giving them support when they need it.
Quebec has its own civil code, so don’t lump Canadian code in with the messed up Quebec one.
The UK has “making off without services” a part of their theft criminal code. The US has similar (but their government is controlled by corporations so no surprises there). And a number of other countries have similar.
I was refering to the true/dictionary definition, not one countries legal definition. A country/government misusing a word, does not change the meaning of the word any more than it does when anyone else misuses it. Canada did not invent English, they have no right to redefine it.
By deprive, i mean it does not take anything they already had. Removing a hypothetical opportunity to profit from the specific person using the adblocker, is no more legitimate than companies claiming that every pirated copy of a game is a lost sale.
> I was refering to the true/dictionary definition, not one countries legal definition. A country/government misusing a word, does not change the meaning of the word any more than it does when anyone else misuses it. Canada did not invent English, they have no right to redefine it.
100% wrong. Words can and do change meaning with time and location. Definitions to words are what a group of people believe that definition to be, regardless of what the original authors intended. Languages change and evolve over time. It’s also not like a bunch of people sat down and said “hey, let’s invent a new language called English, give me some pen and paper and let’s write down each definition.”
Here’s a few words that have changed meaning over time:
* silly
* leech
* flux
* stripe
* fudge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/znbct39
There’s hundreds if not thousands of words that have changed meaning over time.
If you want a definition, a legal definition is as good as it gets. It’s far more descriptive and clear than a dictionary definition, because words are vague and at least partially subjective, and you can’t have that when punishing people for crimes.
> is no more legitimate than companies claiming that every pirated copy of a game is a lost sale.
Not necessarily, a much higher percentage of people would have viewed the site with ads than bought a game.
Finally, even in the UK (where English was invented), in the legal system there’s many definitions for “theft”. “Making Off Without Payment” is one of them, and that includes services.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
The example with a book is a theft, actually. Because you got the content without paying for it.
While advertisements are not a direct payment for the content.
Theft with sites will be if you are using adblocker to bypass the subscription type of content (I mean, either advertisements or by a subscription/access).
Your reading comprehension needs just as much work as your understanding of the english language.
The example with the book does not deprive the book from its owner. Objectively not theft. You walk in, you read the book, you place the book back on the shelf, you never took the book outside the store. Nothing was stolen.
This is a lot more important than a lot of people give it credit for i think. English isn't a managed language with a fixed cannon. Theft can absolutely be redefined to mean what people here are assuming it to mean and that's why we need to fight back against terms like theft and piracy being used in this manner. The point is to redefine the imaginary lost revenue from a missed sale into a real thing that can then be implied to have been taken without permission to turn a harmless activity into a crime. For what? so corporations that already have more than they will ever need can get more.
And it isn't theft of my money and electricity if due to 100 ads on one webpage ranging from text to autoplayed videos with loud music my computer has to work harder, "burn" more electricity and as a bonus I may or may not get malware?
And how do you know it before you visit it? You find out after it's too late.
The whole problem is the websites became too flooded with ads so people fight back. There are sites where from whole loaded site on FullHD display maybe 3 or 4 lines aren't ads but the article you want to read.
if you want to talk about morality then i can talk about the countless companies whose entire business model is printing fake news with malicious intent. there's a whitelist feature that let's you disable adblock for your favourite youtubers and that's good enough for me. journalists can go cry about it because i dont give a fuck.
When your site becomes unfucking usable, laggy, and straight up dangerous in cases of ads for malware.
It deserves adblockers to the moon. Also there will still be a majority crowd not using adblockers giving the site enough traffic to make money as is so it's another "boo hoo poor business not making *as much* money" scenario. They're gonna be fine without my ad view man, it doesn't bankrupt them in any way
I’ve generally found sites like that aren’t worth going to in the first place. If they take that approach to ads it’s extremely unlikely that any of their content is true or useful.
> Also there will still be a majority crowd not using adblockers giving the site enough traffic to make money as is so it's another "boo hoo poor business not making as much money" scenario. They're gonna be fine without my ad view man, it doesn't bankrupt them in any way
Smaller websites I can guarantee that’s not the case.
I would be fine with ads if they weren’t the worst.
There are pop-ups that sometimes play videos with sound without me pressing anything, malicious site redirects that tell you your phone has some fake virus, and ads that get in the way of the actual content by just taking up too much of the screen.
There are even ads that literally give you virus (for example, the msi afterburner ad which showed up before the real thing on google turned out to be a fucking virus). Until they get it together, using ad blockers is completely moral because it keeps the average user safe from scams and improves their experience.
Theft, the act of stealing, is the action or offence of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it, by using an ad blocker you’re not taking anything, therefore it is not theft. It would be more akin to taking advantage of the website creator rather than theft.
Lol equivalent to theft. Fuck right off with that nonsense. If ads had never become so pervasive, then maybe ad blockers wouldn’t have to exist. You give them a single inch and they’ll take a mile every time.
Sites push and push and push to see how many ads and how irritating ads they can have. Well.. they pushed a "little bit" too far. Not visiting any site without adblocker.
>**“People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are ‘The Advertisers’ and they are laughing at you.**
>
>**“You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.**
>
>**“Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.**
>
>**“You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.”**
>
>\-Bansky
You don't owe these people a single thing, and avoiding their unwelcome advances through whatever means possible is absolutely not "theft".
If they require ad revenue to keep their lights on and you don't like it, maybe just don't go to their website?
Anytime I get a website that won't let me ad block I just leave their site.
Blocking ads is not theft, it's just reducing the revenue of the company posting them on their website. It's no more theft than taking a piss during the commercials on a TV show.
Classic: https://www.techdirt.com/2016/01/11/forbes-site-after-begging-you-turn-off-adblocker-serves-up-steaming-pile-malware-ads/
Lmao, how dare we to protect our systems
[Recently a bunch of malware apps appeared in Google ads trying to look like actual legitimate apps.](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-abuse-google-ads-to-spread-malware-in-legit-software/) It must have been very successful because even [the FBI posted a warning](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fbi-warns-of-search-engine-ads-pushing-malware-phishing/). As usual nobody takes responsibility.
Whenever this comes up for a new website i visit, i just think "well guess ill leave forever". Literally no website is important enough to make me want to disable it
Exactly, I once reinstalled OS, started browser without AdBlock and damn, like over 50% of sites are ads, fuck that. Or on youtube, 3x 30s ads from youtube, then 2 minutes sponsor from youtuber, then after 5 minutes another ad(s). Back when it was 1 ad before 5-10 minute video it was fine, but now...
Yeah Youtube is hell without addblocker
100% I’ve lived with this rule since I started using adblockers what practically a decade ago? And it hasn’t done me wrong yet. The internet is a big place no one website is that important
"Equivelant to theft" lmao fuck off
You wouldn't steal a website...
Or would you……….
I'll turn off adblocker once you 'fuckers' properly vet the ads you run on your sites...
Amazing how many people still do not know the definition of the word theft, yet continue to throw it around in such a matter of fact way. Using an adblocker could possibly be considered piracy, if you take a very loose interpretation of the word (still legal everywhere, regardless), but it is not in any way theft.
I disagree. While it’s not legally theft, I’d say it morally should be, however unpopular that may be with todays modern entitlement. The sites using ads are giving you a product in exchange for viewing their ads. It’s almost guaranteed to be in the terms of service for the websites that have notices to unblock ads. They’re providing their product, which could sets them money, and you aren’t holding up your end of the deal. I know this probably won’t make sense to Avis users of Adblock and that’s ok, I don’t expect to change any of your minds as you wouldn’t be using Adblock in the first place.
Nothing to do with "entitlement". The English language is not subjective. The word theft by definition means to take something without permission of the owner, to which the owner then no longer has possession of. Reading the content on a site with an adblocker does not deprive anything from the owner of said content, hence objectively not theft. This is equivalent to going into a book store and reading a book without buying it.
> The English language is not subjective. It absolutely is subjective, there’s constantly examples of language being subjective, the biggest being our judicial system. > The word theft by definition means to take something without permission of the owner, to which the owner then no longer has possession of. Not necessarily, there are different legal definitions of theft. Canada has “theft of communication services” as a crime. The telecommunication service I would argue is not significantly different than hosting a website. > Reading the content on a site with an adblocker does not deprive anything from the owner of said content, hence objectively not theft. It deprives them of pay for their content and negatively impacts their business. > This is equivalent to going into a book store and reading a book without buying it. Not really, i see it more like going to the library and never signing up for a library card or giving them support when they need it.
Canada also jails comedians for telling jokes. There's a reason it's not exactly looked to for legal rulings across the world.
Quebec has its own civil code, so don’t lump Canadian code in with the messed up Quebec one. The UK has “making off without services” a part of their theft criminal code. The US has similar (but their government is controlled by corporations so no surprises there). And a number of other countries have similar.
Forgive me, Quebec jails comedians.
Quebec does a lot of stupid things. That doesn’t mean the rest of Canada agrees with them.
Like I said, fair.
I was refering to the true/dictionary definition, not one countries legal definition. A country/government misusing a word, does not change the meaning of the word any more than it does when anyone else misuses it. Canada did not invent English, they have no right to redefine it. By deprive, i mean it does not take anything they already had. Removing a hypothetical opportunity to profit from the specific person using the adblocker, is no more legitimate than companies claiming that every pirated copy of a game is a lost sale.
> I was refering to the true/dictionary definition, not one countries legal definition. A country/government misusing a word, does not change the meaning of the word any more than it does when anyone else misuses it. Canada did not invent English, they have no right to redefine it. 100% wrong. Words can and do change meaning with time and location. Definitions to words are what a group of people believe that definition to be, regardless of what the original authors intended. Languages change and evolve over time. It’s also not like a bunch of people sat down and said “hey, let’s invent a new language called English, give me some pen and paper and let’s write down each definition.” Here’s a few words that have changed meaning over time: * silly * leech * flux * stripe * fudge https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/znbct39 There’s hundreds if not thousands of words that have changed meaning over time. If you want a definition, a legal definition is as good as it gets. It’s far more descriptive and clear than a dictionary definition, because words are vague and at least partially subjective, and you can’t have that when punishing people for crimes. > is no more legitimate than companies claiming that every pirated copy of a game is a lost sale. Not necessarily, a much higher percentage of people would have viewed the site with ads than bought a game. Finally, even in the UK (where English was invented), in the legal system there’s many definitions for “theft”. “Making Off Without Payment” is one of them, and that includes services. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
The example with a book is a theft, actually. Because you got the content without paying for it. While advertisements are not a direct payment for the content. Theft with sites will be if you are using adblocker to bypass the subscription type of content (I mean, either advertisements or by a subscription/access).
Your reading comprehension needs just as much work as your understanding of the english language. The example with the book does not deprive the book from its owner. Objectively not theft. You walk in, you read the book, you place the book back on the shelf, you never took the book outside the store. Nothing was stolen.
Damn I've stolen so many magazines from Barnes and Nobles over the years /s
This is a lot more important than a lot of people give it credit for i think. English isn't a managed language with a fixed cannon. Theft can absolutely be redefined to mean what people here are assuming it to mean and that's why we need to fight back against terms like theft and piracy being used in this manner. The point is to redefine the imaginary lost revenue from a missed sale into a real thing that can then be implied to have been taken without permission to turn a harmless activity into a crime. For what? so corporations that already have more than they will ever need can get more.
Nothing wrong with adblockers since sites can block adblock users
But that’s what the OP is complaining about.
Fucking hell. How much do they pay you to be such a boot licker?
Nothing, it’s why I don’t have my own website or games, shits too expensive without add revenue or joining up to one of the bigger services.
And it isn't theft of my money and electricity if due to 100 ads on one webpage ranging from text to autoplayed videos with loud music my computer has to work harder, "burn" more electricity and as a bonus I may or may not get malware?
I’d just not bother visiting a website like that.
And how do you know it before you visit it? You find out after it's too late. The whole problem is the websites became too flooded with ads so people fight back. There are sites where from whole loaded site on FullHD display maybe 3 or 4 lines aren't ads but the article you want to read.
I’ve rarely found this to be the case, likely due to me inspecting and only trusting certain domains.
if you want to talk about morality then i can talk about the countless companies whose entire business model is printing fake news with malicious intent. there's a whitelist feature that let's you disable adblock for your favourite youtubers and that's good enough for me. journalists can go cry about it because i dont give a fuck.
So you don’t skip raid shadow legends or any scam ads while watching YT videos? Skipping commercial integration is theft?
Skipping isn’t the same as Adblock…
But if you skip an ad you literally “block” yourself from it…
It’s built in by the site creators.
It’s built in by the video creator, don’t you think?
When your site becomes unfucking usable, laggy, and straight up dangerous in cases of ads for malware. It deserves adblockers to the moon. Also there will still be a majority crowd not using adblockers giving the site enough traffic to make money as is so it's another "boo hoo poor business not making *as much* money" scenario. They're gonna be fine without my ad view man, it doesn't bankrupt them in any way
I’ve generally found sites like that aren’t worth going to in the first place. If they take that approach to ads it’s extremely unlikely that any of their content is true or useful. > Also there will still be a majority crowd not using adblockers giving the site enough traffic to make money as is so it's another "boo hoo poor business not making as much money" scenario. They're gonna be fine without my ad view man, it doesn't bankrupt them in any way Smaller websites I can guarantee that’s not the case.
I would be fine with ads if they weren’t the worst. There are pop-ups that sometimes play videos with sound without me pressing anything, malicious site redirects that tell you your phone has some fake virus, and ads that get in the way of the actual content by just taking up too much of the screen. There are even ads that literally give you virus (for example, the msi afterburner ad which showed up before the real thing on google turned out to be a fucking virus). Until they get it together, using ad blockers is completely moral because it keeps the average user safe from scams and improves their experience.
Probably the most valid point here and I would agree, if you’re commonly seeing this then by all means use Adblock.
Theft, the act of stealing, is the action or offence of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it, by using an ad blocker you’re not taking anything, therefore it is not theft. It would be more akin to taking advantage of the website creator rather than theft.
There’s theft of services pretty much everywhere, but I already had that argument.
"The use of ad blocking software is equivalent to theft" More like: "The use of ads is equivalent to harassment"
Or unwanted solicitation, which many states have laws against.
What's the website? I'd like to "steal" from them by using an ad blocker on it. Just for spite
Lol equivalent to theft. Fuck right off with that nonsense. If ads had never become so pervasive, then maybe ad blockers wouldn’t have to exist. You give them a single inch and they’ll take a mile every time.
\*Fires up AdNauseum just to spite them.\*
Sites push and push and push to see how many ads and how irritating ads they can have. Well.. they pushed a "little bit" too far. Not visiting any site without adblocker.
Voe, a website with tons of movies and series uploaded illegaly to watch them for free. I also hate anti adblock sites if i pirate some stuff xD
Equivalent to theft? By that logic if I close my eyes and open a website that's theft.
The perfect crime. Nobody saw nothin.
Lol using adblocker is a theft lmao. Says the site who steals your private data
Ads are theft of my field of view
Ads are theft of my computer performance, disk space, and also my time. Take that !
>**“People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are ‘The Advertisers’ and they are laughing at you.** > >**“You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.** > >**“Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.** > >**“You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.”** > >\-Bansky You don't owe these people a single thing, and avoiding their unwelcome advances through whatever means possible is absolutely not "theft".
Right click > uBlockOrigin > Block element. Or use some plugin like FuckFuckAdBlock.
Any site that complains about adblockers I just delete from my bookmarks. Pretty simple
Someone arrest me for skipping ads on sky q
You wouldnt download a car .... HELL YES I WOULD IF I COULD
My computer, my rules. Very simple.
You wouldn't download a website...
Genuinely made me laugh out loud and now I’ve woken my wife who’s cross with me
I'm more annoyed that you can't spell adblocker even with your own screenshot showing you how to do it.
Well, it happens. Live with it
Line/nLine2 Attempt 2 (with backslash) Line\nLine2
If THAT didn’t work, then how did you make a new line without making it a separate paragraph?
Shift + Enter
Line Line2 I’m on mobile…
Well doesnt work on mobile, rip
If they require ad revenue to keep their lights on and you don't like it, maybe just don't go to their website? Anytime I get a website that won't let me ad block I just leave their site.
not accepting ads they are trying to give you seems like the opposite of theft
Does anyone have a list of sites that do this or know where I can get one? I certainly wouldn't want to push traffic to them.
I don’t use ad blocker because I only really go to a few specific sites and feel like supporting them.
Thats the cool part, you can disable it for certain websites
I’d rather just not go to websites that need adblocker
no public , no publicity , the end
I like money.
Any site that’s asks me to lower my shields gets added to the blocklist.
“Pwease turn off adbwock, we need money to keep the site running” :3 :3 :3. shut yo ass up.
then you go " im stealing and im proud of it." and then you look up a 12ft ladder alternative
I actually use chrome for websites that have reasonable ads (only chess.com for now) and firefox with adblocker for the rest
Blocking ads is not theft, it's just reducing the revenue of the company posting them on their website. It's no more theft than taking a piss during the commercials on a TV show.
If adblocker is equivalent to theft your business model sucks.
What am I gonna do? Go to the police station and tell them that I stole a website using an adblocker?
"Equivalent to theft"? Yeah because I totally want to use up my time and data on your stupid ad. We're the ones getting thieved fucking idiot