And automatic updates are going to do what exactly ? Certainly no more than being on-line in the first place. Who's to say what is already there in Chrome, IE, Firefox, or whatever isn't already doing something you might not be happy with, and will an update necessarily make it worse ?

And if one is totally paranoid, even totally off-line you're not really safe.

I have no problem with auto-updates, but draw the line at 'Signing In' to Chrome. But that's more for practical reasons like Bookmarks and History that I may not want following me around.

geoff

YouTube ads are the only way I have found to make a living as an independent videographer/filmmaker. If everyone used Adblock, I wouldn't be able to.

i wasn't aware ad block blocked ads in youtube?

>>>i'm happy to pay for what i want, and equally unhappy to have anything forced down my throat (eyes).<<<

I'm not saying anybody should force anything down your throat. All I'm saying is: Instead of supporting AdBlock and trying to evade the unwritten agreement btw. you and a site you're visiting, don't visit sites that annoy you with ads. AdBlock is crap that prevents people from making money and they also play their own dirty game.


As for Chrome? Enjoy:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/23/google-eavesdropping-tool-installed-computers-without-permission

>>> This forum is about creating content using Vegas<<<

Yes, and if you find yourself in a situation ( one day ) where your only option of making a living is by displaying ads in front of your videos, how are you going to feel about AdBlock then?

>>>Regarding the journalist comparison, those who aren't paid for what they write and rely on webverts to survive are not journalists. Anyone can start a blog, website, You Tube channel, promote their opinion and then spam visitors with ads but it takes actual talent to get paid for what you write.<<<<

I agree that most of it $hit, but unfortunately even real journalists, writers, whatever are forced into this. It sucks, but it's happening. If a site spams me with ads I simply don't go back. Click bait is easy to recognize, don't click it. But I'm not going to support AdBlock under any circumstances. There are legitimate sites which don't spam anybody and depend on advertising revenue to stay afloat.

>>>i wasn't aware ad block blocked ads in youtube?<<<

Blocks ads in everything unless of course you bribe them ( you can do a search on that ) . They are a$$holes and I wouldn't support them even if I wanted to block ads. They are exactly like mobsters who come to your restaurant and offer you to buy protection.

I don't know who has ads and who doesn't.... they're blocked. I guess sites will have to close or find new forms of income.

This IS the net: cat videos dominate, porn is free to grade school kids, news is mostly bad or kardashian, ads get blocked. It's just life online.

I have a very simplistic ethical test for any action I'm considering. 2 questions:
Would more people be helped than harmed by my action?
Would the world be a better place if everyone did it?

IMHO using Adblock fails both these tests. I don't use it.

Test two fails: Advertising is a virus creeping over all of the country side, infesting media, twisting minds.... how is THAT good? It is not. Just because society has grown up with it, THINKING it is okay, doesn't mean it is. It is actually not needed at all, but we don't live in a world that could comprehend that at all, living for and blinded by greed.

Thus, test one would be moot.

Totally disagree.
Other than the fact that many on this forum get at least a portion of their income from advertising, new products only get recognition from advertising - whether it's word of mouth or pop ups. I get that you don't like advertising but it's one of the basics of communication in a free society.
Plus, if your time is so precious that you can't stand to click off or mute an ad in exchange for the "free" internet, then expect it to become even more intrusive, such as having your theater movie experience interrupted by ads like commercial TV or hearing a Coke ad between the chorus and bridge of your favorite song.

Maybe I'm just too uncaring to have warm feelings towards advertisers. When I watch recorded TV on our Tivo, I click-click-click through all the ads between content. Is that wrong? Pre-Tivo I probably would have just gotten up and gone to the restroom or made myself a sandwich. Would that have been wrong?

An advertiser makes a decision on whether to insert an ad or not based on rational calculations. Suppose 10% of the population ignores his ad. He will look at the cost per view of those remaining and decide if the payback is right. If not, he'll go elsewhere.

And as I mentioned in my original post, it's the Taboola-style ads that are most irritating, just because they are so stupid and tasteless. I am very happy to have AdBlocker take them out.

movies: if they say it STARTS at 7pm, I ARRIVE at 7:25pm. Our theaters have 25 minutes, yes 25 minutes of crap at the front. Some are previews, but it is a LIE to state the "Movie" starts at 7pm.

There should be laws against those false advertisers, trying to steal MY time, by design.

Anyone remember when movies had nothing before the previous except some quiet music? Now it's all BLAB BLAB BLAB on the screen all the time.

Infesting, I tells ya, infesting.

@riredale, nope, not wrong at all. I don't watch the internet ads, and most of the time I'm browsing I have my speakers off. I hate the ads.

But if I blocked them I wouldn't be hurting the advertisers nearly as much as I would the site owners whose content I want to view. I don't expect things given to me. Fair exchange is how I survive.

I don't know about you but my internet isn't free. I pay for access to it.

There's no need to continue this. I have no idea what others are using the web for. I watch little TV and spend most of my browsing on news and science sites.

I have to pay ATT for the pipes and the bandwidth to get on the Internet, but none of that money is going to the writers whose work I enjoying reading. They deserve something.

Carry on as you choose.

As we choose, of course.

I may be totally off but here is how I understand ads work on the web. Some of them you have to click-through to generate revenue. I never click through them, so no money made there.

Other sites have counters and pay revenue based on visits. Now if ad-blocker blocks the ads, the counters still count the visit, so don't the people still get paid?

How am I ripping anybody off?

I must have been in a cave, but I had never heard of Adblock until I read this thread. Thanks for sharing. It's interesting that some think its an angel come to save us and others, the devil incarnate. There IS a middle ground in that you can block or allow for each site. What's always annoyed me is to have those ads always popping up on a paid subscription site like the NY Times and having to close them to continue reading. Conversely, Nick's point is well taken that ads from YT and Vimeo are often someone's livelihood. So have the best of both, block those you want and allow others you want to support. I blocked the Weather Channel and after awhile kinda missed all the pop-ups of things I'd browsed on B&H, Ebay and Amazon. Just another opinion.

wwaag

OK, I think I found the source of what seemed like an out of left field notion that "Ad blocking = piracy". I don't think the person who posted that notion above thought it up by himself. I could be wrong, but I just looked at the copy of Streaming Media that arrived this past Monday and lo and behold there is an article entitled:

Ad Blocking: It's Not User Choice, It's Stealing by Jan Ozer on page 14.

He writes very good articles, but on this notion I strongly disagree. But at least I know where the source came from now.

John

I just tried firefox, and looks like they fixed the major speed problems! I might switch back now that CHROME officially records via your microphone and sends it to who knows where

No, actually I've come to AdBlock = stealing conclusion all by myself. It's common sense.

Never heard of that other guy before, but it goes to show you that it's not exactly all that weird to equate AdBlock with stealing or pircay. To me it's obvious.

Some other tech sites also complained about their revenues being eroded because of AdBlock, so it's nothing new. A bit of irony, these same well respected tech sites also put a lot of effort into attacking the music industry and supporting file sharing.

Seems nobody can see much beyond their own little world

I came across this webpage today and thought it might add something useful to this topic.

It's from AdBlock and it points out that it accepts certain types of advertising i.e. it won't automatically block all ads. Critics say it's just a way for AdBlock to make money, since advertisers pay to be on the "whitelist" (true) and also it is AdBlock's attempt to placate those ISPs who derive revenue from ads.

But AdBlock also points out that only 25% of users are opposed to ALL ads; they simply want the offensive ones (obnoxious or flashing or pop-overs) banished. To that end the ads on the whitelist are supposed to be low-key and unobtrusive.

In any event AdBlock offers a checkbox that allows users to get rid of even whitelist ads if they so desire.

I have checked that box since day one. :)

Nick, since you rely on ad revenue to generate income, please answer this - do you have any control over what ads are placed on your content?

I use AdBock because I am sick and tired of the Male Enhancement and Buy Gold Now ads that seem to predominate. (Hmm, does that tell you about my browsing pattern?)

I also installed AdBlock on my mother-in-law's laptop because she was loaded with unwanted software and eight different toolbars, all from clicking on ads. A year later her laptop is still clean and fast.

Maybe if advertisers stopped acting like carnival barkers on the strip (if you've ever been to Las Vegas, you know what I mean), then AdBlock would lose its popularity. I don't see AdBlock=piracy, I see it more as a tool for responsible users.

By the way, I have Whitelisted some sites on my AdBlock precisely because the ads they show are relevant to me and they are not offensive.

I joined a new photo editing forum and they asked nicely (in a small banner) that AdBlock be disabled so they can earn revenue. I complied and white listed them. The ads are small and unobtrusive. I'm happy to help when it's done the right way.

While not ad related, I use the hosts file from winhelp2002.mvps.org to further limit my exposure to the "bad stuff."