Blocking Firefox Users Over Ad Filtering: The Stupidist Idea In the History of the Internet?
For years the business plan for running an online pet food business by selling products below cost reigned supreme as the stupidest idea in the short history of the Internet. That venerable example of throwing reason to the wind may have to pass the crown to a new champion of the self-defeating, delusional, and just plain dumb idea that is now at play: some sites are blocking all users of Firefox because there is an ad blocker called of a Adblock Plus available for that browser. If the bad economic reasoning weren't enough, the advocates of behind this collective punishment are trying to stake out some kind of moral high ground by claiming that blocking adds is stealing. (I guess if you don't block the ads but just ignore them you are morally reprehensible but technically not a thief).
Here is the basic argument. Web sites provide content you want and content you don't want. If you don't take the latter, you are a thief because hardworking designers, writers, developers, and sys admins depend on revenues from the ads. Those that make money from online ads have chosen this model for making money and everyone has to play by their rules. Of course, they can't figure out who isn't playing by the rules so they've decided to assume everyone with access to AdBlocker is a potential "thief" so everyone must be blocked. (I think Alberto Gonzoles would enjoy working with these guys.)
Here is how WhyFireFoxIsBlocked explains it:
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, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software. Many site owners therefore install scripts that prevent people using ad blocking software from accessing their site. That is their right as the site owner to insist that the use of their resources accompanies the presence of the ads.
And then there is the "you made me do it" type argument I haven't heard since my children were in pre-school:
While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus's unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative.Reading content that requires a subscription without paying for it is stealing. You agree to pay in return for access. AdBlock Plus users have no explicit agreement to pay for content at these sites any more than I have an agreement to read the ads in the Sunday paper.
The problem is that businesses have a revenue generation model that some people don't like. OK, so charge for content, like New York Times Select. Sure, few if any will actually pay for content when equally good content is freely available. Web sites with content that just isn't worth that much don't continue. That's not a bad thing.
I take it all back, maybe this isn't such a bad idea after all.
Update: Nicholas Carr at Rough Type argues for a similar ethical argument and examines the utilitarian argument that ad blocking is ultimately self defeating. He starts the post with the question, What woud Jesus do? and concludes with:
So will I continue to use Adblock Plus? I'm afraid I will not. But that's only because I would find it hard to write about the online world if I was seeing a different Net than most people see. I will disable the plug-in and return to the Vegas-style Net that I'm accustomed to. But I'm pretty sure that Jesus would use Adblock Plus.
Email This!
Digg it!
Sphere it!
Del.icio.us
Reddit!
Newsvine
Comments
I'd tend to assume the sites that are blocking Firefox are also sites I tend to avoid even when using (I'll deny this later...) internet explorer because their ads are annoying and intrusive.
Posted by: Herb | September 5, 2007 4:48 PM
Good point maybe thats why I haven't found a site that actually blocks Firefox, which is my default browser. (I have to admit I did use IE today, but only because I couldn't get something to work in Firefox or Opera ... maybe people like us need a support group).
The whyfirefoxisblocked.com site doesn't list who is supporting this. Why should they hide? Stand up for what you believe in, post the names of your supporters and lets debate this.
The site does go to the trouble to publish a "Firefox Myths" section (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html) which includes tidbits like:
Myth - "Firefox is spelled 'FireFox' and abbreviated FF"
Reality - Firefox is spelled F-i-r-e-f-o-x - only the first letter capitalized (i.e. not FireFox, not Foxfire, FoxFire or whatever else a number of folk seem to think it to be called.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".
Is this supposed to somehow undermine the Firefox brand? Come on, irrelevant points like this doesn't help their cause.
Posted by: Dan | September 5, 2007 7:14 PM
All along I thought the Stupid Idea list was topped back in the early days of Netscape 1 (when it was for sale) and Internet Explorer (when it was newly released and free) when Netscape Users were blocked by Microsoft from downloading the new I.E. (as well as anything else) on their website, as they were not using I.E. How they were supposed to get it otherwise was not explained, and that only lasted a couple of weeks (Some kind of marketing department screw-up I suppose,) after it was brought to someone's attention at MS.
Posted by: Jack Greenky | September 7, 2007 12:36 PM
I don't mind ads if they don't flash, blink or suddenly grow over the material I'm trying to read. Or pop over/under.
Maybe someone with a medical condition (some type of seizure disorder?) could sue under the ADA a site that blocks people using Ad Blocker... after the Ad Blocker is being used for medical purposes! :)
Posted by: mike | September 7, 2007 1:54 PM
Jack, thanks for that bit of history about MS blocking Netscape users. I hadn't heard about that one but it I think that even out does the Firefox blocking. I should probably update the original post to talk about the second stupidest idea in the history of the Internet.
Posted by: Dan | September 7, 2007 6:46 PM
I'm with Mike. The ads that block what I'm reading are annoying and counter-productive, I'll never click those for more info. While I really like Netflix, I don't want their bright red banner showing up when I close my browser.(If anyone from Netflix is reading this, please stop those pop-under ads, I'm a customer loyal customer and even I can't stand them).
Google ads don't bother my at all. In fact, the ads in Gmail are more interesting than some of the messages I've received.
Posted by: Dan | September 7, 2007 7:00 PM