Don’t Block Firefox!
Saturday, August 18th, 2007 by MattA site has sprung-up recently called “Why Firefox is Blocked.” They claim that webmasters should block all users running the Firefox web browser (sorry, morons, but Firefox is king) because of the AdBlock Plus extension. They claim that users of the extension are thieves because they use websites while blocking the advertisements. By some weird logic, they believe that webmasters should be given the option of blocking AdBlock. Seeing as they aren’t, they think that Firefox itself should be blocked.
There are several holes in their argument.
- “Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers.” I believe that it is within people’s rights to block online advertisements should they choose to do so. Note that this is coming from a webmaster who runs advertisements on his websites. I choose not to block ads on others’ sites because I believe they have a right to make money, but I also believe that it’s up to the user. To block or not to block, that is the question…and it’s up to the end user, not the webmaster.
- “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.” I don’t think it’s stealing, and that’s a pretty flawed business model.
- “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.” The developers of AdBlock should not have to give webmasters this ability. That would negate the purpose of the extension entirely.
- “Blocking FireFox is the only alternative.” No, shutting up is a good alternative…
- “Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet…” Yeah, about 8% and rapidly growing. Firefox will be the major web browser given time. Also, a heck of a lot of webmasters use Firefox.
- “Netscape users can simply set their browser to IE mode to continue to enjoy the site that sent you here. FireFox users can use Internet Explorer, Opera or Netscape (in IE mode) to access it.” Yeah, or we could just install a user-agent switching add-on and pretend to be Internet Explorer…
- “If Internet Explorer came with a feature such as Adblock, you would effectively wipe out thousands of websites, maybe more.” Uh, you can get ad-blocking software for Internet Explorer, and a lot of people do use it.
- “If you are offended by the Mozilla Corporation’s endorsement of dishonesty please contact the Mozilla Foundation and ask them to stop empowering internet theft.” Or we could employ web forensics to track down your contact information…
The site links to pages that bash Firefox in every imaginable way, and provides PHP and JavaScript code to block Firefox.
Firefox is The Best Browser On The Planet™ (with Opera second), and users have the right to block ads if they wish. I don’t, but I have no problem with others doing it…however much it may decrease my ad revenues.
For some more discussion on this topic, check out the Reddit and Digg pages linking to WhyFirefoxIsBlocked.com.
Update: Is AdBlock “Evil”? An in-depth article about Adblock and the state of online advertising.
6:38 pm on August 18th, 2007
Argh. The sheer arrogance and stupidity of these people is immensely frustrating. Pardon my language, but they’re so full of bullshit.
Thank you for addressing the false and faulty claims on their page. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone’s going to be able to make them see how utterly ridiculous they are.
6:45 pm on August 18th, 2007
The initiator of Why Firefox Is Blocked is assuming that the whole purpose of the web is for webmasters to make money. As a webmaster, that is not my primary purpose (although, of course, I hope to make some money from ads). The web was started solely for spreading info-not making money-and has grown tremendously since. Also, I believe that if all webmasters managed their sites in a way that considered what their users wanted, their would be no need for ad-blocking software. Webmasters who use pop-ups, videos, and sound are asking to have their ads blocked. If they want to have their sites viewed (which is the most important goal of the webmaster), they should consider not offending their viewers with the ads. If their whole purpose is making money off obnoxious/high-paying ads, then I think not only do they deserve to be blocked, they also deserve to have no users.
7:00 pm on August 18th, 2007
http://www.unsoughtinput.com/i.....communism/
Another article about the Firefox adblock issue if you were interested.
7:06 pm on August 18th, 2007
It sounds like the guy who wrote that works for Internet Explorer.
IE is full of bugs and grabs spyware.
All webmasters should block IE due to the senceliss users that use such flawed software.
NOTE TO ALL:
bin windows(£200+) replace with linux (its FREE).
bin IE(crap) replace with Firefox or equiv (it rox)
7:10 pm on August 18th, 2007
Almost as bad as people who refuse to make pages work in IE!
7:26 pm on August 18th, 2007
Or so by this deffinition any pc should be banned as well that runs a customized HOSTS file. many ad’s are already blocked using the one’s available online for just this pourpose, there’s just to many ads in my opnion which is why my sites are free of ad’s, sure I dont make any money , but then again I do this to help people not myself.
7:31 pm on August 18th, 2007
The internet was never designed as a source of revenue. Persecuting your users is only a knee jerk reaction. Find other sources of revenue or simply make your ads less obnoxious.
7:38 pm on August 18th, 2007
I don’t like the site, but you have to admit they have created a great piece of link bait. Everyone on the web seems to be talking about the site. If they wanted to create some publicity they have succeeded.
7:57 pm on August 18th, 2007
Obviously, the User Agent Switcher isn’t working anymore on the site.
8:18 pm on August 18th, 2007
Windows application (Ad-muncher) blocks more Adds.. Are you block Internet Explorer users because allow it??
8:22 pm on August 18th, 2007
yes I saw this as well as others - they are just silly. Why would you block a whole user group - just because a few people block the ads. Maybe you need to look at your site design if people want to block the ads. Additionally the way I look at it is - the people who block the ads - likely wouldn’t click them anyway.
8:31 pm on August 18th, 2007
So by this guy’s reasoning, people who get up to go to the bathroom during tv commercials are stealing too. People can be so ridiculous sometimes.
8:35 pm on August 18th, 2007
As someone stated before, just use a good hosts file. I don’t use Adblockers at all, but I can see how a majority probably do because they don’t feel like messing with files in windows directories. Simply stupid though to block access to the site based on the browser being used.
8:51 pm on August 18th, 2007
HAHAHAHA! …oh man, sry, but that “whyfirefoxisblocked” thing is hilarious. I admit that I’m using AdBlockPlus and pledge guilty….wait…maybe not. I’m training my AdBlock the way I want to see the ads.
There are ads, especially the pop-up ones, I don’t want to see at all, others I do want to see. So what now?
Actually it is sad that the page has no comments section, would be funny to see the majority of the Firefox users show up there, telling the guy to keep his mouth shut…
9:33 pm on August 18th, 2007
a “Who Is” search reveals:
Registrant:
Danny Carlton
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: WHYFIREFOXISBLOCKED.COM
Created on: 06-Aug-07
Expires on: 06-Aug-08
Last Updated on: 06-Aug-07
Administrative Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
(918) 697-4039 Fax —
Technical Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
(918) 697-4039 Fax —
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
NS2.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
9:44 pm on August 18th, 2007
The Firefox user agent switcher is mentioned in the original post but if the site uses Javascript to detect Firefox you can probably write a greasemonkey script to fake that as well.
This is what makes Firefox so great!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
9:45 pm on August 18th, 2007
Some people really are selfish and stupid. It’s these people that are turning the internet to shit. No browser should be blocked for anything, even IE (hound Microsoft to make it better, let users know why it is letting them down but don’t block it).
Going by their warped logic the manafacturer of my TV’s remote (and hence my TV) are accomplices to theft because it allows me to change channel when ads come on.
9:48 pm on August 18th, 2007
tell you what, for a nominal fee I will personally disregard rather than block their advertising,is that not fair?
9:50 pm on August 18th, 2007
I just read the Javascript code example for blocking Firefox. All it does is check the user agent so the user agent switcher should work for both of their detection methods.
10:02 pm on August 18th, 2007
Hey, can anyone find any sites that actually do block firefox?
I want to know which dolt thinks this is smart!
Maybe they should start blocking IE because some sites have ads that cannot be viewed without downloading a activex control, so not everyone can see them!
10:12 pm on August 18th, 2007
So, following their logic, if I look at a magazine in the public library, or in my doctor’s office, and I do not read ALL of the ads, I am stealing content from the magazine publishing company?
This is fallacious logic. But then so is the pay-per-clicks advertising model.
Just because a person uses FireFox does not mean that they use AdBlock (I do). Just because a person uses AdBlock does not mean that they block all advertising (I do not). I block ads that are annoying, and those that are served from companies/servers that are slow to respond, thus reducing my web browsing experience to what it was in the 90s, when all I had was dialup.
10:18 pm on August 18th, 2007
Yeah, I’ve run into this guy.
He runs Jacklewis.com as well, that that’s where he rants.
I can confirm that agent switching works.
Turning off all javascript will work as well.
I’d like to find a way to block a javascript by name (he uses DieAdBlockPlusDie) and be able to add scripts to a black list, like adblock allows you to block items.
His script checks for the existance of (i think it was) google adsense i-frame, and if it’s gone you get a blanked page after a delay.
to bypass his crap, you can use the usercontent.css file and make the frame he looks for a non-display frame, and use agent switcher to bypass the firefox check.
He’s a zealot (on more ways than one) that thinks the world owes him something, IMHO.
10:22 pm on August 18th, 2007
forget that jacklewis.com site, it’s dead. I misremembered what his place is called.
and turning off javascript will bypass his ad block checker, not the agent check.
10:23 pm on August 18th, 2007
jacklewis.com? just sends me to a generic search.
10:24 pm on August 18th, 2007
so whats it called?
11:13 pm on August 18th, 2007
My site has NO ADS at all, because (unlike that guy) I care about the users.
12:46 am on August 19th, 2007
I’ll try to respond to as many of your comments as possible. Get ready, here comes a huge comment…
Minerva66, I pretty much agree with what you said.
Alouette, That was an interesting link, though subtly sarcastic.
codeblue, I agree with binning IE (and Windows). However, Linux isn’t a viable option for most people. I played with it a little, but I wouldn’t use it as my main OS. I like the idea of going Mac when my current PC quits (Compaq/Dell/Gateway don’t last too long in my experiance).
“Anonymous”, I have to disagree with you. While I don’t advocate blocking Internet Explorer, I do think that people just need to, as a group, stop coding workarounds so are sites work in IE. Internet Explorer deviates greatly from the W3C standard, and CSS layouts that look perfect in Firefox and Opera and Safari look horrible in IE. Plus, IE is %@##$ and I don’t think Microsoft deserves to have 86% of the browser market.
ORION, Ah…but you can’t detect customized HOSTS files very well (legally), can you?
GuitarBizarre, No I don’t think the web is about making money. It is first and formost about information. My views about ads are expressed in my article.
LGR, I (and Minerva66) were thinking along the same lines about the linkbait.
wireless, You’re right. There are plenty of other ad-blocking software packages that work in other browsers as well. Then you have Windows’s HOSTS file. It’s stupid to single-out Firefox.
Matt Ellsworth, you’ve just touched the major point. People block ads mainly because there are lot of annoying ones. I don’t mind some AdSense blocks, but I hate pre-roll video ads, ads that make sounds, ads that expand across your screen, and pop-ups. I have AdBlock and “Remove it Permanently” installed, but mainly they sit there, inactive. If I see an extreemly annoying ad… bye bye. “Additionally the way I look at it is - the people who block the ads - likely wouldn’t click them anyway.” You forgot about CPM-based (payment per 1000 views) ads.
PGC, LOL! Sorry about the chat-speak there, but that was funny and a good argument. I saw someone on Digg who said something about not liking people who speed on the highway because they don’t read the billboards.
Marco, That’s exactly why they don’t have a comments section on their site.
George, I ran a WhoIs too, but unfortunatley that won’t help you find an email address.
kylehase, Or you can use the cool Web Developer Toolbar (one of my favorite FF extensions) to easily enable/disable JavaScript on a site-by-site basis.
Dee, I don’t like browsers being blocked, but I’d like to steer people towards Firefox (without blocking). I do this in several ways, like I’m planning on printing-up small “business cards” (cardstock+Photoshop+printer) with a little blurb explaining a little about Firefox and an URL for an article. I’ve already done a similar thing with RSS (explaining what it is), and I left the cards on bulletin boards, and other places. I also have plans for a Wordpress plugin that’ll help steer people towards Firefox…without being annoying.
rubytom, You mean you want them to pay you to surf the web? I think we’d all like that…
Minerva66, Yeah, the user-agent switcher should work for both the codes. Disabling JavaScript will get around the JS one too.
sean, you can block IE if you grab some code from ExplorerDestroyer.com. I wouldn’t recommend it though, unless 95% of your readers use Firefox and you want to annoy the remaining 5%…plus a lot of future readers.
Jim, I agree with you. Individuals have the right to block ads if they want, and webmasters have the right to run ads (preferably non-annoying ones). You can block my ads if you want, I’ll just make money off the people who aren’t blocking. We both win, see. I purposefully try to keep my ads from being too intrusive (no pop-ups, in-text “tool-tip ads”, etc). I don’t want to annoy people with them.
Alex, I care about my users as well, but caring about your users doesn’t necessarily mean “no ads at all.” It just means be responsible about your ads (don’t use pop-ups or other #@#%$^).
2:53 am on August 19th, 2007
What a joke, the site is now “509 - exceeded bandwidth allocation”
I use FF, I also use adblock I have also never in my 15+ years on the net ever clicked on an online ad, someone has to also remember that Countries like Australia (where I am) have pretty crappy broadband plans when compared to the rest of the world, most with relatively small download allocations and we dont want to waste what little we do get on pulling an ad down the pipe for a product that is
A) not available or suitable for our conditions (be that legislative or infrastructure)
B) won’t be shipped to Australia because some companies wont ship outside the continental USA.
but go ahead, block FF, because your only hurting yourself in the long run as not ALL FF users run the ad-blocking extensions (so they will see the ads) and most of those that do are savvy enough to find the ways around it.
3:13 am on August 19th, 2007
Quem não entende a web que levante a mão e bloqueie o firefox…
Um idiota aí criou uma pagineta (link com camisinha) incentivando os donos de site a bloquear o Firefox, por causa da AdBlock Plus, uma extensão que permite ao usuário bloquear anúncios.
O cara que fez isso obviamente não entendeu ainda como funci…
4:57 am on August 19th, 2007
Maybe the advertisers should pay for my internet. After they are stealing my bandwidth.
6:34 am on August 19th, 2007
Block Firefox…because its users are thieves……
I discovered this uh…funny article at webmaster-source.com about a guy who runs a website called whyfirefoxisblocked.com.
The guy at “whyisfirefoxblocked.com” claim that Firefox users are thieves if they use AdblockPlus or other ways …
6:38 am on August 19th, 2007
Sure, i use the adblock extension, but i only got it because of those ads that execute spyware onto your computer.
If a website doesnt run those adds, I wouldn’t block them. I doubt im the only one who follows this model.
6:38 am on August 19th, 2007
hm…actually, as I think about it, the guy at whyfirefoxisblocked.com isn’t a really good webmaster or so. I mean, he doesn’t use htaccess to block via useragent. Either he doesn’t know about it or he doesn’t know how to do it…
@Matt: I wrote an article on my blog (see trackback in comment #31) and I hope the guy will discover it and reply to my article. Would be fun
8:34 am on August 19th, 2007
Yeah, how can blocking ads be an excuse to block Firefox? IE7 can block ads, and other versions can block ads via toolbars…
Neither IE, nor Firefox block ads by default… so he shouldn’t be so anal about blocking us… -_-
I suspect he just hates Firefox and will do anything possible to create excuses for blocking it.
8:48 am on August 19th, 2007
I’ll also add, that ANY means with which he tries to block users, can be easily circumvented… Especially by users that use Firefox.
8:51 am on August 19th, 2007
If you block anyone from visiting your site, who loses?
Perhaps he should also register iamatool.com to fully explain his position….
10:59 am on August 19th, 2007
Bahh, tem site por ai bloqueando o firefox
sugiro não visita-los mais!…
Olha só a que ponto chegam as coisas, tem gente bloqueando o firefox por que é possível instalar nele o plugin “AdBlock Plus” e similares …
Sinceramente, achei isto um absurdo …
Isto parece totalmente contra qualquer princip…
11:30 am on August 19th, 2007
GarryO, they’re back now (unfortunately). We don’t get great broadband in some parts of the US either.
Shifty, That’s a great idea. We pay $45/month for 768k connections, and it gets utilized by ad networks for free. Of course, their response would be “You’re the one visiting sites with our ads!”
Marco, yeah that would be cool but I doubt it would happen. I’m guessing the guy who started all this is laughing his head off by now. You know, I think it’s kind of odd that there aren’t any ads on whyfirefoxisblocked.com. Isn’t that odd? In addition to supporting his point, he’d be making money off all the angry Firefox Fans blasting his site.
OkinKun, that could be the case. Some Digg/Reddit users were discussing the possibility as well. “I’ll also add, that ANY means with which he tries to block users, can be easily circumvented… Especially by users that use Firefox.” Exactly. There are thousands of extension-writers who make it possible to do virtually anything with Firefox.
Chris Lodge, I think everyone here knows the answer to that one. The guy at WhyFireFoxIsBlocked.com doesn’t though…
1:07 pm on August 19th, 2007
On FireFox, AdBlock, and Webmaster Stupidity…
A friend of mine forwarded me a link to WhyFireFoxIsBlocked.com (no, I won’t link to them, because I won’t feed this particular bit of link bait.) He asked: what are these people smoking?
My initial response probably makes him wonder what I’ve been…
1:09 pm on August 19th, 2007
Blocking based on user-agent is just lame.
I think that people are giving way too much attention to the anti-firefox folks, though. Don’t feed this particular linkbaiter!
8:54 pm on August 19th, 2007
The guy behind this website is a conservator who sees open source as communism.
5:17 am on August 20th, 2007
Oh Lord, look at the “myths” section.
1) Firefox and Mozilla are the same thing. It only takes a single google to see that this is not true. I don’t see how this is a myth at all - just that some people have been ill-informed.
2)Firefox Grammar. I believe that the gripes they have with firefox is that its community doesn’t spell it like the mozilla guys do. what are they meant to do? Fine you every time you cba to capitalise the Fs?
3)Firefox is not a Religion. Damn straight that’s a myth. ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY FIREFOX.
4)The requirement myths. How convenient that they have only compared FF against IE6… I wonder how this argument would stand up with IE7 as the example… (well it certainly ain’t runnin’ on windows 98, is it?) As for the memory thing, I can live with that - at least I’m not bogged down by spy/adware, viruses, tojans, generally shiteness….
5)Firefox is Bug Free. Who isn’t these days? Are they trying to tell me IE7 is perfect? That’s like saying that my hands are clean when I wash them with ordinary soap - they are clean, but there’s always some bacteria lurking under my fingernails…
6)Firefox is Stable. As stable as any Windows OS.
7)Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser. Uhh I’ve know that it’s not for at least 2 years. Who still thinks it is?
9)Firefox is Faster than Mozilla. I don’t actually give a toss.
10)All of the Market Share Myths - TBQH I use FF, my friends use FF, hell even my mum uses FF. No-one who has seen the way of the fox turns back to the way of the E.
11)uhhh… just compare http://secunia.com/product/12434/ with http://secunia.com/product/12366/ .
12)I cba with the rest of them they are flawed in some way - IE is better in some ways but FF is a hell of a lot better at most other stuff.
9:31 am on August 20th, 2007
It’s jacklewis.net and disabling JS will redirect you to whyfirefoxisblocked.com
Disabling meta redirect works
9:36 am on August 20th, 2007
I have a 10,000 page usefull content website that took me seven years to build and hundreds of thousands of dollars. My very popular website is ADVERTISER SUPPORTED.
Honestly, ask yourself if you would pay a subscription to every website you use instead of maybe catch a blimpse of an ad on the webpage somewhere?
It is not free or cheap to run a usefull website.
11:55 am on August 20th, 2007
huckle,
4) I compare it to IE7 (not 6) and IE still sucks.
7 &
Opera is the fastest currently (I tested myself in addition to reading online reports). Firefox is second, and IE is dead last. Well, that’s out of the three major browsers.
9) Firefox is faster than the Mozilla Suite. That was the point of Firefox. They wanted to remove all the excess stuff and make it faster, as well as provide options for expandability so you can add new features you want.
10) IE is “better” because it does ActiveX. No wait, that’s a flaw…
12:19 pm on August 20th, 2007
Ow…look what I just discovered: whyisfirefoxblocked.com (I typed the url right, just have a look :))
way to go!
4:38 pm on August 20th, 2007
No, you typed “whyISfirefoxblocked.com” instead of “whyfirefoxISblocked.com”.
6:18 pm on August 20th, 2007
that’s what I mean, a different page, kinda fighting the whyfirefoxISblocked.com…
8:45 pm on August 20th, 2007
If they’re blocking the ads, wouldnt that mean that they’re the type of people who wouldnt click or give any thought to ads displayed on the page anyways, other than “holy shit, thats really distracting/annoying”? So what are they losing?
Absolutely nothing.
It cant be theft if nothings being stolen.
9:33 pm on August 20th, 2007
Marco: Oh, okay.
Gaby: Good point, though don’t forget about CPM ads.
9:36 pm on August 20th, 2007
Heads up, everyone: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/discussions/comments.php?DiscussionID=3060
There’s discussion going on over at Mozilla’s Adblock Plus plugin page as well. Some of it’s probably worth reading.
11:31 am on August 21st, 2007
Blocking Firefox - N00b Response to AdBlock…
Many people have seen the Digg article on blocking Firefox in response to Adblock, which blocks inline ads and shows the webpage like the ads never existed. The owner of this site argues that it is stealing because the ads are what pays for and mainta…
7:46 pm on August 21st, 2007
viewer abuse…
So back to my point. Internet advertisers these days only pay for action. Viewers who actually click through to the advertiser’s site, and maybe a bit more for those that result in a sale……
6:19 am on August 22nd, 2007
The worst part is that this guy fancies himself some sort of web professional! I’d like to see him tell a potential client that their web site will be blocked from between 20 and 40% of the viewing audience because *he* personally doesn’t agree with their “cultlike” beliefs.
As a web designer, it’s not about what *you* want, it’s about making your site meet the needs of the client’s customer base and audience. If you’re not prepared to get over your artistic and technical ego, you shouldn’t be in the profession.
As for blocking ALL Firefox users because SOME use Adblock, if Firefox users are a cult aka a religion, then what he’s really advocating is racial profiling.
10:27 am on August 25th, 2007
We’ve periodically blocked Firefox users. We don’t really have problem with them, but our site is at the point where the server gets overloaded from time to time. We’ll upgrade the server eventually, but for now blocking Firefox gives us just enough headroom to get through the peaks. Firefox users don’t produce the income for us that other users do, so blocking them doesn’t impact our income. But I think this is more due to the demographics of Firefox users versus the market our site is aimed at, than to widespread ad blocking.
For anyone contemplating doing this, some advice: Don’t make it into a crusade. Just throw up a bogus page that makes it look like the server is undergoing maintenance or something. Otherwise you risk a jihad from Firefox users, most of whom are fine people, but there are a few rabid and slightly immature people mixed in who will try to bring you down with a DoS attack.
1:32 pm on August 26th, 2007
Then they should block Internet Explorer, Opera any all otehr browsers too, they can block ads as well as Firefox extension (Opera doesn’t require one).
7:35 pm on August 27th, 2007
If the site is free and compares to paid sites they should get something back from the ads.
to boycot firefox is ridiculus.
I run a free website that relies on ads..
I found this page in my search of some code that can check if ad block is installed.
if it is a message would pop up saying you must unblock ads to use this free site.
I believe ads can be unblocked on a site by site basis.
this sounds like the sensible solutions
have some code to check the block and simply say look this site does not accept visitors blocking the ads. please make an exception for our site it is how we pay are operation costs.
Paul
http://abmatch.com Free Online Dating Site
4:37 am on August 30th, 2007
It’s my web site so I do as I see fit. If you do not want to view it go some place else. Simple.
4:37 pm on August 30th, 2007
I don’t agree with blocking Firefox. I use Firefox and I do not disable ads.
However, I think content owners have a right to advertise on their sites. And if that’s their main source of revenue, why should they give that content away to freeloaders? If you write web content for profit, and people are going to deny you of that profit, why not deny them of the content?
To those saying it’s a bad business model — there IS tons of money to be made in advertising, but whether or not it’s a ‘good’ model or not, that’s the model they chose. That doesn’t change anything. If I decide to sell iPods in Canada, but only accept Chilean Pesos, then I’m being an idiot — that doesn’t mean you can steal an iPod from me. (Not that I agree that this is “stealing”, exactly, but you see how the analogy fits, I hope.)
In response to the comments that “adblockers wouldn’t click”, some ads are CPM so the site owner gets paid whether they click or not. And some people say they don’t want ads, but respond to them anyways. Just like we’d watch TV without commercials if we could, but many of us are still influenced by them.
What would be better is if you could specifically block people using ad-block software. That’s the choice of the site owner. I’m not saying I would do it — I don’t now and I will never. But the site owner has rights too.
But yeah, blocking Firefox as a whole is dumb.
7:12 am on August 31st, 2007
Jack…
I never knew this thank you this will help me with my study…
12:28 am on September 6th, 2007
Brilliant, Brilliant.
What a waste of time trying to block firefox, users would rather just switch websites than have to switch browsers, path of least resistance, and even if firefox was blocked they could just switch the user-agent to pretend it was IE for that site anyway, thereby bypassing the issue.
There’s probably already an extension to switch user-agent according to a list of (ie firefox blocked sites, how stupid), and if not, shouldnt be too hard to make it.
1:24 pm on September 7th, 2007
how can u block something which most of geeks and regular users use??
it s simply cutting u r trafic !
other ways should be looked in by webmasters to tackle this!!
10:27 pm on September 8th, 2007
Advertisement Fascism: it’s pretty lame…
There are many sites on the web providing quality content service AND making profit without the disgraceful need to splatter your browser with invasive ads.
How bout if you were forced to look at every road-side ad as you drove down the highway, or to ogle every ad-infested page in your favorite magazines without option to look away/ignore… sounds pretty dumb. Why should it be any different on the web?
My advice: get a college degree, or employment, or something else to make $$, cuz this wacko idea of spoonfed propaganda-splatter is not too far from eTerrorism, specially when people become commis about ad placement. For real.
10:52 pm on September 8th, 2007
Btw,
I’m in favor of ad-supported web pages/portals, but I don’t think force-feeding advertisement is right. Think about it: forcing people to view your ads is just like charging a monthly fee. The point of not charging that monthly fee was to attract a greater audience…but now your saying that people shouldn’t view your site if they don’t like ads? Dude, that does not make any sense.
Forceful propaganda-splatter is always annoying. Think it in terms of customer service: the customer’s always right. Keep your viewers happy, and they’ll come back from more talk positively about your site. Once you get more viewing volume you’ll be able to make a profit from just a few unobtrusive ad banners (heck some are even decorative as hell).
But don’t think you’ll make your millions from a copious misuse of annoying advertisement. You won’t. Most likely, people will shun your site. Don’t want Firfox users to view your site? Be careful what you wish for. You might end up with no IE, Opera, and Safari users as well.
10:36 am on September 12th, 2007
I totally agree to his argument that blocking banner ads is an infringement. Adverts are there to raise income of free sites, not just there to be an annoyance.
IE7 is definately the most secure browser I’ve ever used so there’s no way I’d risk having my credit card info stolen by a piece of insecure, open-source crap.
11:05 am on September 12th, 2007
I utilize ads on my sites, and they’re my main way of monetizing them. However, I still believe users have a right to block the ads if they choose. You can’t expect people to not block them. If ads aren’t making enough money for your liking, then look for other sources of income.
Also, the web is not about making money. If you think it is, then go back to print publishing! The web is about information. If you go putting annoying ads on your site, then you obviously don’t care about your readers. A few AdSense blocks, Text-Link-Ads, or other unintrusive ads, it’s fine with me. But if you go around forcing pop-ups, Flash overlays, talking banners and the like, you’ve gone too far. I rarely use AdBlock, but I turn it on for individual sites that go totally nuts.
John, you say “IE7 is definately the most secure browser I’ve ever used so there’s no way I’d risk having my credit card info stolen by a piece of insecure, open-source crap.” Obviously you are technologically ignorant. IE7 is in no way secure, and there’s no way a browser can steal your credit card number. Geeks, who know what they’re talking about, would have noticed that by now anyway.
11:21 am on September 12th, 2007
Sorry but have you ever used IE7 on Vista? It has a Protected Mode feature which basically stops any file changes. Backed with ZA Sec. Suite, I’ve had no crap in my computer for months.
Firefox also screwed up the Trident layout engine and disabled ZA when I had XP. This forced me to do a complete reformat and reinstallation of XP.
9:01 pm on September 13th, 2007
Yeah, don’t forget that IE’s rendering engine is total #@$%@#! We shouldn’t have to spend hours doing workarounds so designs will work in freaking IE. Firefox is standards compliant, IE is no where close. Micro$soft, and their products sucks.
6:39 am on December 4th, 2007
I’ll look at their revenue generating pages when they pay for my bandwidth. Having recently moved to an area with top DSL speed of 512k I installed AdBlock cos of Flash adverts, movie trailers etc.. that even on a decent connection caused lag. If the site owners pay me $20 a month I’ll stop blocking ads. Even if they made sure all advertising online was no more than 4-8% the size/traffic of actual content it would be more fair.
ap.watchin.me.uk sent me to a google search of “why you shouldn`t block adverts” which is why I found this.
Also, I put AdBlock on even more computers after that big DoubleClick advert delivering virus scare things…
10:58 am on December 4th, 2007
You have an interesting point about that, but you’re straying into the whole network neutrality debate. The ISPs want websites to be paying for your bandwidth…in addition to you.
I have some counter-arguments for you:
1. If sites payed for your bandwidth, it would hurt the smaller sites (and probably kill them). Yahoo, Google, and EBay can pay massive amounts…but I can’t. The bigs sites would truly rule the web. There would be no blogs or smaller websites.
2. Technically, it would be the ad networks that should do the paying, going by your argument. If an AdSense ad loads, it’s not coming from the site your visiting. It’s coming from pagead2.googlesyndication.com. If websites payed for loading ads, it wouldn’t be very fair would it?
3. Sites are already paying for bandwidth. ISPs (and be extension, web hosts) charge for every gigabyte that goes through the tubes. So sites should be paying double?
4. The sites aren’t using your bandwidth, you are. You’re choosing to visit websites, knowing that you are transferring data over the internet. So, obviously, Adblock is a useful, money-saving program.
7:41 pm on January 12th, 2008
[...] from webmaster-source.com outlines a few holes in their arguments about why blocking Firefox is necessary. After reading it I couldn’t stop laughing, as you can see in my [...]
7:03 am on January 29th, 2008
where can i download a fax program for windows vista…
…
9:25 pm on February 10th, 2008
I swear, the dumbest people on the internet seem to be adblock users
who can’t figure out why adblock is evil. Of course it’s evil. The only
reason 99.999% of big/good websites exist is because the people who
devote their lives to creating the content are able to get ad revenue
in exchange. If ad revenue disappeared, so would 99.999% of good
websites. Newspapers would no longer share their content. Bloggers who
copy from newspapers wouldn’t have content anymore unless they were
going to just go buy the paper and type the text in. Big blogs would
shut down or get much smaller. ESPN.com wouldn’t exist anymore or would
be much smaller. I swear, I’ve read a bunch of these sites where
adblock users justify their use and I’ve never seen a bigger lack of
logic. The only reason X exists is because Y funds it. If you remove Y,
then X is screwed. Is that too complicated for you fucking morons?
Also, if ads load but you don’t click them, the ad still has value to
the advertiser just because even if most people don’t click them, a lot
of people still sorta see them out of the corner of their eye. It still
has value. But if the ads don’t even load then the ad has literally NO
value to the advertiser, and the advertiser will just disappear. If
everyone on the web blocked ads, 99.999% of the good big sites on the
web would shut down. You fuckiing idiots.
8:01 am on February 11th, 2008
“hi”:
I love people like you. Really, I mean, you don’t use your real name (or nick name) and don’t provide a link to your homepage. Further you try to argue with arguments we countered already. And then you sum your comment up with offending everyone. Nice move.
Now to my actual countering of your stupid comment:
As said more than once in the comments above, the majority of adblocking software users are using it because the ads displayed on a website are:
If neither of the above mentioned appear on your website, then you can be sure that your ads will be at least viewed.
Further, I’m blocking all ads on the computer I’m using to write this comment right now because I only have a limited amount of traffic available each day. Would I be at home, I would see ads, as I don’t block them all.
Also, if you rely on advertisement only to earn money to run your website…well, maybe you should rethink your strategy.
12:58 pm on February 11th, 2008
“Hi,” you should note that adblock can only automatically block ads from ad networks, not ones you sell directly to advertisers (like 125×125s), which are a much better deal for sites than the networks are.
“The only reason 99.999% of big/good websites exist is because the people who
devote their lives to creating the content are able to get ad revenue
in exchange.”
Not true. Surely you’ve heard of “Web 2.0″ sites. How many of those are supported by ads? Not many. Look at Ars Technica, a major tech blog. They have some ads, but they make a lot of their money by selling premium subscriptions which allow access to restricted areas (yet all of the normal news is available to everyone).
“Newspapers would no longer share their content. Bloggers who
copy from newspapers wouldn’t have content anymore unless they were
going to just go buy the paper and type the text in. Big blogs would
shut down or get much smaller.”
Now you’re accusing bloggers of plagiarism, and that’s going too far. As a blogger, and aspiring fantasy author, I’m not going to let that slide past. Bloggers, especially those who write for the “big blogs” you speak of, do not steal content. They may quote small parts, and link to the rest, but they do not copy. Also, plenty of original content comes from blogs, rather than other publications. Look at CNet.com. They are a large collection of blogs, and a news source. They are a newspaper. Heck, traditional publications won’t be around much longer anyway. They are being replaced by online publications (ie. blogs).
4:42 pm on February 11th, 2008
I knew why I ignored that part of his comment, Matt
About that plagiarism, I heard of quite a few occasions where a newspaper(!) stole content from a blog. Be it a whole article or an image, newspapers do abuse blogs for their articles.
P.S.: Matt, keep an eye peeled on my blog, I’ll publish a fix for the line break bug of NicEdit very soon. I assume it will be helpful for you
5:42 pm on March 3rd, 2008
Why are some going on about blocking IE? Doesn’t IE own 75% of the market? I have also tested the browsers; on my computer, IE is faster than FireFox in loading time, and, most importantly, in startup time (which is one of the reasons I didn’t stay with Firefox). I accept that FireFox is safer than IE6, but because all I care about (at the moment) is speed, I’m sticking with IE (with Adblock installed). With Microsoft all the way!
9:10 pm on March 3rd, 2008
That’s the POINT in blocking IE. It has 75% of the market, and you want to reduce it. And who cares how fast the browser starts? Leave it open all day like normal people! Down with Micro$oft!
5:54 am on March 4th, 2008
LOL LOL LOL
FireFox is over-rated. I don’t see why people think FireFox is so great. I really don’t. I use CrazyBrowser because I can have (and have had) a hundred sites or more all open at once! And it does just fine. Whereas FireFox chocks. Plus, if anything happens on my PC .. it seems as if anything at all .. FireFox changes its settings and I have to start all over!!! CrazyBrowser is much stabler. It’s based on the IE platform but for me its the best. Keep your FireFox. I think it’s mostly for techie wanna-bies. :O/
12:07 pm on March 4th, 2008
@Dan keep your lols and triple-exclamation-marks to yourself. FYI, CrazyBrowser isn’t a browser, its basically just a skin for IE. And you FF claims are all fake. You can easily have a hundred tabs open in FF, and WTF is with your rubbish about it “changing its settings”?
“techie wanna-bies”? That sounds more like you. You clearly have no clue what your talking about.
10:57 pm on March 21st, 2008
Hey everyone. As a person who creates websites for a living, I can say Firefox
really makes my life hard. Firefox would be fine with me if it would follow
normal css properties. I use Firefox and IE everyday. Firefox is awful for
browsing sites like Myspace. Most myspacers use freelayouts that are css based.
Major issue viewing in firefox. If you only use firefox you probably do not
realize how much site content your missing. I’ll would jump on the firefox boat
when they catch to ie. But for now I’m stuck with ie.
7:39 am on March 22nd, 2008
WTH?
“Firefox really makes my life hard. Firefox would be fine with me if it would follow
normal css properties. I use Firefox and IE everyday.”
Listen, it’s INTERNET EXPLORER that’s not following “normal css properties,” not Firefox. Firefox is lightyears more standards-compliant than IE.
“Firefox is awful forbrowsing sites like Myspace.”
There’s your problem right there.
“Most myspacers use freelayouts that are css based. Major issue viewing in firefox.”
First of all, any website worth its salt has a CSS layout. Again, the problem is from clueless IE-using 12-year-olds pasting some code into their MySpace page, not Firefox.
9:53 pm on May 23rd, 2008
[...] Don’t Block Firefox! by Matt Harzewski [...]
1:41 am on July 26th, 2008
I reckon that if people placed ads in places where they dont take up a whole page or looks ugly, has sound or video then no one would block ads because they wouldent get annoyed by these ads
10:58 am on November 20th, 2008
Well obviously if people are spening money having a website up and running and advertising is required for revenue then people bypassing it is frustrating. I see the point they are making and while I hate adds I agree in principle!
9:54 pm on November 24th, 2008
You know, if only 8% of the people visiting thier site aren’t accessing the adds, then they shouldn’t block firefox users.
secondly, if the site blocks your Browser, stop going to that site and find another using good old stumble upon or something.
Choose to block all of them, the percentage of companies these days…and by companies i use that term loosely are tying in all kinds of virus’s and what not within these adds using scripts.
Blah, the whole thing is shaddy. but 8%? That’s it? cry me a river! Get over it!
1:40 am on November 25th, 2008
Here’s the long and short of things as far as I’m concerned:
I will *NEVER*, *EVER*, *UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES* do business with any entity that thinks putting an ad on a web-page is a legitimate marketing method.
Which means that your ad, regardless of what it might be flogging, does exactly one thing when I see it: It “de-selects” you as a candidate for my business - *ANY* of my business. Exactly the opposite of what you’re hoping for.
Y’see, given the choice between the heavily spammed “Joe’s Bargain Barn! We’ve got what you want, and it’s cheap!” and the never-advertised “Quiet Quinn’s Quality Quonset” at a few bucks higher, guess who’s going to get my business (assuming I’m in the market for what they’re peddling)? That’s right - Quinn is going to pocket my $$, not Joe. Why? Because the entire concept of advertising online pisses me off, and I’ll be damned if I’ll reward the scumbag who does it. Even if it means paying a bit more for the same product from another seller who doesn’t spam me, or just plain going without the product, whatever it happens to be.
So, yes, I ad-block. Heavily. Both via plug-ins/add-ons, and via aliasing the sites that serve the ads to the bit-bucket using my hosts file.
10:56 am on November 26th, 2008
I just installed AdBlock Plus…
3:45 pm on November 26th, 2008
Something I have found about whyfirefoxisblocked.com… the google ads are for firefox…Quite funny really!
8:29 pm on December 3rd, 2008
when you view any web page, it is downloaded temporarily to your computer, so shouldn’t you have the choice of what you download? i don’t want to waste broadband and space on advertising. F*CK CORPORATIONS!