Adblocking is a 'modern-day protection racket', says culture secretary

[joe_bloggs*]

Adblocking companies acting as a “modern-day protection racket” have been slammed by culture secretary John Whittingdale...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/02/adblocking-protection-racket-john-whittingdale

the comments after the article are worth a read

[cee-dee]

Out of touch with reality?

The comments are all valid.

[john.b74]

Adblocking is a must for me. i have no time for them.

[fallen-archie]

So they are thinking of setting up a round table to discuss it, well if it's anything like here there won't be many contributing. The problem with day to day surfing is that the screen so often becomes overrun by ads and pop ups and many cleverly hide the close button or simply force you into filling in a survey. I use an ad blocker but i have it set not to kill everything.

[al**bear]

The cure is already in Companies own hands.

They can make it impossible to read or view their content (some already do), unless you switch your ADBlocker off.

Personally, Companies that try to make Me do this, Just make Me leave their websites, their loss not mine.

btw

I can also remove adverts embedded in pages, using a different add-on

------------------

I avoid adverts at every opportunity, I mostly view TV, off of a hard drive.

I fast forward through, not just the adverts, but reviews, previews, starting/ending credits & Titles as well.

-------------------

So it has taken about 4 months for this to cross the Atlantic, a major confrence of the AD Industry, took place in the States and just after that, Questions were being asked in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

[al**bear]

In America, the 'Advertising Industry' are trying to make out that Ad Blocking is against the First Amendment, they are spending Big bucks on trying to get Politicians to agree with them.

[cee-dee]

I think it's the people who're being paid by the advertisers who're kicking up a fuss.

They are the ones who convince the advertisers that it's a profitable enterprise and I think they ought to produce some concrete evidence to show that the intrusive adverts really pay off and that it doesn't, actually cause many people to leave the page, exasperated by the sheer quantity of stupid adverts.

[suzieseaside]

I agree, that ads can be counter-productive for a website.  I often leave a site because it takes so flipping long for all the ads to load up

[cee-dee]

So do I.

I wonder if people know that if you know how, you can get google to pay you to allow stupid adverts on your website? I'm not sure if you don't get paid per hit too..........    

[bankhaunter]

Indeed, if adverts had not become such a nuisance, there would have been no call for blockers in the first place.

[al**bear]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I think it's the people who're being paid by the advertisers who're kicking up a fuss.

---

This is who is behind the current attack on ADBlockers --  http://www.iab.com/

It seems they may have put it a bit differently to the UK and how it has been spun to UK Politicians

i.e. 'a danger to the Medias websites'

whereas in the US - They say it is an attack on Business & free speech  (in the US it is illegal to block calls from Political parties and candidates, even on your Home phone)

[bankhaunter]

How do they make out it's an attack on free speech, don't people in the US. have the right not to listen.

I see Whittingdale is also going to make it necessary to have a TV licence to watch iPlayer.

[cee-dee]

Isn't having all these silly adverts on websites a bit like all the unsolicited mail that comes through your door via mailshots, directly posted flyers and the flyers inserted inside some newspapers? Mostly, all of those get binned unread and is a complete waste of paper and print.

[cee-dee]

Another thing has sprung to mind, I suppose trying to stop adblocking will next see a demand to TV manufacturers to stop fitting a "mute" button on remote controls so that viewers can't mute the sound during irritating, stupid adverts?

[cee-dee]

This is the message you get on some websites:-

Thank you for visiting **********. We noticed that you have an ad blocker enabled. Please disable it, or whitelist ***********.com, to enter our site and receive an ad-light experience for the next 30 days.

Guaranteed to make you hit the "back" button and go elsewhere?

[upthecreekyetagain]

Google's advertising revenue has risen from around $70 million to nearly $70 billion in the last 15 years - a 1,000 fold increase!

There are obviously a lot of companies that believe mass advertising is worthwhile and economic.

[john.b74]

You can now pay to have Hotmail add free. .http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/outlook/ad-free-outlook

[al**bear]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Another thing has sprung to mind, I suppose trying to stop adblocking will next see a demand to TV manufacturers to stop fitting a "mute" button on remote controls so that viewers can't mute the sound during irritating, stupid adverts?

---

Many many years ago, I read a Science Fiction story, where someone had 'Invented' a system that meant adverts were never seen. (This was long before VHS/Betamax were even thought about). His research & life were in Danger from massive contract Hits from Multiple Corporations

I will need to see if I can find the story

----------------

Someone was asking about 'Free speech' _

As I said earlier, it is ILLEGAL in the US to block political (& in some places Religious) cold calling to your phone.

[bankhaunter]

Surely the right of free speech should include the right not to hear any, much in the same way that freedom of religion must include freedom from religion.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Freedom of speech does include the right not to listen not the right not to hear.  Different things.