People put in HUGE amounts of effort to make the internet a better place. YOU and everyone are allowed to use it completely free. The creator of the things you use is compensated by the ads you see. By taking away their payment you are using their hard work without compensating the creator. Theft.
As others have said, you're consuming the value without paying for it. Even discounting the bandwidth costs, it's piracy of intellectual property.
If you are not willing to accept certain kinds of ads (whether they be malware, popups, animations, or audio) then by all means have a blocker that detects them and rejects THE ENTIRE PAGE.
People are saying it's the same as ignoring a commercial, but websites get paid just for showing ads. Ads barely even intrude on your experience anyways. They usually just sit on the side of the screen on what would be white space if there weren't any ads; you don't even profit from using adblock.
Blocking ads = no money for the sites thats stealing Blocking ads = no money for the sites thats stealing Blocking ads = no money for the sites thats stealing Blocking ads = no money for the sites thats stealing Blocking ads = no money for the sites thats stealing
Imagine an internet without ads, wouldn't that be great? NO. NO! You'd have to pay to access your favorite websites because (believe it or not) HIRING A DOMAINS COSTS MUNEE! Yes, everything costs money, welcome to the real world. And how do websites make money without milking their visitors of the last penny? Advertisements. Even this website (debate.Org) has ads. They are what keeps the internet free (unless you count the money you gotta pay to your internet provider, then it's not but you get the point).
When a website includes ads with their content, they are saying that displaying the ads is the price for consuming their content. If you think that price is too high, the solution is to do without the content -- not to apply a five-finger discount. And that is what ad-blockers are about. The users don't pay the price but take the content anyway.
I've seen various excuses. They all boil down to "the price is too high." The ads are too obnoxious? Don't visit the site. Worried about malware? Don't visit the site. Want to limit what gets shown on your computer? Don't visit the site. It's just that easy. But if you take the content while ducking the bill, you are stealing.
Using adblock is not merely not giving them money, but also using up their bandwidth without giving anything in return. It's similar to sneaking into a football game or a bus without paying, taking up space without paying.
If more people start using adblock, it might kill free web sites and you might have to pay various subscription fees instead.
There are responsibilities on both sides with advertisements. Viewers shouldn't actively block them, But advertisers also have a duty to keep their content decent and honest.
Most adverts we see on the television or hear on the radio for example will be subject to regulation. Organisations such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) can (for want of a better term) keep them in line. For example, A company marketing an antibacterial soap might be called upon to prove that their product really can kill 99. 9% of bacteria and if not the ad becomes illegal.
Internet ads face much less regulation and that's why they're often a lot dodgier. You see a lot of corny click-bait articles for miracle health cures that almost certainly will do nothing, Ads which encourage risky behaviours such as online gambling and at the very worst end of the spectrum, Ads which'll try to install malware on your computer.
Even reputable and well known websites (I'll cite Yahoo! News as an example) have shown me ads I would consider below acceptable standards. When websites clean up their act, Accept advertising from decent, Regulated sponsors only, Then myself and other Adblock users will change.
Adblock defends our privacy, We want to see the content not the ads that are shoved up in our face and serving us malware. We don't steal anything. On the contrary, It's advertisers fault that the ads are totally out of control. Pop Ups that cannot be closed, Auto videos and l don't know what anything else
It's not theft to skip commercials on TV, how's this different. Besides, ads are starting to lose effectiveness. People today have gotten really good at ignoring ads. If anything it waste the money of companies to buy ads that don't work. Plus, ads are annoying. I really don't like ads.
There is no obligation, written or otherwise, that demands consumers of information look at, listen to, or interact with advertisements. This is true to television (people can mute or walk away from advertisements), print matter (you can skip over the pages with ads), and sporting events (you could ignore the sponsor billboards).
If any web site gets money from hosting ads, and I am known to never look at or click on a web ad, then doesn't it follow that the owner of the site is stealing from the advertiser when I visit their page? After all, the advertiser is paying for visibility, and I am denying that privilege...Seems like the advertiser should get some money back.
Most proponents of the "adblock is theft" group argue that there is some kind of informal social contract that requires people to "pay" for content by viewing ads.
I will make two points in this argument:
1) Even if such a contract existed, violating it would not constitute theft.
2) There is no such informal social contract between content producers and consumers that makes avoiding ads immoral.
Theft is defined as taking something away that belongs to someone else. In this case avoiding ads is not taking away anything from anyone. Rather it is negating a way for to provider to make profit. This is not theft! If the contract was legally binding it would be a contract violation but not theft. Violating informal social contracts is not a crime, it might be socially unacceptable like going to a birthday party without a present just for the free food but it is not a crime.
I will show that no informal social contract requiring people to view ads exists and never existed by looking on the history of the Internet and Internet ads.
When the Internet started becoming popular in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, hosting was even more expensive than today but people provided content for free without any ads to compensate them. So there clearly was no such informal contract in the beginning of the Internet.
When the ads became popular with content providers, they immediately became very obtrusive with animated gifs, sounds and popups on lots of pages. Nobody willingly accepted ads at that time, instead people just did not have any means of defending themselves against it. Clearly no informal contract requiring people to view ads was established by people not being able to defend against ads. So also during that time, there was no informal contract.
With the rise of adblockers the game changed significantly and now consumers finally have a way to defend against ads. The quick adaptation of adblockers shows that people are unhappy with ads and that there is no widely accepted informal contract.
I think this clearly shows that there is no such thing as an informal contract requiring people to view ads.
Instead, it shows that content producers settled on a business model that relies on people not being able to defend against ads, which is now falling apart thanks to adblockers.
Some web pages usually use intrusive ads, tracking cookies, spyware, etc. without people's knowledge also a lot of ads are intrusive, have flashy colors that are bad for people prone to seizures, are loud an unmutable. These dishonest practices aren't regulated, and while some pages still use "healty" ads some people rather be penny-pinchers not caring if their users get a virus, adblock helps regulate this as it allows non-intrusive ads to be displayed
Like most people, I have no problem with sites supporting themselves with ads, but advertisers have steadily upped the ante to the point where ads aren't just annoying but actively intrusive and sometimes dangerous. Ads that cover the entire page, ads that expand or start playing sound when you mouse over them, ads that mislead you into downloading spyware or even harbor exploits that can be used to inject ransomware and trojans. When advertisers actually listen to their audience and put a stop to this nonsense, far fewer people will feel the need to use ad blockers.
Theft: the action or crime of stealing.
Using an adblocker does not actively thieve from an advertiser or webmaster; it merely reduces an advertiser's potential earnings (if you were to purchase a product, having been captivated by an adver).
Advertisements may be the major source of income for many websites but you don't owe them anything.
You don't need to have popups and ads all the time. Plus even if it is getting blocked it sends a hit so the ad believes it has been seen. It just makes browsing the web easier without seeing ads from companies that want flashy graphics to destroy your viewing pleasure. And since its getting fooled it still pays for the ad placement. Its a win win win situation.
Because usually the adblocker allows unintrusive ads and stops obtrusive ads which shouldn't be allowed in the first place. That's my experience. Also somewebsitesget money for views on ads so it's not like you completely screw over a website from running if you block some of their ads.