I saw this story on Techmeme this morning and I simply couldn’t believe it – but it is true!
A guy called Danny Carlton has decided to block ALL Firefox users from his site because:
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
Now, you will be aware that not all Firefox owners have installed Adblock but no matter, Danny is blocking them too. As he says himself:
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.
This is so silly as to be laughable. Either the guy is trolling looking for links (you won’t find any here Danny) or he really is a tad challenged!
In the first place, as Mike Arrington notes
I wonder why he continues to provide a full content feed, sans ads, at jacklewis.net/weblog/atom.xml (and it has been reposted here). Those users are â€œstealingâ€ his content, too. What about them? Perhaps heâ€™ll now turn his attention to the evils of RSS.
and in the second place, there are adblocking plugins available for Internet Explorer, as well as Firefox.
Will Danny now block Internet Explorer users from accessing his site too?
13 thoughts on “Site owner blocks Firefox users!”
Haha, what a headcase!
It does seem foolish to blanket-ban Firefox users, but I can understand how he feels if his business revenue depends on ads.
It is a silly move on his part and the campaign is daft. But I do get irritated when I see people using AdBlock. As a web-developer I see it as part of the contract of using a website. We give you free content and you get to see some adverts.
People need to realise just how ad funded the web is. Google is 90% ad funded. Without ads they have no revenue. And many other web companies are in the same boat.
And the argument “I never click ads anyway, they are just annoying” doesn’t float. Techies use that argument all the time.
Don’t use AdBlock. Don’t block your visitors either.
Anyway. Rant over. 🙂
Does Firefox indicate to the web server it’s denial of advert loading? Or does it just dump the data to the bitbucket?
I’m very much against Adblock myself. I installed it once and it provided one of the worst web expierences ever. Adblock was presenting white areas where there would be ads, a lot of webpages looked very naked as Adblocked skwed the natural appearance of the site.
I would love to see Adblock and other ad blocking extensions illegalised but it’s never going to happen.
Well I’m going to break from the pack and say Ad Blocking is a good thing.
It’s your computer and it’s up to you how you wish to enjoy the Content or not enjoy it as the case might be. Much how the likes of Sky + and Tivo enable users to skip through Ads.
Now, I think he may have said one good thing, if you are reliant on Ads then there should be a method if you so wish to “not allow” users who are not allowing you to make revenue.
But at the end of the day, there is obvious demand for Non-Ad revenue sites maybe Web Developers aren’t listening to it’s own audience to which it rely’s so much on.
Is it theft to channel surf during TV commercials !!!?
I don’t think so.
There is no implied contract with people viewing a site, if he wants one a real contract then he should restrict his websites to members only with a terms and conditions, Otherwise the visitor is free to do whatever they like with the content, within copyright restrictions of course.
@Branedy – I don’t think the plugin tells the server that it is not downloading the ads
@thebigman87 and @Eoin – I have to agree with you. I think Adblock is fantastic. I have mentioned several times on this blog that it is my favourite Firefox plugin.
As Eoin said, it is not theft to channel surf.
Also, I read most sites through my rss reader so I see very few ads that sites publish, in any case.
1. This guy is a jesus freak, so he is mad from the outset!
2. If you really want to read his site, then you can turn off ad-block, if you don’t then nothing lost.
Ad-block blocks ads by two ways (or at least in the past this was how it worked): 1) it downloads the ad, but doesn’t actually display it, or 2) it doesn’t actually download the ad at all.
His other choice, of course, is to have a subscription only, closed website. I’d like to see how much revenue he makes then.
Using adblock, is as “legal” as turning down the radio volume when ad breaks start.
People will watch/read/listen how they want to watch/read/listen.
If you don’t want to provide the content, then don’t.
People will either move on, or change their way of consuming the content.
This is much ado about nothing, really!
It is his site. He has the right to restrict access any which way he wants. A side note, would his turning off all Firefox users qualify as “discrimination?”
And, what people do with their browsers, including installing AdBlock, is their business!
Even though I don’t like AdBlock I do have to agree, in part, with Kiran. AdBlock is tiny percentage of the market. My “contract” argument is weak (though not without merit.)
I asked around the building and even amongst 120 techy people only a handful had AdBlock.
He blocks Camino, too. Just another money grubbing whack-job.
Dumbasses, AdBlock is obviously the best ever, unless you like watching The Simpsons with 40 minute commercials, then shut up
Comments are closed.