Imagine how much FASTER the internet would be without ADS or PORN!

I enjoy webpages where I do not have wait for content to load and even once the content is loaded, pages with ads still continue to load who knows what.  A lot of these excessive bandwidth sites pose security threats to my browser and my operating systems and ultimately to my identity.  That is why I use firefox and adblock along with the no-script plugins.

A website should not be the only source of revenue for a company.  In fact, a company should not have to depend on advertisements on their web site for revenue.  A good and respectable company should gain revenue form its goods and services.  And advertisers shouldn't push their ads in front of the content.  When that happens, I'll just change the channel.

Addict opines that there are only 2 types of web sites. He is wrong. He has forgotten that the internet was originally created to facilitate the sharing of ideas and information - FOR FREE. There are millions of sites that offer content for free, such as government sites, university sites, etc.

The trouble started when people decided they wanted to engage in commercial activity and make money off the internet. The obvious solution was to charge advertisers for the right to put ads on web sites. That's the easy way out. The business model is backwards. A site should be good enough so that the people that want to offer content should be paying for that privilege, not the recipient. If a site operator can't get the income from the vendors, then perhaps the site should be taken down.

The problem is that I pay for my bandwidth. Before I wrote this response, I looked at my ad block logs. Since May of this year (about eight weeks ago) I have avoided 837 megabytes of advertising downloads. That translates into a significant cost savings (not to mention the time saved in dowmloading almost a gigibyte of data that is useless to me).

No Addict - I do not close my eyes when I pass a billboard on the highway, but at least I don't have to pay 50 cents every time I pass one. If Addict sends me a check for $1.50, I will gladly unblock the ads from his sites. Before the internet, advertisers paid to create junk mail and send it to me. They paid for the opportunity to put something in my hands that I immediately threw out. Why should I have to pay for the same privilege on the internet?

I have no problem with Addict restricting my access to his sites because I use ad blocking software. That's his choice. I have a choice too - I can move on to another site. There is no site on the internet that is that important to me.

I find it funny how users like john03063 don't feel that he is stealing.  There are basically 2 types of internet sites:

1.  Sites that charge a fee to access their content, and
2.  Sites that use advertising to support the free content they provide.

I am a publisher that provides free content that is superior to my competitors who charge for their content.  Most users don't even realize they are blocking non-intrusive ads when they visit websites.  By them not knowing, and growing in numbers (from 5% to 15% on my website in the last 16 months), that is revenue that just disappears from the publishers pocket.  The more blocking grows, the more you will find that sites that were once free - become a paid site.  That valuable free content just disappeared.

It's funny, people say - "If they block me from stealing, I'll just move on to another site that will allow me to steal."  Well, those banner ads are really killing you aren't they?  You really can't handle it, can you…

Do you close your eyes while driving down the interstate when there is a billboard, or a bus next to you with an advertisement?  Do you avert your eyes everywhere there is an advertisement, or do you just choose to do it on the internet?

I have found a way to block the users who block my ads.  I give them the option to turn their blocker off.  If they want to go elsewhere, I encourage them to do so, as I need no thieves on my website.  I wish I could shout it from the rooftops - but as soon as I do the ad blockers will find a workaround and then the I am again stuck with no way to stop people from blocking ads on my site.

Publishers NEED a way to stop ad-blocking users from visiting their site - at least the publisher can decide.

It's not stealing. Stealing is when you take something against someone's will. By using ad blocking software, I'm simply refusing to accept something that someone is trying to give me.

I will continue to use ad blocking software until the advertisers decide to pay me for my bandwidth. Advertisers like the internet because it reaches lots of people quickly. THEY should pay for that luxury - not me. If someone wants to block me because I use the software, I simply move on to another site, and the original site has just lost my business.

The advertisers say that if ads ar blocked, then free access to the internet is threatened. I've been listening to that for many years, and it seems that the internet is still alive and well.

If advertisers don't like my opinion, they can go back to sending me junk mail, and I'll go back to throwing it out…..

I disagree with the "stealing" logic.  Consumers are already able to filter out or skip ads on other mediums (they can forward through ads on recorded tv shows/ skip them on Tivo devices).  Even when they are watching live TV, many consumers take a break from the couch and don't watch the ads. 

I use Firefox and I have the Adblock add-on installed.  On many high-traffic pages (including CNN), I have disabled Adblock, since embedded QuickTime/WMV/Real video content, lots of flash conent and other website features that I look for on their site are blocked when the service is enabled.