[jkyle]

Sometimes I have to get useful tools from them....like tmux.

As to why I use Adblock, I've never. Not once. Ever. Bought anything from an ad on a website. I _have_ bought books and such from the referral links on blogs (which adblock doesn't block).

The reason I use adblock is because I'm not the demographic ads on websites are targeting. So websites aren't losing any revenue by me not seeing their ads.

[PeterUstinox]

Of course they lose revenue. your view is like any other. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_per_impression) you won't be taking money from the company, which started the ad campaign. also: don't underestimate the effects on brand value, which will come subconsciously, if you look at ads. You will know certain companies are still active etc. This is why you don't necessarily need to be targeted. simply informed.

The "sometimes" you talk about should just be with ads on. it won't hurt much, because it's just sometimes.

[brodney]

> don't underestimate the effects on brand value, which will come subconsciously, if you look at ads.

This is exactly why I use adblock.

[jkyle]

Only if you view CPI in isolation as money from the sky.

Marketers estimate the CPI they're willing to pay based on estimated conversions per impression. Ultimately, the money comes from sales. It always comes from sales.

If I don't ever purchase anything from a website ad, my impressions are worth zero. My impressions, and impressions by those like me, will drive down the price a company is willing to pay per impression since the conversion ratio also goes down. In fact, my impressions incur a negative effect since it still incurs a cost to the advertiser.

In the best of all possible worlds, only those who will ultimately buy a product are displayed the ad. Resulting in a 100% conversion ratio. Each impression would be maximally valuable and the price paid for that impression would rise to reflect that.

Those of us who use adblock have removed ourself from the market and from the conversion ratio calculations and cost per impression to the advertiser.

[threatofrain]

They might lose revenue at first, but in a way that is entirely healthy for a larger system of advertisers and clients, in that both advertiser and client reassess the effectiveness of an instrument (an ad network or product), and thus reassess the correctness of a price for an advertising opportunity.

Maybe I'm apathetic to these arguments because I'm quite comfortable paying for content and services, and I'm comfortable with a version of the web where a paying class gets to have paying-class products. If the public feels there should be a free thing, then let it be funded by taxes.

[adamrt]

That's now how ads always work. Many sites get revenue based on impressions, not clicks or conversions.

[timdierks]

Websites absolutely do lose money when you block their ads. Regardless of what one chooses to do, you should be aware of the facts.

[phjesusthatguy3]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/01/28/my-flamboyant-g...

or http://scribblestrum.livejournal.com/88086.html for those without a New Yorker sub.

[GrantSolar]

Adverts are not just about getting a click to follow through to a purchase.

What do you gain by blocking adverts? An extra 150K from your data plan?

>websites aren't losing any revenue by me not seeing their ads.

This argument is a little too close to justifying piracy for my liking. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so it's fine"

[smhenderson]

What do you gain by blocking adverts? An extra 150K from your data plan?

Quicker page loads, avoiding seizure inducing ads that are designed to attract your attention in an overly aggressive way, better visibility of text because it's not surrounded by flashy pictures, animations and videos. Plus avoiding Flash/Java/JS ads poisoned with malicious content.

And, oh yeah, and ~150K that won't hit my data plan.

For the record, I don't block all ads. I have sites that I allow them on because I am a frequent user and their ads are not too obnoxious to deal with. If my page views (never clicks though) help them then great! But I surf with the blocker on by default for the reasons laid out above.

[kinghajj]

> What do you gain by blocking adverts?

...a lack of adverts?

> This argument is a little too close to justifying piracy for my liking.

Except it's within everyone's rights to decide how their computers will render a given piece of markup.

[jkyle]

> This argument is a little too close to justifying piracy for my liking. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so it's fine"

Do you also think not buying a Toyota is a little too close to car theft?

[GrantSolar]

Consuming content or a product whilst deliberately evading the means put in place to compensate a creator for the work done is akin to piracy. I don't see how there's any question that that isn't at least a morally grey area

[bitwize]

"Your contract with the network is, you're going to watch the spots. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."