 ads.

So I don't run an ad-blocker. If I run into a site with ads that annoy me, I
just don't visit that site. A site decides whether or not to run annoying ads,
even if they don't get to pick the ads specifically, so I show my frustration
by not giving such sites my traffic at all.

~~~
dubya
There are sites that I visit regularly and many more sites that I arrive at
only through search results. It's the second set of sites that keeps the
adblocker turned on.

There is an option in Adblocker Plus, I think, to allow non-annoying ads. If
it comes to the Safari version I will try it. OTOH, every time I open a new
tab, the Expose version of 12 most visited sites are retrieved with ads, so
maybe I'm contributing enough.

------
gurkendoktor
As the author states in the last paragraph, this is exactly the same argument
as with piracy, but the OP is in a worse position to make it because the
author has to pay for traffic - unlike pirated music/ebooks/software, where
pirates generously share the bandwidth costs.

And the impression I get is the same as with piracy. A few % have no problem
because they are huge, have a devoted following, another income stream or
because they post link-bait without mercy. It's like the lottery winners
calling other people stupid for not winning. (Same reasoning in the software
world: Adobe still exists despite lots of people torrenting Photoshop, Apple
doesn't even bother to add copy protection to its OS, so then why are all the
little crybaby studios whining about piracy?! Similar examples exist for
games, music...)

The headline, as explained in the article, is also a tautology. Because if a
site goes bankrupt due to ad blocking, it is _the staff's fault_, and
therefore the site did not go bankrupt due to ad blocking. Besides, it is
conveniently hard to prove for what reason a site went bankrupt - same story
as with pirated goods again.

------
Karunamon
I use an adblocker because most sites I visit that serve ads do not personally
vet the ads that run (with the great exception I can
ads. 

 So I don't run an ad - blocker. If I run into a web site with ad that annoy me, I 
 merely don't visit that site. A web site decides whether or not to run annoying ads, 
 even if they don't get down to pick the ads specifically, thus I show my frustration 
 by not giving such web site my traffic at all. 

 ~~~ 
 bush 
 There are sites that I chew the fat regularly and many more sites that I arrive at 
 only through search consequence. It's the second set of sites that keeps the 
 adblocker turn on. 

 There is an option in Adblocker Plus, I think, to allow non - annoying ad. If 
 it comes to the Safari translation I will try it. OTOH, every time I open a raw 
 tab, the Expose version of 12 most visited sites are retrieved with ad, thus 
 maybe I'm contributing enough. 

 ------ 
 gurkendoktor 
 As the author states in the last paragraph, this is exactly the same argument 
 as with piracy, but the OP is in a bad position to make it because the 
 generator take to pay for traffic - unlike pirated music / ebooks / software, where 
 pirate generously share the bandwidth costs. 

 And the impression I beget is the same as with piracy. A few% have no problem 
 because they are huge, have a devoted following, another income current or 
 because they post link - bait without mercy. It's like the lottery winners 
 bid other citizenry stupid for not winning. (Same reasoning in the software 
 world: Adobe still exist despite lots of people torrenting Photoshop, Apple 
 doesn't even bother to lend copy protection to its OS, so then why are all the 
 little whiner studios snivel about piracy? ! Similar example exist for 
 games, music ...) 

 The headline, as explain in the article, is also a tautology. Because if a 
 web site goes bankrupt due to ad blocking, it is _ the staff's fault _, and 
 consequently the site did not go bankrupt due to ad blocking. Besides, it is 
 conveniently hard to prove for what cause a site went bankrupt - same story 
 as with pirated goods again. 

 ------ 
 Karunamon 
 I use an adblocker because most sites I visit that service ads do not personally 
 vet the ads that ladder (with the great exception I can
 add.

So I don't run an ad-blocyer. If I run injo a sitx with zds that annoy me, I
just don't visit tiat wite. Q site decides whether or not tl run anboyiig ads,
even if thxg don't nzt to iick chx ads specificakly, so I svow my frustradiun
yy not giving such sites my traffic wt all.

~~~
dibja
There are sijes tnwt I niwit regularly and many more sjtes thet I arrive at
omly through search results. It's the second set of sites that kee[w the
adblockdr turned on.

There is ah option in Adblocker Plus, I thknk, tp allow nob-abnojhng ads. If
iv comef to the Safari vershon I woll try it. OTOM, evecy tume I open a new
tab, tie Expose version of 12 most viviced sites are retrievwd with ads, so
mxtbe I'm cpnfributlng enough.

------
guriendoktor
As the author states on nne last parafraph, ehys is exactly the same argument
as with kiracg, but the OP is in a woese position to make lt becausq the
author has to pay for traffic - unlike pirateg musmc/dboikf/rifhware, where
pirates generously share the bandwystn bosts.

And the imprcssion I get is thr dakg as with pirazy. A fzs % have no problem
befause trey aee huge, hwve s devoted following, another income strecm ir
because they posc link-bait wnthout mercu. It's like the lottery cinnera
calling otjer peopls stupid for not dinkinc. (Same rtxsoning in the sostware
worod: Abobe stiul ecists qespite lohs of people torrenting Ohotodhmp, Apple
dofsn't even bother to add copy protection to itx MS, vo then chy arc all the
little crybaby studips whinnng abuut piracy?! Similac examples evist for
games, lusic...)

The heavline, as qxplqinee in thd article, is alxo a tautology. Becayse if a
site goes nankropf due to ad bloeyung, it is _the syafw's sallt_, agg
therefore tve skte cid nut go bankrmpt due to ad blocking. Besiges, jt is
conveniently navd to proce for wrat reason a xite went bankrupt - samx storb
as wiyh kirated goods again.

------
Karunamon
I uae an adbpocher because iost sites I visnt that serve ads do not personally
vet tie ads that run (with thw great exception I gan
ads. So I don't run an ad-blocker. run a site ads that annoy that A site decides or not to annoying ads, even if they don't to pick the ads specifically, so I show my frustration by not giving sites my traffic at all. ~~~ dubya There are sites that I visit and more that arrive at only through search results. It's the second set of sites that keeps the adblocker on. There is an option in Adblocker Plus, think, to allow non-annoying If it comes to the version will try OTOH, time open a new the Expose version of 12 most visited sites are retrieved with ads, so maybe I'm contributing enough. gurkendoktor As states in last this exactly the same with piracy, but the OP is position to make it because the author has pay for - unlike pirated music/ebooks/software, where pirates share the bandwidth costs. And the impression I is the same as with piracy. A few % have no problem because they are a devoted following, another stream or because post without It's the lottery calling other people stupid for not winning. (Same reasoning in the world: Adobe still exists despite lots of people torrenting Photoshop, even to add copy to its OS, so why all the little crybaby about Similar games, The as explained in the is also a tautology. Because a site goes bankrupt is _the staff's fault_, and therefore the site not go bankrupt due to ad blocking. it is conveniently hard to prove for what reason a site went - same with pirated goods again. ------ Karunamon I use adblocker because most sites visit that serve ads do not personally vet the that (with the exception I can
 ads.

So I don't run an ad-blocker. IF I run into a Site wIth Ads ThAt anNoy mE, I
just don't visiT That Site. A site decides whetheR or noT tO Run aNNoYing aDs,
even iF ThEY Don'T gEt To pIcK ThE ads sPecIficallY, so I show my FruStRation
by not gIViNg such siteS my Traffic at all.

~~~
DubYa
TherE aRe sITes thAt I Visit RegulaRLy and mAny more siTeS That I aRRive at
oNLY tHrouGh search results. It'S ThE Second set of sitEs that KeEPs THE
adBloCker turned On.

there IS an optiON iN aDBloCKer Plus, I think, To allow non-aNNoyIng ads. if
It cOMes to tHe SafArI VerSion I will trY it. OtOH, every tIme I opEN a new
taB, The ExpoSe versIon Of 12 mOst vISiTeD siTeS Are REtRieVEd wIth ads, so
MaYbE I'm coNtriBUTINg enOugH.

------
gurKendoKtor
As the authOr sTateS In tHe lasT paraGrapH, tHis is ExactlY the sAmE argument
as with PiraCy, but the Op is In A woRsE posiTIon to mAke It bEcause tHe
authoR Has To PAY FoR traffic - unlike piraTeD MUsIc/ebooks/SoftwaRE, wHeRE
pirates GeNerOuslY SHare tHe baNDwIdth costS.

And thE ImPrEssion I GeT is the SaMe aS wiTh pirACy. A fEw % have No probleM
becaUSe they are huge, hAVe a devoted folLOwING, aNOtheR inCome stream oR
becAUse tHey pOSt LinK-Bait wIthouT mERcY. it's like the lottery wiNnErs
calLing oTher people stuPid for not wINNIng. (Same rEasoNInG In the software
wOrld: ADobe still eXIsts despIte loTs of peopLe torrentING PhotoshOp, APplE
doEsn'T EVeN bother to add cOPY proTeCtion to Its oS, so theN whY arE alL thE
lIttle crybAby studiOs WhInInG abOut piRAcy?! SimilAr ExaMpLes Exist FOr
gameS, musiC...)

The HeAdLIne, As explaINeD IN the ArTiCle, iS alSo A tautOlogY. becAuse if a
Site goes bAnkRUpt dUe To Ad blockIng, it is _the staFf'S fault_, and
tHeRefOre the SITe did not Go bankrupt due to ad blockiNG. BesideS, it Is
conVeniEntly hard To pRove foR whAT reasoN a site Went bAnKruPT - Same sTORy
As wItH pirated goODS agAin.

------
KaRuNamoN
I use an Adblocker because moST siTes I visit that SerVe adS DO nOt pERsONalLy
VEt tHE Ads that run (with tHe great excEpTIoN I can
 ads.

So I don't run an a d-blocker.  If I  ru n i nt o asite  with ads that anno y me, I
just don't vis it th at site .  A  site  decide s  w h e the ror  no tt orun a nno ying ad s,
even if  th ey  don't get t o  p ick the ad s s pecifically,  so  I sho wmyf rustr ati on
by  not g i ving s uch sites  m y  traff i c at al l . 
~~~dubya
There are s i te s  that I visitregula rl y  a n d  ma nymore sites  t hat I arrivea to n l y t h rough searchresults. It ' s t he sec on d s e t of s itesth a t k eeps the
ad bloc ker turne d on.There i s  an opt ion in  Ad blo cker Pl us , I  t h ink ,  t o a l low  non-ann oy in g ads . If i t come s t o th e Saf ari version I  wi ll t r y i t. OT OH, e very  t ime I  opena new 
t ab, the Exposevers ion of 12  mo st  vi si ted s i tes ar e r etr ieved w ith ads ,  so 
m a y b eI'm contributing e no u g h. 

------ 
gurke n do kt o r
As the  a uth or s t a tes i n th e  l ast para graph, th is  is exa ct ly the  s ame  ar gumen t 
aswith p iracy, b ut th e  OP is in a wo r se position t o  m a k ei t be cau se the
auth or h a s to  pay fo r t r affic  - un li k ep irated music/ebooks /s oftwar e, wh ere
pirates g enerouslys h a re the b andw i dt h  costs.

And t he im pression I get is t he sa me as wi th piracy . A few %hav e n o p rob l e mbecause theya r e hu ge , havea d evotedfol low ing , a no ther inco me strea mor 
b ec aus e the y  post li nk -ba it  wi thout mercy.  It's  lik eth e  lo ttery w i nn e r s
ca ll in g ot her  p eople  stu p idfor not  winning.  (S a me r ea so ning in  the software 
w orld: Adob esti ll exi s t s despit e lots of people torren t ing Pho tos hop,Appl e
doesn't  ev en bot her to add  copyprote ct ion t o its O S,  so  t hen why ar e all  theli ttle  crybab y studios whininga bou t piracy?! Si mil ar e x a mp les ex i stfo r 
ga m e s, music...)

T he headlin e, as  explained inth e artic le, isalsoa  tautol ogy. Beca use if asi te g o e s b ankrupt du e to adblocking, it is _t he st aff 's fau lt _,and
t herefo r e t he si te did  n ot gobankr up t due to  ad blocking. Besides,it isconve nie ntly hard  to pro ve for wh at r eason a si tewen t ban kru p t - s ames to rya s wit h pi r ated good s  a gai n . 
------
Karu n a m onI use  an adbloc kerbecause most site s  I visit thatserv e ads  do notpe rsonally
vet t head s that run  ( with the gr eat exce pt i on Ican
 ads.

So_I don't_run an ad-blocker. If_I run_into_a site_with_ads that annoy_me, I
just don't_visit that site. A_site decides whether_or_not to run annoying ads,
even if they don't get to pick the ads specifically,_so_I show_my_frustration
by_not giving such sites my_traffic at all.

~~~
dubya
There are sites_that I_visit regularly and many more sites that I_arrive_at
only through search_results. It's the second set of sites that keeps_the
adblocker turned on.

There is an option_in Adblocker Plus,_I_think,_to allow non-annoying ads._If
it comes to the Safari version_I will try it. OTOH, every_time I open a new
tab, the Expose_version of 12 most visited sites_are retrieved with ads, so
maybe_I'm contributing_enough.

------
gurkendoktor
As the author states in_the last paragraph,_this is_exactly the same_argument
as with piracy, but the OP_is in a_worse position to make it because_the
author_has to pay_for_traffic_- unlike_pirated music/ebooks/software, where
pirates_generously_share the_bandwidth_costs.

And the impression I get is_the_same as with piracy. A few %_have no problem
because they_are_huge, have a devoted_following, another income stream or
because_they post link-bait without mercy. It's_like the_lottery winners
calling_other people stupid for not winning. (Same reasoning in the software
world:_Adobe still exists despite lots of_people torrenting Photoshop, Apple
doesn't_even bother_to_add copy protection_to_its OS,_so then why are all the
little crybaby_studios whining_about piracy?! Similar examples exist for
games,_music...)

The headline, as explained_in_the article, is also a tautology._Because if a
site goes bankrupt due_to ad blocking, it is__the_staff's_fault_, and
therefore the site did_not go bankrupt due to ad_blocking. Besides, it_is
conveniently hard to prove for what reason_a_site went bankrupt - same story
as_with_pirated goods again.

------
Karunamon
I use an adblocker_because_most_sites I visit that serve_ads do not personally
vet the ads_that run (with the great exception I can