The "ethics" of blocking ads (And/or scripts) on websites.

For some stupid reason, one topic that gets people fired up on tech blogs and messages boards is whether or not you should block ads when visiting websites using an ad blocker like Adblock Plus or even further, using a script blocker like NoScript. 

Hell, it can happen outside of the blogs and boards too.  Case in point, someone I know asked me what I use as a browser, so I answered his question honestly:

"Firefox with Adblock Plus and NoScript.  Surfing goodness!"

He then asked me this question:

"Do you keep the ad and script blockers enabled on every website you visit?"

So again, I answer honestly:

"That I can get away with, yes!"

He then said this, with a straight face:

"If you do that you're being disrespectful to the sites you like.  Don't be surprised if a good portion of those sites either go offline or turn into pay-to-view sites because people like you can't be bothered to look at their ads."

I just said, "whatever," and I walked away.

It's the same thing on the blog and boards, someone will suggest using an ad and/or script blocker, and someone will give a lecture that by using such add-ons you're being "disrespectful to websites you like to visit."

Their argument is this: Many sites get revenue to run by showing ads on the pages.  If "enough" people block ads from being displayed, the site's revenue will choke off, and the website's author may be forced to either take the website down, or become a pay-to-view site where people need to pay to see the content.

That argument is valid, but also stupid.  Here's why, but first....

"Disrespectful?" Last I heard, a website is just another set of 1's and 0's.  It's not a living thing that has feelings and emotions.

Back to why:                                                                                     

                 

Internet Explorer still has the biggest slice of the pie when it comes to web browser usage for all windows-based PC users.  Not because it's any good, but because a lot of people don't know any better.  IE does not have an ad blocker available for it that is anywhere close to the effectiveness of something like Adblock Plus.  Now, take the remaining percentage of people that use Firefox, Chrome or a combination of both.  How many people who use those two browsers know that such an add-on like AdBlock Plus even exists?  Not very many, I can tell you that.  Hell, I didn't know about Adblock Plus until someone mentioned it on a forum I was visiting!  You take this one simple observation, and you'll see why the "you're choking off their revenue" argument is stupid.

Now I know what some people viewing this post are going to say:

"What if this blog goes viral and you get a chance to make some money off it?  I bet you would change your tune real fast on whether people should be able to use ad blockers."

First, I don't have ads on my blog (I tried to see if I can set up an adsense account for shits and giggles, and it wouldn't let me).  Second, I run this blog as a hobby NOT as a possible income generator.  That's what I have a job for.  So even in the future if google does place ads on my page, you're free to block them if you wish.

But there is another, bigger reason why I block ads whenever I can:

It's really about security.  Most ads you see on websites are not put there by the websites themselves.  They are run by a 3rd party advertisement agency that doesn't care what ads they shows as long as they are making money.  The agency might display an ad that contains malicious code that can infect a computer with a virus or spyware just by having it displayed on the screen.  Yep, just viewing a website that happened to show an infected ad right at that moment can get your computer infected!  It's called a drive-by download.

Think I'm off-base?  A couple of years ago, the Wall Street Journal had the exact same thing happen to it.  One of its ads that was displayed contained malicious code that gave people viruses just by having the site up and visible in their browser.  People complained, the WSJ apologized.  If these people used an ad blocker, they probably wouldn't be complaining.

That's the biggest reason why I use an ad blocker and also a script blocker.  The safety and security of my computer matters more than the 50 cents of revenue that the website stands to make off me.  Let them make money off all those internet explorer users.

To close: I will continue to use an ad blocker when surfing the web.  Like I wrote before, it's surfing goodness.  Oh, and to the people who try to argue in favor of the websites by saying "disrespectful," "choking off revenue" and other garbage: it's going to be hard to convince me you're not a shill. 

End of.

When women emphasize "BOYFRIEND" without you even saying anything....

I'm sure I'm not the only one this has happened to.    I'll give two examples....

1. I was talking to a race car driver at my local racetrack about, well, racing stuff when she just had to mention about something about "my boyfriend" and clearly emphasizing it before going right back to, well, racing stuff and her car, etc.

2. I was in Publix and I entered one of the isles to get something when I saw one of the female workers talking to one of her colleagues and I just glanced at her, and she made a point to say "my boyfriend" loud enough to where I could hear it clearly.

Now, I get that it's a defense mechanism.  When a woman says "my boyfriend" out of the blue without you even inquiring if she has one (or really have no intention of asking her out) and makes a point to emphasize it, it is code for "I'm not into you so don't even think about asking."

I get it.  Women have to have some ways to tell men to back off.   But do they really have to activate a defense mechanism every time a man comes near them?  

There are some times when women activate a defense mechanism - like mentioning a boyfriend out of the blue - and it is just silly when it's in a certain situation or environment when the chance of a man trying to hit on them is very low due to common sense reasons.

Let's take the two examples I mentioned:

1. If I were to ask her for her digits I might be kicked out of the racetrack and possibly even banned.  I like going to this track and that would be pretty bad to be barred from going there just because I wanted to be brave.

2. The woman in Publix is probably hit on quite a lot.  The odds are very high and it's not in my favor.  Plus it's kind of awkward when if you do ask her out, get turned down and later on find yourself in her checkout lane. 

So really, is there any reason for a woman to "arm herself" when guys around her know it's not a good idea to try to hit on her, like the reasons stated above?  

Now I'm sure people, especially women will be like, "But Sam you're not a woman, as a woman you always have to be prepared to be hit on by guys no matter where you are."

Sorry, but in my viewpoint.... NO.  Most guys are smart enough to weigh the risk Vs reward when even thinking of approaching a woman in hopes of getting her number.   If the reward is very small, but the risk - say, the possibility of being banned from a place - is big, he is not going to do it no matter how pretty he thinks a woman is.  

So in other words, if you're a woman.... you don't have to raise your defense mechanisms like saying "My boyfriend" all the time.  It will just make you look silly in situations like the examples I described above.

First post and an explaination.

Did you ever hear the phrase, "Telling it like it is?"

The explanation of that phrase is simple.  Call it as you see it and say (or write) how you feel about the subject even if it ruffles some feathers.  Did you ever hear or read something and tell the person, "Damn tell us how you really feel?!"  Yeah, that's exactly what I am referring to....

Thanks to the first amendment in this great place known as the USA, you are able to "tell it like it is" freely, without fear of government interference or getting arrested.

But there is a group out there that is hell bent on squashing people who tell it like it is.  I call them the Political Correctness Brigade, aka the PC Brigade or PCB (unfortunate abbreviation) for short.

The PC Brigade is NOT an actual organization or membership.  It consists of people of all walks of life who feel that a person should silence him or herself because their opinions or views might offend someone else.

That is fine on the surface, except the PC Brigade does the following, including but not limited to:

1. Accuse people of lacking tact or class.

2. Accuse people of generalizing.

3. Accuse people of being various types of "*ist" (Racist, Sexist, etc).

4. Demand that people be fired or suspended from their jobs, even if what the person said or wrote was in no way related to their job, they didn't mention their job, and they said or wrote the view / opinion on a personal, non-work device on his/her free time at home.

Last but not least....

5. Demand you "apologize" for your own views or opinions.

Well that's not going to be me.  This blog is going to be a spot to air my personal views and opinions out to the word.  If the PC Brigade doesn't like what I have to say, they are not going to get an apology.  They can simply go to another website.