Flash blocking

In the same vain as hotlinking pictures, is flash-blocking considered bad ethics for internet users? What is your opinion?

I just today installed a flash-blocker. I did it not because I don't want to see ads, but the ads based on flash are disruptive to my browsing experience. Typically, they fly-over or expand into the main content areas of the sites that I visit. I've also started noticing a performance hit on several sites where Firefox will lag when using a scroll wheel due to ads.

Recently, I've read some self-serving op-eds about not blocking ads because that is how sites are able to maintain their presence and pay their staff. My opinion is... I don't have an issue with ads, especially ads that contextual to the website (for example, while I am typing this post there is an ad for NY-TREX). Car site... car product ad... makes sense. More than making sense, I am likely a qualified demographic for the product and more likely to click the ad. When the ad is not relevant to the site/topic or is invasive the only thing I am looking to do is close it or go around it. I am not click and Old Spice ad while surfing a computer technology website. I just am not interested. The ads are getting ever more aggressive, so I am taking more defensive steps...

...am I wrong?

Also, note that on the site that is my primary problem text based ads are still there and some of the site content is flash based and blocked by default as well.

I don't think flash blocking is unethical. Flash ads are extremely CPU-intensive and bandwidth-intensive (and as you mentioned, often disruptive). Most ads aren't flash-based. I see it as voting with your eyeballs for what kind of ads you think are acceptable.

I just made a flash blocking plugin for Maemo's MicroB browser on the weekend - there was already a combined flash & ad blocker but I wanted just a flash blocker.

I would agree, no. My dad rocks a 9 year old computer (yes!), and flash adds will often lock it up.

I despise those ads that sort of move and grow to trick you into clicking on them. Many of these are car ads that appear regularly on some of the review sites I read -- annoying enough to make me consider not going there.

This thread needs moar pictures.

I liken it to fast forwarding through the commercials in shows that I record. Most people are going to watch the show when it's aired and will watch the commercials, so the small fraction of people who don't watch the commercials aren't really affecting the effectiveness of the ad. Likewise, 99.9% of people on the internet aren't going to use a flashblocker (I didn't even know they existed until now), so the tiny percentage of people who do block those annoying ads won't really impact the effectiveness of the ads. If anything, it might save the advertiser some loss of customers, because if Old Spice annoys you a whole bunch on the internet, you might not buy their product when you go to the store.

So, where can I get a flashblocker?

Bob

Schmidlap wrote: So, where can I get a flashblocker?

Here

My feelings are similar to Schmidtlap's in that if I am watching a tv show that doesn't mean I won't make a trip "to another room" while the tv show is in a commercial break. My older computer comes close to locking up when a flash-type ad is started/displayed on my screen....and if you lock my computer, I'm definitely NOT going to buy your product.

"Intrusive" ads on computers are like "robo-calls" on my home phone....you MAY get me to answer the 'phone....but don't be surprised if I am annoyed and hang-up/don't buy your product/service.

Would be well and good if flash wasn't just used for ads. the scalability of it means I don't have to worry about what friggin browser size the viewer is using.

There are some absoultely wonderful flash based sites out there. And it's a great way for an artist to embed media, from audio to video (for example, my wife's voiceover site has flash based players for the demos).

Chris_V wrote: Would be well and good if flash wasn't just used for ads. the scalability of it means I don't have to worry about what friggin browser size the viewer is using. There are some absoultely wonderful flash based sites out there. And it's a great way for an artist to embed media, from audio to video (for example, my wife's voiceover site has flash based players for the demos).

And that's why flashblockers allow exemptions.

But the sysadmin needs to know how to set that up and it's a PITA to make sure that what's being blocked is just an ad. and that it's consistent.

Just use HTML5, then your site will get through flash blockers, won't require a proprietary plugin, and won't choke the viewer's computer to death.

(of course HTML5 blockers will eventually be necessary when ad designers make "mouse over just a tiny bit to cover your whole berkeleying screen with this multimedia-enabled ad!" banners in HTML5.)

You don't need a sysadmin or anyone else to click a mouse on the parts you want to see.

In reply to carguy123:

So when I see "active content deleted" instead of the flash content, I can just click on it and see it?

Doesn't seem to work here.

I've had a flash blocker installed on Firefox for over a year now and I get a small square I can click on to make the content load. You can't always tell if it's an ad or needed content, but usually you can figure it out by placement. I only have to see at about 1 in 8 ads.

carguy123 wrote: I've had a flash blocker installed on Firefox for over a year now and I get a small square I can click on to make the content load. You can't always tell if it's an ad or needed content, but usually you can figure it out by placement. I only have to see at about 1 in 8 ads.

They don't do that here at work. They simply block flash content and all you see are the words "active content removed." No options.

Funny thing is some flash stuff still gets through.

Chris_V wrote:

carguy123 wrote: I've had a flash blocker installed on Firefox for over a year now and I get a small square I can click on to make the content load. You can't always tell if it's an ad or needed content, but usually you can figure it out by placement. I only have to see at about 1 in 8 ads.

They don't do that here at work. They simply block flash content and all you see are the words "active content removed." No options. Funny thing is some flash stuff still gets through.

That's a totally different type of flash blocking (probably network-level)

Every time I embed flash in a website I feel dirty. Go ahead and block it, I say. Only valid reason to use it at all is video for crusty old IE.

I've been flash-blocking and script-blocking for years now. It was at first for the ancient computer I had, but now it's more self-preservation. We had a computer at my last job go down in flames because of a corrupted adserver one website used. Dished out something lethal.

DoctorBlade wrote: We had a computer at my last job go down in flames because of a corrupted adserver one website used. Dished out something lethal.

Just thought I'd point out that the ad servers usually aren't "corrupted" - they just serve whichever ads they're paid to serve without checking the code, so that's an easy way to spread viruses.