Author Topic: Is it rude to use "Privacy Badger" when visiting a hobby discussion board?  (Read 1759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

snappylt

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 458
I'm curious as to people's opinions about this:

I read frequently and post occasionally on a hobby-related Internet discussion board.  It is run as a sort of public service by a couple of fellows who are active in that hobby themselves.  They have a "donate here by Paypal" button on their site, and the also have top and side banner ads to help pay their Internet costs. They have said that their site is non-profit, that they end up chipping in a bit themselves most months to meet their costs.

Earlier this week I read an article about a service called Privacy Badger from the Electronic Freedom Foundation.  It is NOT an ad blocker (the article said), instead it is an intrusive tracking cookie blocker.  I decided to try the Chrome extension for Privacy Badger, to keep Internet advertisers from tracking me across the Internet.

Well, as soon as I added Privacy Badger, I noticed that the ads on the top and side of the hobby board's pages appeared grayed-out, and Privacy Badger said that it was protecting me from those advertisers' intrusive tracking cookies.

That's good, I guess, but doesn't it also mean that the fellows who run the hobby board are not getting the fraction of a penny that they would have gotten by me viewing the ads on that page?  Is that "rude" of me, to visit their website but keep them from getting the ad revenue from my visit?

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6860
I thought they only get money if you click on the links? And no it is not rude to block the ads on your browser.

PastryGoddess

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4646
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
They only get money if you click on the link.  However, its actually better to just do an ad blocker.  Those ad views are still being counted against them, so it messes up the ratio of views to clicks. 

TootsNYC

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 30505
Hmmm, I don't know enough about the technology.

If the Badger is blocking cookies only, are the advertisers tracking cookies? And if you are blocking cookies, do you appear to be a new viewer every time (which might mean they get -more- because of your visit)?

As I said, I don't know. but in general, I don't think it's rude.

I would, however, make a small donation through PayPal. Just because.

YoginiSaysYes

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
It's not rude at all.

I use AdBlocker, it's a personal preference. I never click on banner ads anyway, so I'm not taking money away from any sites I visit that use ads. Even if I did...I'd still use the blocker, honestly. Ads bug me.

MrTango

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2307
It's not rude at all.

I use AdBlocker, it's a personal preference. I never click on banner ads anyway, so I'm not taking money away from any sites I visit that use ads. Even if I did...I'd still use the blocker, honestly. Ads bug me.

Agreed.

Selectively blocking content from appearing on your screen or cookies from being created is not rude.

It can, however be detrimental to the sites you visit.  Many sites, including this one, rely on advertising revenue to keep the sites free, and blocking ads may reduce that revenue (I'm not entirely sure if payments are made based on number of ads displayed or clicks, and even that probably varies by site/advertising platform).  EHell is one of those sites whose owner takes care to monitor the content of advertising on her site and actively works to keep overly intrusive or inappropriate ads from appearing.  That's why I've "white-listed" EHell and a few other sites in my browser so that ads are not blocked)
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 12:59:20 PM by MrTango »

lmyrs

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1113
Some sites, etc are paid per click and some per view so it's important that people not make the general statement that ads only pay per click. It's not true


CaffeineKatie

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 337
I wouldn't say it was rude.  They could make their site membership only and charge a fee up front: instead, they left it public access.