Apparently, those of us using ad blocking software are engaging in a protection racket.
Adblocking companies acting as a “modern-day protection racket” have been slammed by culture secretary John Whittingdale, who offered government support to those such as newspaper websites hit by the technology.
In a speech at the Oxford Media Convention, the culture secretary said the fast-growing use of software that blocked advertising presented an existential threat to the newspaper and music industries.
He vowed to set up a round table involving major publishers, social media groups and adblocking companies in the coming weeks to do something about the problem.
Ah, yes, “I am from the government and I am here to help”. Not us, mind. Not the consumer driven to block intrusive adverts because they annoy the hell out of us and on mobile devices eat into our data allowance. No, not us, but the poor beleaguered MSM.
I’m aghast. Really I am. Very little that politicians come up with surprises me these days, but this is a new low. What will this fuckwit suggest next, forcing us to watch the ads on the telly? I don’t, of course, because I time-shift. I am vigorous in my approach to intrusive and unwanted advertising. And, if an advert annoys me enough, I will make a point of not buying the product. And forcing itself onto my tablet screen qualifies.
“Quite simply – if people don’t pay in some way for content, then that content will eventually no longer exist,” he said. “And that’s as true for the latest piece of journalism as it is for the new album from Muse.”
Bollocks. There is a wealth of free information out on the net – and most of it is of a far higher quality and far more accurate than the chumps in the MSM produce. Music is an entirely different matter. I buy my music on CD and then rip it for playing in the car. I do, occasionally download directly if it is not available on CD – and I pay for it. So fuck off with the adverts.
“Ten years ago, the music and film industries faced a threat to their very existence from online copyright infringement by illegal file-sharing or pirate sites,” he added.
He said that in the current climate, adblocking potentially posed a “similar threat”.
Er… Are the film and music industries all extinct, then? Anyone recall those old admonishments that home taping was killing music? Did it? Well? So, adblocking does not do this and it is not a threat. It is a choice that enables us to keep intrusive adverts off our screens. And, as with piracy, those who do it aren’t going to buy anyway. So, er, there isn’t a problem.
Stopping short of announcing an outright ban on adblocking, he said he “shared the concern” of the newspaper industry about the impact of the technology and would “consider what role there is for government” after hearing all sides of the argument.
No, but you’d like to wouldn’t you, you vile little totalitarian fuckbag. There is no role for the government here and as one side of the argument, I offer my voice – fuck off and leave us alone. If you ever try to ban adblocking, I will continue to use it; law or no law. You do not get to decide what comes onto my computer screen and you do not get to decide who has access to my bandwidth.
His speech highlighted industry estimates that suggested that – within one week of going on sale – the top three mobile adblockers in the App Store were downloaded nearly 175,000 times. And in the 12 months to June last year, there was a 48% rise in the use of in adblocking use in the US and 82% growth in the UK.
Which tells us that the MSM needs to rethink its model, not try to ban people from making free choices.
There’s so much more to my adblocker than simply stopping adverts appearing on my screen – and therefore chewing into my bandwidth.
I can block images that appear on blogs I read regularly (Dick has a fine collection of awards and such – some several years old – that embellish his blog, but cost me bandwidth. I see that even with your site, it’s blocking three images, the guy on the horse and other stuff).
STV weather was awful with daft drop down adverts and curtains and things. I go there to get the weather forecast and zero else.
With respect to newspapers and magazines, well we already have to pay for adverts they run on their printed pages – and let’s face it, few of us are going to get terribly excited about cheap shoes, or mobile phone deals.
Nope, in my very humble opinion, what scaring the Willies out of Government is MSM is their most important single outlet. They don’t invite bloggers to press releases and they don’t fire out e-mails to them.
Why? Well for the most part because they’d be considered before publication and most likely scarified by the blogger.
MSM does it very well, they’re nice compliant pussycats – and that’s why they end up with page after page of government adverts.
John Whittingdale has a vested interest in placating MSM but – like you – now I’ve got the blocker, there’s no turning back.
I’ve only got the three images – and, to be fair, are very small. My Adblocker doesn’t block them, nor those on DP’s site. What it does block very well is the intrusive adverts and some blogs use ads – Tim Worstall’s for example. Same with the MSM. Page loading especially if I’m on a slow connection becomes impossible.
I’ve got “adblock plus” all done up for Chrome.
Google was not well pleased when I installed it!!
Any image I want removed is just a right click away.
I quite agree, block the lot and timeshift TV to skip the adds, trailers and other assorted rubbish.
Oddly my adblock is telling me that it is blocking 2 items on the page.
John Whittingdale shows his true colours = he thinks we plebs are foie gras geese.
It is possible that he’s been got at – but cynical folk will probably reckon that he was only feigning for votes when he talked about restraining the BBC.
If the BBC are so popular – an iPlayer UserID / password to go with £145.50 sub will do… Same goes for a DVB CAM card – unless the Murdochs are determined … – eh?
As for the rest of ’em – I pay for what I perceive has value to me and most of what’s on offer is simple kerrapp.
I think Newsquest UK (part of US Gannet Corp) have the absolute worst most intrusive ads of the lot – I’d bet the pressure on Whittingdale is coming from the well connected PR / Ad business and not the content providers…
“Stopping short of announcing an outright ban”
Meaning an outright ban is just around the corner after we’ve soften up the population.
I can’t see one working thought, open source will always be available
I think they should fill Whittingdale’s ministerial briefs and speeches with advertising, and see how he f**king likes it.
I suspect even the most inane or mundane ads would be a welcome relief from Whittingdale’s speeches.
2 thumbs up!
Yeah, me an da boyz don’t like your ads Mister Politician, so we gonna block ’em. We gonna run Ad blockers and anti spyware in our browsers and dere ain’t nuffin you can do about it.
Sincerely,
The Sarcasti bruvvers
While I don’t have much time for Mr. Whittingdale’s utterances, he’s been misquoted on this. What he said was:
“Meanwhile, some of the ad-blocking companies are drawing up their own rules of acceptable advertising or offering to white list providers in return for payment. Many see such practices as akin to a modern day protection racket.”
Seen in context, I can understand where he’s coming from, though I have no doubt he’ll find a way to fuck this up too.
Fair point about misquoting. That’s the MSM for you. My main point stands, however; this is nothing to do with the government.
Just as an aside – I can reccomend adblocking at the router. Keeps it all tidy and if you’re on a VSAT link it improves everybody’s experience….