The Ad-blocker debate is back again

A very public debate about ad-blockers is back in the news, and among others the New York Times has weighed in with a pretty hefty opinion. Along the way, several sites have threatened to block firefox users because 'they block ads'.

Well, I don't know if anyone's noticed, but firefox by default only blocks popups: a class of ads which includes the ever-annoying pop-under. Very handy, especially since it's default behavior. It might not be a solution to the problem of popups (technological solutions never are...) but it's a start. There's a downloadable extension called 'AdBlock', which seems to be what they're referring to.

In my experience, a lot of firefox users don't install the AdBlock extension. On the other hand, some people use firefox just for that extension.

I've written about the underlying issue before, and what I said stands: I will not tolerate ads which resize the browser, get in the way of reading the content, extrude popups or pop-unders, play music or screaming-loud audio. And since sites don't warn before they do these things, that's why I use an ad-blocker. Ironically since it lets you block out big banner ads, flash, and stops popups, that's all the ad blocking I need. AdBlock Plus even has a 'whitelist this site' functionality, which I'll use if I trust a site enough to not to send cruft flying everywhere.

If there's any sites which have started blocking firefox users, I haven't noticed. If it ever is an issue, there's an extension called the 'User-Agent Switcher'. I don't anticipate it will ever be a problem.

Hell, if the New York Times started blocking firefox users it's not as if I would notice: I don't go there. I don't go to or stay on sites that require registration of a user account just to read their content.

Salon.com is an example of a site that does things right: you need a subscription to read content, or you can watch an ad to get a 'day pass' if you want to read something.