I completely agree and share your sentiments. I just wish we could all get along... ;)

Well, we want to access content without paying or looking at advertisements... is that morally right?

I mean, I do it, but if webmasters think they want to earn money, it's their decision. Either content is free or it has to be paid for in any way.

What? Why should the company care about that user if they make zero revenue off them and get charged in terms bandwidth costs... bit confused here

...Shouldn't users respect the webmasters as well...?

Pop-ups are one thing, it's like shoving an advertisement in your face. But advertisement revenue is how some sites stay up...

This doesn't make any sense, dafont has a 'get firefox' button on the left hand side of the page. What sort of message are they trying to send here?

Then again, I wasn't able to reproduce the problem (yes I'm using Adblock), so maybe it's all just a simple mistake.

@Dustin, you probably dont have adblock blocking ads on their page, which their script is looking for before allowing a download. I could repro the message.

They're not the first site to do this.. I recently heard of another on mozillazine forums doing the same thing.

Please, Asa. How about users show a little respect for the people running the sites from which they benefit? If you come into my house, my place of business, or my website, I'm going to ask you to follow my rules. I'm going to be as respectful as possible to you, but when you benefit from something I spend my time and money on, I deserve a little respect as well. And if you don't like my rules, there are plenty of other websites out there.

Personally, I wouldn't block people from a site for using ad-blockers, but I'm tired of the notion that people have some inherent right to do whatever they want with other people's hard work just because it's on the Internet. If you don't like the way a website is run, find another one like it or start your own. You do have the right to do that.

Get back to me when we live in a world where everything costs nothing and anything you create is owned by the state.

@vfwlkr,

I went to the site and blocked everything I could to try and recreate the problem. I could not. It allowed me to download everything I tried (granted I did not try every file). Appears to work fine. I then unblocked things on their site so that if I ever use it again they can show some decent ads.

Here Here Joel. While I use Adblock VICIOUSLY to block every damn thing under the sun, and even use Platypus and Greasemonkey for other stuff, I respect a site asking people not to block their ads and explaining in a polite way that it is how they support their site and please either don't block the ads or dont visit their site. If done in such a polite and direct manner, then any respectful individual should honor their request.

I know why some are seeing this and some aren't. You can setup AdBlock to either "Hide Ads" or "Remove Ads". In the case of hiding them, the actual content is still downloaded by the browser, but simply hidden from view. This allows those that sponser the ads to still get the counts for the ad being "seen" even though it wasn't actually visible. In the case of removing them though, Firefox stops the content from ever being downloaded in the first place. I always keep mine set to "Hide" since, with a broadband connection, there is no harm at all in letting them download, this way everybody wins. Anyhow, with it set to "Hide", downloads work fine. Change AdBlock to "Remove" however, and bam, the message shows up. Just keep AdBlock set to "Hide" and you'll never have these problems. If you're worried about how simply hiding the ads can sometimes make the page reflow look weird, just get AdBlock Plus (the current dev version), it collapses hidden ad content area so that it behaves just as if they were removed.

Joel, you may not like it but your model of spewing ads all over a customers (or prospective customers) is dying. Find a new model or parish.

I am 100% committed to giving users control over what their computer does. If you can't accept that the user _is_ going to be in control, you won't last long on the web.

Find a new way. If you don't then your competition will.

- A

Tim's comment is a perfect example of how the user _will_ win here. You cannot take that control away from him and if you try, you will lose. Find a better solution than spewing distracting and unwanted advertising.

- A

So, where's the miracle going to come from to provide the user with the content that requires money to provide for free? since the user is supposed to be in control and doesn't do their part to support the website. (which in this case, is as simple as letting ads show up. wow.) Those users are a drain on probably limited website resources, and since they give nothing back, they should be blocked. Particularly since they're opt-in blocking. Users that break the social contract, should be blocked, if the website can't support them. For the betterment of the site and the rest of the users.

I personally find ads distract from content. Whether its on the radio, tv, or the internet. but. I don't want to have the amount of free content on any of those services to drop. Advertising provides, whether we like it or not, the ability for a radio station to broadcast, a website to pay its bandwidth bill and pay staff, etc. IMO, the alternative, is more websites going to premium content arrangements, which is even worse than the ads. Unless we want a bunch of continually short-lived sites that die from not being able to fund themselves at all.

Actually, this is a pretty big issue that does need to be addressed. Personally, a static ad doesn't annoy me... and I won't block it. I think if most people had FlashBlock, JavaBlock (like FlashBlock but for Java) and GIF animation loops off... the ads wouldn't be a big deal. The problem is that some webmasters decided to say "screw our visitors" and throw popups, popunders, flash and other annoying ads at them... making ad-blocking a very popular addition to web browsing. Unfortunately, the good webmasters that want their users to have a good experience and not trick them into clicking on an ad designed to look like a Windows error message end up paying the price, though.

Asa, as a devil's advocate I feel compelled to ask you to provide this mythical better model than "spewing" ads, and any indication at all that the advertisement model is, in fact, "dying".

Users with the control to block advertisements are still a minority, and are perhaps fated to remain so, given the market power of behemoths like Microsoft and the apathy of the average person. We elite with our fancy browsers and extensions are still far too small a crowd to really impact anyone's bottom line. "The user" isn't going to win here. "The user with Firefox and Adblock" is going to win, and frankly, that's not much of a loss for anybody else.

It costs money, time, and resources to run a website. It's unreasonable to expect every single content provider on the web to pay for these costs out of pocket, and ads have been the default method of recouping those costs for a decade. I can't imagine you'd be any happier about sites restricting their content to those with paid subscriptions; how, then, are these sites supposed to stay afloat if not by using their space to advertise?

Symantec (Norton) Internet Security has Ad blocking feature for quite sometime.
it is off by default, but when you bring up their UI...there is red text indicating you are missing something...and boom!...average user turns it on.
so IE users are also blocking adds, may be few, but they are.

banners and moving adds are going to suffer, ads served with more gentle touch will survive.

There is no free lunch. Someone pays. Always. That way or another.

Ads are not that bad. Sponsoring/donating money (like the MoFo way) probably won't work for most concepts. Asa, do you know a better solution? Micro payment? Subscription fees?

Reminds me of a german joke from the 80s: "Let's switch of the nuclear power plants, electricity comes out the power socket."

I think we basically agree on this point, Asa: if you run a site in a way that users find unacceptable, your site will die. I don't think most users find non-annoying ads unacceptable, though. Not nearly enough people block ads to cause a site to go out of business yet, so we really have no idea what the real repurcussions of this would be.

Imagine if everyone blocked ads. I can only think of a few scenarios that would result:

A) Sites would turn to some sort of subscription model. There are many different ways to do this, but basically in all of them people would have to pay for what they previously got for free. I don't think most users want this.

B) Many sites would just cease to exist. I know users don't want this.

C) Somebody comes up with a new business model. Good luck with this one. The fact that every form of mass media has relied on advertising to make money should tell you something about how easy this is.

Users can block ads. Webmasters can block ad-blocking users. But both have to take responsibility for the result of their actions.

Clever. Has anyone figured out how this was done? I suspect that they might be having an advertisement pass a cookie that the download requires in order to work.

Simon, I realize you're playing devils advocate so this isn't really directed at you but at your question. My answer is that it's not my job to come up with a revenue model that works. That's the job of the content/service provider. It's my job to build the tools that give users as much control over their computer as they need/desire.

Plenty of people have found systems that don't rely on annoying the shit out of users. Pop-ups were annoying the shit out of users and so empowered the user to block them. The web didn't die. Most ads are annoying and we will be empowering the user to take control of that and the web won't die.

- A

Oops, missed the second part of your post, Simon.

Firefox is quickly becoming a mainstream browser and blocking ads is one of Firefox's most popular built in features (image blocking). It's completely natural to assume that future versions of Firefox will improve this feature and make it more accessible just the way we did with pop-up blocking.

The tide is changing and I'm working, full-force, to continue that shift for the users. You closed your post by returning to the question of how content providers can continue. I'll repeat that I think that's the job of the content providers, not the browser makers.

You can already look at the shift with text ads from companies like Google and Yahoo becoming mainstream. Five years ago, people were saying something like that could never work to sustain any significant content on the web. I'd say those people were dead wrong.

For anyone suggest that it's a choice between spewing unwanted and distracting ads or a pure subscription model demonstrates the lack of imagination that let Google leap out ahead of the entire industry with their ad service.

- A

Joel, you said "Not nearly enough people block ads to cause a site to go out of business yet, so we really have no idea what the real repurcussions of this would be." and you are right. Not nearly enough people block ads but that's gonna change. Look at the change that's happened in the last year since Firefox took off.

The Web was becoming a much more hostile, less user friendly place ever since Microsoft vanquished Netscape. Clients stagnated and users were further overrun by unwanted and extremely distracting advertisements with near zero click through rates. Now that the clients are all moving forward again, trying to make the web better for users, that's changing and the web is going to have to adjust.

Yes, it will probably mean the end of some sites which aren't creative enough to find a model acceptable to users, but those sites will be replaced by new ones that do.

- A

I don't know how typical I am of ad-blocking users, but I only block the really annoying ads. Pop-ups, ads that play sound without asking permission, ads with loud animation, or ads that make it difficult to read the page. I can think of just one site where I blocked every single ad, because the page was nearly unreadable, and I haven't been back to it since anyway.

I like to think this strikes a balance between the website's need to show advertising and my desire to read the site in peace.

Michael, as I've said to others, coming up with the better revenue model isn't my job. Providing a better browsing experience is. I have faith in the content and service providers. There's no shortage of them and the smart and creative ones will find a way to stay in business.

- A

I side 100% with Asa on this one. They are giving us users the tools to be able to experience the web the way we want it to be like, without the annoying distractions. It is up to the web developers to figure out how to run a successful website, but at the same time make money. If they don't want to adopt the standard that users hate pop-ups, and users hate silly flash and sound enabled ads, then they either have 2 choices...

1) Piss off every single of their users and lose their fanbase by placing even more devious and annoying ads to trick people into clicking, or

2) Create a new creative way for the website to make enough money to keep the server paid up. Whether that be by asking for donations, ads that don't hurt the eyes or ears, and are tied to the subject of your site (if you run a fish hobbyist site, the ads damn well better have something to do with fish, not free iPods).

Other ideas can be running Google text ads, creating a subscription based site for certain content, or come up with somethnig unique.

If you want the user to shut off their ad blocker, I believe most would oblige if you took care of them, and ran a ad system that doesn't annoy. It isn't very hard to do, and the revenue on the site might actually increase because people aren't worried about popups and flash ads displaying on everypage, and might be more apt to patronize your site, and your affiliates.

Just set Adblock to "hide" the ads instead of "removing" them. The advertiser will get the view and won't know a thing, and the same for the blocked site. Blocked site getting paid like usual and everyone lives happily ever after.

Until the ad values go down because of these practices, but how will they ever be able to even estimate how many runs Adblock?

I didn't get blocked, or get any wierd messages, maybe because they like me ?

But yeah, 80% of Firefox users have adblock properly installed, 73 percent of the users completely hate ads, tracking ads, pop ups, and 3rd party crap (my self included) because websites abuse their previlages, forcing users to use a certain browser.. use visiters as they are just a number being counted per click, viewed and visit, than I will not support them. But I wouldn't mind supporting the pages I visit as long as it's generally not ruining my experience such as a simple text ad, or very very small image

That was just an estimate, I'm probably off a tad bit.

Running FF 1.04, Adblock-Plus 0.5.7+ with Remove and Greasemonkey 0.3.3. I did not set up any specific site rules, but my global filters for doubleclick and Google ads are being blocked on the site. No problem with loading site or downloading fonts.

If I disable images, I won't get to see banner adverts, but I'm still consuming bandwidth and getting access to textual content. If I don't have the use of my eyes, are you going to ban me from your site because I'm not enticed by a punchable monkey?

Come on, this debate is so five years ago. Blocking scripts are ridiculous. Obtrusive advertising methods on the Internet are going to continue to die, now is precisely the time to be doing something about it, but not by blocking users who don't want to be distracted, but by innovating and finding ways to make money that your visitors prefer.

Here's a thought, you could ask people who block banner ads on your site what they would prefer... you might turn up some usable ideas. Switch the blocking part of the script for a text entry field for their suggestions.

Asa, show some respect and save the revisionist history for a New York Times ad. The era of abhorrent Web ads was caused by the explosion of the commercial Web. The fact that Netscape died at the same time is just coincidence. And if the company had somehow survived, you would still be rewriting Netscape 5, so don't pretend that the Web was done some horrible disservice by its passing. And, no, Firefox was not the white knight that rode in on its gallant steed, saving people from a horrible Web experience. It was the literally hundreds of popup blocking utilties that came out years before Firefox had existed (under any name) that caused advertisers to realize that certain methods were simply not acceptable. Sure, Firefox has tons of other great features that make the Web better for some of us, but for normal people, popups were the only real browsing experience roadblock.

It's pretty much a given that the end result of all this is going to be advertising -- in one form or another. And there are some people, most of whom probably use Firefox with Adblock (simply because its the only decent solution), who want to block every ad they can. Why would a company honestly want to do business with someone who thinks it should be a purely one-way street? Actually, that's a faulty question, since that isn't really doing business at all. What I should say is: why should a company not block people who think they deserve to take whatever they want without giving anything in return?

Joel, I tend not to reply much to people who start off posts telling me to "show some respect and save the revisionist history." In this case I'll make an exception with this reply: This is my blog, if you don't like it, go elsewhere. Don't come in here and tell me what to do. Show a little respect :-) Thanks.

- a

I apologize for trying to say what I believe. And while I could ask, "Why don't you turn off comments or make your blog private if you don't want people commenting honestly?" I'll simply respect the proprietor's rules. Which has pretty much been my point all along. Thanks for helping me make it.

If DaFONT.com webmaster were smart, he/she wouldn't put the banner in the /ads/ directory and/or named the file banner.php ; )

Joel, I'm not saying that users shouldn't respect the rules of a particular site. I'm saying those sites will die for having unacceptable rules. They will be replaced by others that can better serve their customers.

It's that simple. Respect your user or be replaced by someone who does.

- A

I've never seen Asa scramble so much to defend his position. I think perhaps your position on this was not so well thought out. I'm glad that the days of endless popups are gone. It was intrusive and a poor business decision on the part of advertisers. I also love my adblock and customizegoogle extensions. I love being able to surf and check my gmail without all the ads. But, as many people above have pointed out, is it morally right? Is it right to disrespect google, a company I greatly thank for my free gmail account, by removing the revenue generating ads?

I have great respect for Asa as a programmer, but I dont think you have a good grasp on business. Its not as simply saying the ad-based revenue model is 'dying'. Some websites are developed for enjoyment of the developer, other to sell a product, and some are strictly to generate advertising revenue. Lets assume in a couple of years firefox has a 75% market share and all those users are blocking ads. Advertisers will demand significantly lower prices for ads and many website owners will have to choose between providing less service or shutting down and providing no service. This could lead to thousands of quality sites disappearing.

I'm not a programmer, but I follow this blog because I love firefox and I have a great respect for the passion its developers have for making it as great as possible. I think that this is one of those times when that passion leads to blindness. This is not a black and white issue (and I think there will be much more debate about this in the next few years - this will become a very hot issue!) I'm very wary when I hear someone say that you either support firefox or you're against it, you have to develop sites that fully support firefox or be boycotted, if you dont use firefox you're suffering the web instead of surfing it, you're either with us or with the terrorists. Its not that black and white. Giving users choice is great, but choice isnt free and neither is all web content.

It will be interesting to watch this issue evolve. For now, I think I'll keep adblock, but customizegoogle is gone. I value gmail so much that I cant ethically freeload.

Flagg, I don't feel like I'm scrambling. I'm very passionate about users and I have no doubt that treating them poorly is quickly going to become unsustainable now that the users are being empowered to manage their online experience.

Smart people will find a way to interact with their users where both parties win and the interaction is not unpleasant for either one. I happen to like contextual text ads (I shop a lot online and don't mind simple text ads that might actually be relevant to me). Even just a few years ago, no one would have thought that text ads could possibly compete with pop-ups and flashy banners. Today an entirely new publishing world (blogs) has grown up with these less intrusive and distracting form of advertisements.

That was some smart thinking (on the part of both Google and the people who employed google text ads.) We need more of that. I can promise you that the Firefox browser (and other web content clients) are finally starting to reach mass markets with tools that empower the user and that trend is not going to change. Even Microsoft was forced to add pop-up blocking. Sites are going to have to find a better way than clobbering their users with unwanted ads. If they don't, someone else will. Yes, it means that some sites are going to be lost. So be it. They'll be replaced. The web isn't going away any time soon. Don't want to be replaced? Then find some new way to interact with your users that treats them with a bit more respect. Treating people right isn't always the most profitable approach, but when people realize that they can get better, they will and you'll be replaced.

- A

<rant>It's because of these types of sites that we end up having things "taken away" from us(us being web developers). As soon as one site starts abusing one new javascript technique(first it was window.open with onloads then flash onloads, then javascript/dhtml/flash overlays and so on) there's something out there that will remove or disable the feature. The problem is that there is legimate reasons why you might want to open up a new window onload of a parent window(and then close the opening window), but because of these types of sites...</rant>

Rant over. Like some others said before, if you can't have targeted ads, then why even bother? It's like the movie industry panicking about the box office sales -- could it be because there aren't that many good movies being released? Same thing here - the reason that you're not getting your ad click through isn't that people are blocking your ads(granted it doesn't help) - maybe I just don't care about buying vonage when I'm looking at a font site?

Thanks for the response. As usual, an intelligent and well constructed arguement (no wonder I keep comming back here).

I think this is only the beginning. As firefox chews up more market share, even more websites will try to block it. It will be interesting to watch...

Preach!

I hope Joel didn't actually leave. He made some great points.

LouCypher, I tend to believe that you're on the ball, but trying to keep quiet about it.

http://dafont.com/ads/banner.php?mkinit=###########

This URL gets blocked, you get the messasge that you can't download. Don't block it, download is good. This method is easy to circumvent with whitelisting - available in Adblock Plus (shameless plug, I apologize).

There are other ways to detect Adblock (http://bene.sitesled.com/blockme.htm).

Timfry and others for whom the site works, no matter what they try to block, I'd suspect that you requested the dafont.com/ads/banner.php?mkinit URL and kept the same session ID, so it didn't matter if you re-visited it.

Which side of the adblocking fence am I on? Well, if you're not going to click, don't bother downloading. Why not? Generally, the advertiser pays per impression and the web site gets paid per click. Who gets the money when the impression is served and the banner isn't clicked? Not the web site I'm visiting, just the company that coordinates the ads. The people who I think deserve my time/bandwidth/screen real estate/attention the least.

Enjoy!

why is dafont.com listed on spreadfirefox.com:

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=user/view/86848

I personally feel adbloker is a bad thing for FREE internet. I do hate pop-ups/unders, and the new flash pops, but i can stand polite adds. I think adbloker and such would be harm for free content.

There are too many comments to read them all, but I agree with those first dozen or so, webmaster has every right to guide his policy. It is just like that someone won't let you into bank if you wear shorts.

Finally, I am not fan of Ad block, and though such thing is good in short term for gaining techie users, it might be also bad, as sites owners might start to hate Firefox, which is the worse thing that can happen to you.

And even if consumers win, as you describe it, and everyone has installed ad block on his computer so that webmasters must respect that fact, I can't see what they win. Sites must live from something, so some of them would be closed, and some of them would change to subscription mode.

"Sites are going to have to find a better way than clobbering their users with unwanted ads. If they don't, someone else will. Yes, it means that some sites are going to be lost. So be it. They'll be replaced. The web isn't going away any time soon. Don't want to be replaced? Then find some new way to interact with your users that treats them with a bit more respect."

The thing is, you could just as easily turn this around:

Users are going to have to find a better way than leeching from webmasters with ad-blockers. If they don't, someone else will. Yes, it means that some users are going to be lost. So be it. They'll be replaced. The massive uninformed user-base isn't going away any time soon. Don't want to be replaced? Then find some new way to interact with your content-providers that treats them with a bit more respect.

Just as you don't care if those sites are lost, those sites likely don't care that a small fraction of users who aren't givin them anything in return don't come back. Regardless of how sound you think that business model is going forward, you shouldn't try to make the issue about "respect", implying some sort of moral high-ground that doesn't exist here.

why is dafont.com listed on spreadfirefox.com:

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=user/view/86848

They have a spread firefox thingie on their homepage..

So basically you people who support advertisers are saying is that users aren't allowed to control their own computer? We are just supposed to sit back and let sites control what we see? We have the tools to take control of our experience, and we are just supposed to let them rust as advertisers force products that nobody wants down our throats? I suppose that you think Firefox should let adware install too, so that all of those poor, starving companies like Claria can continue to preform their "great" service to the internet community.

As was already pointed out, go to adblock settings, select HIDE instead of REMOVE ads. Voila, it is now indetectable from the web sites that you are blocking their ads. And even if they find a way to figure out that you're using adblock, have no fear, it will be corrected in days.

exactly.

I have every right to *NOT* view ads if I wish. And I will... The sites that block that... guess what.... there is always a way around it. I have always been able to find one. But then that could be because I'm a webmaster myself.

BTW... I for one don't have advertisements of any kind on my website. I don't believe in my visitors having to put up with them at all.

Those webmasters who are pricks (aka blocking adblock users)... don't worry... there are ways around your little games. Don't be stupid. If you don't like users blocking your ads and claim to be "losing money" because of it... shut down your site. We don't want to visit it in the first place if you want to be like that. Plain and simple.

Speaking as a webmaster, a surfer who wants freebies while blocking ads clearly won't generate revenue for a particular site. Thus the site loses nothing if this person leaves them because of the adblock message and goes to some other site to eat their bandwith and block their ads.

Advertising on a site is not based solely on getting as many people to visit, and loading the page, it's a whole range of factors I won't go into here, but let me just say - us webmasters have no use for people who block all ads and want only to get to that free file.

From speaking with a lot of people who own sites, some with over 100,000 visitors a day and more, removing the type of surfers looking for freebies brings the quality of traffic higher, brings their profits higher and their ad space costs more because the surfer traffic responds better to advertisers who in turn want to get infront of the said surfers. The good surfers then get treated better and get more of what they want. Simple.

And finally, Asa is speaking of alternatives. Wanna know what those alternatives are? And it's not some far fetched idea - it's micropayments. Paying for content. Wanna read that article? Click the link and pay 2 cents.

The Associated Press is currently making a move to charge for their articles which are used by many newspapers and news sites. Think Yahoo! will let you read the AP articles for free if their advertising slumps and they can't make money? Somehow I think not :)

I find it funny how someone who touts I'll block all the damn ads, start a web site and soon would ICQ me crying how they can't get anyone to click on the ads. And how they're approaching the bandwith limit for the month and have to pay out of pocket. Suddenly ad blocking becomes evil to them and they begin to despise it

The Associated Press is currently making a move to charge for their articles which are used by many newspapers and news sites.

Last time I checked, the AP charges ~$1400/month to get feeds of their stories. This is coming from someone who looked into this for near future purposes.

Join the club.

If FF had UA identification change, and/or client cloaking... hum.. where have I seen this ?

duhriddler said: "So basically you people who support advertisers are saying is that users aren't allowed to control their own computer? We are just supposed to sit back and let sites control what we see?"

No, we're not saying that. What we are saying is that if someone goes to the effort to make something available on their site, and you want that something, whether it is a driver, game, cheat code, news item, or whatever it may be, that they have a right to ask for something in return, IF THEY WANT TO. If you ignore their request, and take what they offer, while giving nothing in return, then you are a leech and are not treating him or her with respect. Eventually he may decide that its not worth it to distribute whatever it was because everyone is basically stealing from him and not honoring his requests.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you went to the effort to write a program that does something useful to a lot of people and then you put it on your site and said, "this is free to anyone who wants it, but please do not block the ads on my site because its the advertising money that makes it so I do not have to work and have time to write programs like this" and then you find out everyone is blocking the ads. Wouldn't you feel like, "well god damn it, screw them people. They have no respect for me or my efforts." and then you would likely stop distributing freely, or maybe even at all.

duhriddler said: "We have the tools to take control of our experience, and we are just supposed to let them rust as advertisers force products that nobody wants down our throats?"

Ummmmm no. Again... not what we mean. You are under no obligation to buy anything, and if you can't respect their politely worded request, then simply go to another site. Have some respect for their wishes is all.

duhriddler said: "I suppose that you think Firefox should let adware install too, so that all of those poor, starving companies like Claria can continue to preform their "great" service to the internet community."

lol again.. uhhh no. Adware is different than an AD. You have control over what gets installed on your pc and any business or individual that tricks you into installing something against your wishes should be dealt with in the harshest manner.

Shaun said: "I have every right to *NOT* view ads if I wish. And I will... The sites that block that... guess what.... there is always a way around it. I have always been able to find one. But then that could be because I'm a webmaster myself."

Woo hoo. He's a webmaster. Everyone watch out. Ok, on to your point. You are saying then, "if I want to take something even if I'm not supposed to I will because I am really cool and can do that!" Well thats mature. In the real world that would also get you locked up or at the very least get your ass kicked.

Shaun said: "BTW... I for one don't have advertisements of any kind on my website. I don't believe in my visitors having to put up with them at all."

I strongly suspect you have nothing anyone would want on there anyway.

Shaun said: "Those webmasters who are pricks (aka blocking adblock users)... don't worry... there are ways around your little games. Don't be stupid. If you don't like users blocking your ads and claim to be "losing money" because of it... shut down your site."

ummm how bout you just don't take something that is not being given freely? If I have a nice bowl of ice cream, and you want it, and I say, "all you have to do is look at this T.V. commercial for 2 seconds and the ice cream is yours" and instead you run up and punch me in the mouth and take the ice cream you know what thats called? I'll say it in case you don't, its called "stealing" Look it up. Why is this any different?

What's the problem? I went to dafonts web site (why do I get the feeling none of the rest of you actually did?) and used adblock to shut down their Iframe banner. No problems with the site at all. In fact it has a get firefox ad at the bottom of the page.

Boy, this is crap. What I find most obnoxious is that dafont is just a collection of other people's free fonts--including mine. Personally, I make my fonts available for free with no ad banners (and would not mind if you blocked any ad banners I had), and at least I made the content that's on the site. If the point of this site is just to make ad revenue off the work of others, then that is quite annoying.

sophist: Whether we went to the site or not is irrelevent to the greater debate over whether or not it is ok to take something without respecting the wishes of the owner of the thing you are taking.

Tom 7: If what you say is true, then yes, that is a bunch of crap. If I were you I'd distribute the fonts under GPL or something so he can't profit off of them... (that is if I remotely understand the GPL, and I probably don't lol)

jreyst: The GPL allows people to sell the work. They just have to make the "source" available. (GPL is sort of bad for fonts, since it "infects" any designs that the fonts are used for, which makes them bad competition for freeware or even commercial fonts.) I don't intend to have the license restrict what people can do with them, but that doesn't mean I can't be annoyed when someone selfishly takes from people who selflessly give, and then whines when someone blocks his ads. There is no respect in that.

jreyst: frankly I don't care if you agree with my opinion or not. Visiting a website is not stealing... show me that one in the lawbooks. AND... a site with advertising that doesn't charge is... (well what do you know...) a free site.

BTW... is there really any sense in crying just because I said my opinion? Who's the one who's **REALLY** immature here again??

Tom 7: Thanks for the info on GPL. I hadn't thought about how it would apply to fonts. That is a true pickle then. You give something away free of charge and then someone else goes and basically sells it. Is there no way around that?

Shaun: I know you don't care, you have already clearly stated that you do not care what others think. No, you are right, visiting a website is not stealing, as long as you are not knowingly bypassing or avoiding the one cost the owner of that site asks of you. If a site has ads, and doesn't ask you not to block them thats one thing. If a site DOES have ads, and specifically asks you not to block them, especially in a polite manner, then why do you have the nerve to give the poor guy the finger and still take whatever it is you are getting from that site. After all it *is* an exchange situation. You are downloading something from that site that you want/need (drivers, cheat codes, games, fonts, etc) or you are reading something on that site (downloading information to your brain) for whatever reason. Is it wrong for the person (who has created what it is that you are taking) to ask for something in return?

As for implying I am immature. Ok, you're right. I'm immature because I'm suggesting you shouldn't take something without giving something in return (when asked to). That is pretty immature of me I guess. lol

jreyst: ok, point taken... as long as a site asks you not to block the ads, that's fine. I have seen some sites that replace the missing ad banner with something saying that the ads are blocked, etc. etc. (one example of this is www.weebls-stuff.com) This I have no problem with.

As long as you are asked politely and basically give the webmaster the finger, that's another story.

And just so there's no hard feelings, there **ARE** sites that I allow ads, BTW. My view is this: I visit the site, take a look around without viewing ads (even if it means cheating to do it), if I like what I see, and frequent the site, I allow the ads. I **DO** give back to the sites I frequent, thanks to the whitelisting feature of Adblock Plus 0.5.7.

What I have a problem with is the attitude, "If you don't see my ads, leave." That is my choice, not theirs, in my opinion. Again, being asked nicely, even warned is fine, I don't like being told how to use my computer and web browser. That's all.

Shaun, that is a more reasonable position, except for the last part. You said, "What I have a problem with is the attitude, "If you don't see my ads, leave." That is my choice, not theirs, in my opinion. Again, being asked nicely, even warned is fine, I don't like being told how to use my computer and web browser. That's all."

Well I agree with you, that you shouldn't be told how to use your web browser, but think of your web browser like a car. It can take you lots of places, but some places you are just either not allowed to go, or expected not to go out of common courtesy. You don't drive you car up on someones lawn to look in their windows, even though it IS your car. By your logic if I asked you not to drive on my lawn you might say, "its my car don't tell me how to use it" well its my lawn. I know I don't own the street, or the sidewalk, but please don't drive on my lawn. Sure you are physically ABLE to drive on my lawn, but that still doesnt make it right. If you want to agree to my rules then you can run over my lawn all day long. It seems fair to me.

Just some more thoughts.

jreyst: Well, everyone has different opinions, that's true. And I will admit, Your point is well taken. A web browser can easily be viewed as a car. Taking you to many different places, and each town, each state has it's own laws. Just as websites have different rules and posing guidelines, and such. I don't think I'll change my position, but I have to admit... You've given me something to think about. You have alot of good points.

Thanks for giving me something to think about. LOL!

Looks like They got the right idea If only every other site would follow in their footsteps, probably get more respect..

That site is actually way cleaner than ANY other site i've seen before. I wish other sites would do this in respect to the user, accept donations instead of forcing advertisements displaying 'em in the middle of an artitle, using pop ups to get attention, ect, ect. I'd say... Hey If you like the site Support it, in an ethical way. If you don't because for say they try to force feed unwanted crap let the b*^&& die.

-Nasty_Perverted_Filthy

seems they have fixed their site:

http://aasted.org/adblock/viewtopic.php?t=2183
http://aasted.org/adblock/viewtopic.php?t=2198

I using Firefox v1.0.5 and Adblock v0.5.2.059 and I went to DaFONT.com and I just downloaded a font "20 cent marker.ttf" in a zip file. The site didn't block me, it must be your adblock filter that causing the trouble.