Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DoubleClick Warns Against Ad-Blocking Browsers

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the are-you-threatening-me? dept.

Privacy 1399

An anonymous reader writes "The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default, a DoubleClick executive has warned. Bennie Smith, the online advertising network's privacy chief, said the popularity of tools like Adblock -- an extension to the Mozilla Firefox browser -- which makes blocking online ads simple was tied to 'a negative vibe against advertising in general'."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

cry me a river (5, Funny)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889758)

So you run a company who's job it is to annoy people, and you are mad because someone wants to run your out of business with their new product. Sounds like capitalism at it's best.

Indeed, this is the free market at work. (5, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889846)

This is the free market at work. Firefox and AdBlock provide a service that is in high demand: the blockery of ads. Thankfully for all of us, the price is so very low enough that most of us can afford it. Indeed, DoubleClick's days are numbered because they have a very small market these days. And you can't create a market by crying in public like this. You need to buy politicians to enact copyright/patent-style legislation on your behalf.

Re:cry me a river (4, Insightful)

Trigun (685027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889859)

Not capitalism, idiocy.

Doubleclick wants to get rid of the free as in beer internet as well as the free-as-in-Mel Gibson painted blue internet. If they had their way, they would track every single person on the internet and their shopping habits, eating habits, and any other thing that they could figure out how to track, and sell it all to the highest bidder.

Fuck you double-click! If people weren't trying every single underhanded trick to make money on the Internet, the place would be better. Fuck you, fuck your adware-hocking buddies, and fuck Roland Pipsqueakalli for their desperate attempts to make a buck off of my back.

Re:cry me a river (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889929)

I agree with you, if only because of your amusing use of the word fuck.

Re:cry me a river (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889897)

Exactly. Seeing large, flash animations telling me about a service I am completely uninterested in irritates me. Sometimes I click[1] on them on the basis that it will cost someone money and not give them any sales.

Google ads, on the other hand, I have no problem with. They are small (both in terms of content and download size - particularly important if I am using GPRS and paying per byte), unobtrusive, and - most important - relevant. I have even bought things as a direct result of Google ads, something no other advertising mechanism can claim. I have no problem with well-targetted adverts, but blanket adverts just get ignored. Whether the filtering happens in my browser or my brain makes very little difference.

[1] Open in background tab, then close without ever actually looking at the tab.

AdBlock: reserving the right... (5, Insightful)

CdBee (742846) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889935) control what I see on my screen. Advertising to fund content is not a sustainable business model as too many people are willing to provide genuinely free content.

I do not wish to be advertised at, so I generally refuse to use sites which require me to sign in to use non-commercial services.

I wouldn't be too sad to see the end of commercial websites funded by advertising.... the internet managed long enough before the days of spam and aggressive advertising.

I remember surfing the web with IE5 on Windows 98 and finding advretising totally unobtrusive, with just a banner ad on every page. Then in the space of about 6 months, I started seeing pop-ups, ads with sound, javascript tricks, etc

So now I block all advertising regardless of its nature. Had quite enough of that. And them.

Re:cry me a river (1)

Bush_man10 (461952) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889942)

Annoying maybe, but these ads are a much needed source of revenue for the internet. What would happen if people ended up blocking google ads? Would we have free searching on the internet?

Ads maybe annoying but I like the fact that I don't get charged for using a lot of the services on the internet that I love to use.

Now if I could only figure out how to put ads in my posts :)

Too bad... (2, Funny)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889765)

...I can't make first post as a pop up!

Oh nos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889769)

Advertising group says avoiding ads means the intarweb is ending! The sky is falling! News at 11!

who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889770)

bugger 'em I say

frist post

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889899)

You fail it.

In other news. (5, Funny)

jcromartie (841990) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889773)

In other news, burglars are urging consumers to stop using locks on their doors.

Good call (1)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889776)

This brings up a good point.

If nobody is looking at ads, ads won't pay for anything.

Although, I don't know of any browser that blocks by default, as of yet, it's very easy to block images in firefox.

Other than adds, what else could fund 'free' services online?

Re:Good call (5, Interesting)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889826)

I don't care. The ad industry has gotten so obnoxious and full of itself, I want to see it die, and I don't care what it takes with it.

I know this is probably not in my own best interest, but, like I said, I don't care. When I get this pissed off about a thing, sometimes logic goes out the window, and what will happen to the 'free internet' is secondary to my desire to see slimeballs like that double-click guy flushed down the crapper.

Re:Good call (1)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889903)

Another good point that they have shot themselves in the foot. Popups, pop unders, flash adds, adds that make noise, adds that pretend to be system message . . .

The list goes on.

One part of me says "Fuck-em" but another wants there to be adds to there can still be free services online.

Re:Good call (1)

stecoop (759508) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889875)

Other than adds, what else could fund 'free' services online?

I don't know but I think wiki Foundation [] has an answer. You could also read up on what the asterisk next to peoples name means - you'll discover many a few ways online can survive. If they're good enough, they will, if not then that is the free market speaking.

Wrong way around? (2, Insightful)

Miaowara_Tomokato (757775) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889779)

The end of free web content... ... or the end of (non-commerce) web content for profit?

Re:Wrong way around? (0, Troll) (780570) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889836)

nope! the end of free web content.

This guy thinks he's the world... (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889882)

Something's not really free if carries a advertising payload.

There are like a gazillion bamillion kajillion websites out there that are created by people who just want to share for love of whatever they're doing. I guess they're all just inconsequental stupid SUCKERS .

I really don't give a flying fuck if you can't turn the web into another avenue to shove advermatizing down our throats. Too bad Congress wants to give support to companies like the weather channel rather than public services like NOAA. Silly Asses.

And in other news... (1)

tpconcannon (619066) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889781)

Cigarette compaines want you to smoke. Credit card companies want you to run up big debts. etc. etc. etc.

Negative vibe, huh? Flash ads make my balls hurt. (0, Troll)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889783)

Your Flash ads make my scrotum tingle, you cockbaiting fuckfools at DoubleClick! Oh, and they consume too much of my bandwidth. And they don't contribute to the content of the page.

Pr0n!!!!!! (1)

tsbiscaro (888711) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889873)

It's simple: banners with naked women.

And in related news... (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889784)

...Ford warns consumers against public transportation.

Re:And in related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889895)

Not warns against, so much as buys out and drives into the ground, resulting in a regulatory slap on the wrist...

Har! Har! (1)

jromz03 (686423) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889788)

Does he actually believe that people will believe him?

In other news! (1)

Jeffery (810339) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889790)

fire ants warn against using ant killer, and deer warn against the dangers of deer season.

Product Placement (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889793)

We just need more product placement.

something like:

"Today an Abu Ghraib, where prisoners enjoy cold delicious coca-cola classic, investigators uncovered....."

Give FOX some time. (2, Funny)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889892)

Give FOX News some time. They'll eventually stoop to that level, but will take it a step further by only advertising Republican-owned corporations.

This just in (1)

MasterOfUniverse (812371) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889796)

CEO of a company trying to save his job by lying! details at 11!

What a hypocracy! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889797)

DoubleClick's trademark infringes on the Amazon patent -- twice.

Soooo? (1)

RoadkillBunny (662203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889798)

'a negative vibe against advertising in general'
So why is this bad again?

holes (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889799)

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were."

That's why you set it to collapse blocked elements. I don't have any holes in my Adblocked or PithHelmeted pages...I'd love for my 32 page newspaper to be the 13 or 14 (or less) pages of pure content...

But would you be willing to pay more? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889943)

Would you be willing to pay far more for the adless, condensed newspaper? Indeed, ads subsidize newspapers so that they cost a reasonable amount per unit.

end of free internet content (4, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889801)

If by "free internet content" he means "obnoxious flash based advertisements" he's right.

Advertising is an important revenue stream, but its not the only revenue available nor the only viable business model. I don't see alot of people blocking Google advertisements since they're non-intrusive and context sensitive... only obnoxious flash based adverts, or banners -- Doubleclick's meal ticket.

FUD by a company executive to protect his business model. Nothing to see here, move along...

Hah (2, Insightful)

kutsu119 (883719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889802)

"'a negative vibe against advertising in general'."

Shouldn't abuse it then, should you?

I dont know about anyone else, but I don't mind adverts. It's just the stupid "SMACK THE MONKEY!!!1" type that means I right click, and add them to the block list.

I've no problems with websites advertising, just don't take the .... with it.

So we won't visit those sites then? (1)

NidStyles (794619) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889803)

I guess I won't visit those sites. Not like I did in the first place, but I do not absolutely need to visit sites, that do not relate to my education, or work.

It's those damn zealots again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889807)

Trying to make internet ad-free, only low life scum like those geeky fantatics would to that.

Personally I wouldn't mind paying for content.

popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889809)

The analogy doesn't hold up. To compare ad-blocking with something that could do the same in newspapers doesn't even make sense. What's really going on (in my opinion) is the natural selection process. Browsers started out simple, naive, and unassuming. Then came the predators... in this case popup ads. Now most browsers offer popup ad blocking or extensions to block popups.

Popup ads are nothing like newspaper advertising -- the dynamic is quite different. For example, if there were the capability and there really was a newspaper that had advertising that actually jumped up in front of what you had started reading, or some other intrusive behavior, that paper would be likely shunned by most consumers and the paper would fail.

Popup ads today are just part of the browser experience and its evolution... but, popup ads are annoying to most, and eventually will (okay, at least should) disappear... advertisers don't like paying for something consumers will never see. Meanwhile I see normal sidebar ads as being sufficient as more people use the internet... I can only speak anecdotally, but if sidebar ads are tastefully done, and well-targeted, it is not unusual for me to click and browse/shop and maybe even purchase. It's similar to the newspaper paradigm... simple, unobtrusive, universally accepted, and usually non-offensive.

I can't imagine an internet incapable of sustaining itself without popup ads... (For the record, there's a certain mortgage/lending institution from which I would never take a loan -- that's how annoying I find their popups.)

Some truth to this for smaller sites (2, Insightful)

macklin01 (760841) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889812)

Well, there is some truth to it.

I try to unblock ads to my favorite small sites (e.g., sourceforge, slashdot, overclockers, ocforums), especially as survival is not so guaranteed for the smaller sites. -- Paul

End of free internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889813)


I'll just make my own internet then..

With blackjack. And hookers.. In fact.. forget the internet

all ads vs. pop-up ads (2, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889814)

I have nothing against a page putting ads up; if the ads get too voluminous to read the content I'll simply stop going to that page. But pages that pollute my desktop with pop-ups, especially ones that spawn more when I try to close them, can go to hell. If getting rid of pop-ups means the end of the world-wide web, then go 'head, pull the trigger.

And (1)

1967mustangman (883255) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889815)

A computer will never need more than 64k of memory. Seriously of all the self-serving clap-trap.

negative vibe against adverts? (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889816)

Bennie Smith, the online advertising network's privacy chief, said the popularity of tools like Adblock -- an extension to the Mozilla Firefox browser -- which makes blocking online ads simple was tied to 'a negative vibe against advertising in general'
No shit shirlock

I don't know about anyone else... (1)

Manchot (847225) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889817)

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't stand AdBlock. Removing elements (such as ads) tends to mess up the flow of many web pages, and makes those pages look terrible. If I really don't want to look at an image, I'll block the images normally.

Re:I don't know about anyone else... (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889876)

welcome to the thread Mr. Smith.

not true (1)

hodet (620484) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889821)

It will force the lazy advertizers who cannot think beyond the Vegas "light show" method to adapt to a method that is acceptable.

It's not the adverts that bother me (1)

Gandalf_the_Beardy (894476) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889822)

It's the following me around and profiling with web bugs and cookies that's the real PITA

New type of pop-ups? (2, Insightful)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889824)

I'm sure we have all seen the new versions of pop-ups that get though firefox, but luckily we can use plug-ins to block them (Adblock), as long as firefox continues to grow they will only get more and more plug-ins to prevent those annoying pop-ups while IE at the same time, lacks these features, it took Micro$oft how long to develop a anti-pop up utility for there browser, it will probably take them as long to make another one for the new versions of pop-ups. That is why firefox will continue to gain market share, because its flexible and can adapt to something much easier.


elzbal (520537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889827)

The article on, in which DoubleClick executives bemoan the use of ad-blocking web browsers, contains DoubleClick-driven advertizing. (Thankfully, AdBlock caught it. :)

It's a dog eat dog world... (1)

Ithika (703697) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889829)

I shall rest easy in my bed knowing DoubleClick are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

Yay for the end of scraper pages! (1)

danharan (714822) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889830)

The type of free content that was created to carry doubleclick is mostly junk. All the other special-interest and useful (if only to some tiny fringe) content will continue to carry keyword-advertising or no advertising at all.

All the spam sites may have to fold. So sad.

Geez Louise... (5, Insightful)

KC7GR (473279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889831)

This is the same industry that wants to put ads on screens above the urinals in restrooms, on electronic screens in shopping carts, and God only knows where else.

Ad blockers are simply a way for 'net users to say "No! You already have enough places to advertise, and I don't want my computer screen to be one of them."

What part of "No!" don't advertisers understand?

Praise Bob! (1)

Enonu (129798) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889832)

I can't wait for the day where the Internet is advertising free, content quality is up, and I pay for the few select services I use on a regular basis.

Good reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889834)

This article reminded me to install adblock on this computer. Thanks Bennie!

Annoying ads (2, Insightful)

Xshare (762241) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889835)

Don't know about anyone else, but I can tell you I don't adblock google ads, or any other non-intrusive ads. The ads I block are the ones with the sounds and the moving monkeys telling me to hit them to get a free ipod. I mean jesus christ, you wonder why people want to block your ads?

Re:Annoying ads (1)

SirNAOF (142265) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889946)


Ads are fine, if they aren't intrusive. Once they overtake the content of the page, its time to go.

Who says the Internet is free in the first palce? (5, Insightful)

Bravoc (771258) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889838)

I pay $39.95/month!

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889924)

yaknow, i was about to post the same thing myself and noticed you had... i myself pay 45 a month.... maybe websites should syphon off what comcast overcharges me for...

my thoughts (1)

ocipio (131260) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889841)

Before internet commercialization:
1.) content was great, pages loaded fast, although cosmetics were a little boring.
2.) no popups, no ads, no spyware

After internet commericialization:
1.) Huge websites with tons of graphics, poor content, slow loading, etc
2.) popups, ads, spyware

I look forward to going in reverse, back to the good ole days of the internet.

Tip (4, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889843)

Stop making your ads insulting and ineffcient and people won't block them.

In the age of dialup a simple 3KB page would have >20KB of stupid banner ads and logos.

Now we're in the age of flash popup/under/over/sideways ads that have loud "HEY BUY ME" audio samples and etc..

Yes, an ad has to be noticed. But if it's just too much of a pain in the ass people are going to actively try and ignore them.

For me it has gotten to the point where I actually mute the TV during station breaks because the commercials are not only repetitive and annoying but insulting to my [and anyone over the age of seven] intelligence.

And no, RemodelAmerica, I really don't want your fucking cheap wall siding. Stop paying for EVERY AD SPOT ON THE WEEKEND....


of course (1)

bin673-1 (894477) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889845)

adblock is a response to in your face advertising,w hich distracts users and hijacks browsers.. play nice and end users will read and enjoy your ads.. idiots

No sympathy at all (4, Insightful)

MynockGuano (164259) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889847)

If you advertisers hadn't infested the Internet with pop-up, flashing, animated advertisements that dwarfed the actual content, you'd not be in this position. Newspaper ads are given no priority over the content; that's the difference. You can look at one or the other, just as easily. Not so with the crap you put on the Internet.

I have no sympathy at all; you abused your customers, and now they have a "negative vibe." Deal with it.

Going too far... (2, Insightful)

fostware (551290) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889848)

It's also to do with the advertising sites building sneakier pop-ups, pop-unders, iframes, dialog-like messages, and annoying flashy backgrounds.

And let me be the first to castrate the moron who put the Crazy Frog on flash banners, so they play automatically >:(
Nothing like surfing quietly, and forgetting the speakers were turned up, and jumping when I hear DING-a-ding-ding-ding!

They do have a point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889850)

Advertising is the only form of revenue for many useful small sites. If users start blocking reasonably placed static ads, there's nothing to turn to. The sites will close shop or fight back. That is a fight which the users will lose, and there will be lots of collateral damage regarding all sorts of comfort and standards. If you are interested in a free web, you have to try and find a reasonable middle ground instead of blocking each and every ad. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for blocking popups, flashing or audible ads and other major distractions, but you have to realize that many of the services which we take for granted are far beyond what a web of hobbyists could sustain without financial incentives.

oh no (1)

tont0r (868535) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889853)

if a site is there to have useful information, then i really dont mind clicking an ad for them (IE: here). because they are providing me a service for free and im happy with it. however, when i go to some other sites (fileplanet, IGN, anything else like that) where im pounded in the face by ads, im going to block all of them. saying blocking ads = end of free stuff is insane. thats like saying tivo is the end of cable because you can get around the commercials. besides, there are ways to generate revenue other than ads. or better yet, try by starting with having relivant ads to the page? like when i check my hotmail, i dont care about a online dating service.

Or perhaps... (1)

Mithrandir86 (884190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889854) will only mean the end to resource-heavy flash ads that his company makes. The only reason I use adblock is because it is difficult for me to go to certain sites without shutting down my browser.

Ads are not that bad (1)

ShaggyB (849018) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889855)

Ads are fine. Nothing wrong with them as long as they arent intrusive or annoying. Annoy me and I will block you. Simple as that.

Boo hoo. (2, Insightful)

ip_fired (730445) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889856)

If you want people to stop blocking all of your incredibly annoying ads, make them inobtrusive and useful.

Google has the right idea, ads based on the content of the page, taking up just a little space, no animation to draw your attention from the real content on the page. With that method, if I want to find someone who is selling what I just read about, I know where to look!

Actually it wasn't the Ads that ticked us off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889860)

Really it was all the popups, not the ads. I'd prefer not to be offered Viagra in a popup that calls up another ad for P0rn, which calls another V1agla ad, and around we go.

Perhaps if he had some limit and control on his content people wouldn't dis on his company so much.

Besides why use popup block on double click, when you can use a route to loopback.


Free? (1)

SightlessMind (806966) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889861)

I don't know about you guys, but I pay for my cable modem at home and for my hosted space. So where's this free internet that DoubleClick has been serving up for me?

Oh no! (1)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889862)

It's kind of funny that none of the ads on that page loaded, nor do any doubleclick website IPs load.

I surf in good faith. Good faith that my browser won't be hijacked by full-page ads, good faith that any advertisements won't chew up unnecessary CPU time, and good faith that advertisements will typically be for things I am interested in.

Doubleclick's ads fail every single of those points. So they can go cry in their soup. As should any site losing advertising revenue because they use the Doubleclick scum.

Stupid... (1)

lordbyron (38382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889863)

I have used adblock for a while and currently I do not block all ads. As an example I keep the context non obtrusive ads from say google it is the annoying pop-ups and big ads that have no relevance or take up to many cycles on my machine. Plus if you block all the ads it messes the page layout up on several sites so why would I want to block them all. Wyly []

Blocking ads... (1)

aeric67 (871847) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889864)

Didn't they say this when people started blocking popups? That was like 5 years ago, wasn't it?

Not all ads are bad (2, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889865)

I hardly notice the ads that google puts on the side of their search results, or the few odd ones placed on a page to generate a little extra revenue. Hell, I don't even mind the occasionaly banner ad at the top of some sites.

However, there are ads that bother the hell out of me and make me want to block them or stop visiting the page that hosts them. These usually include flash banner ads (shoot the monkey, sink a basket, hit the target, etc.) or animated .gifs or anything else that's more bandwidth intensive than my 56k connection at home can handle in a few seconds. Additionally, ads about products that I don't want or ads that look like scams or phishing attempts really bug me.

It's not the ads that are bad, it's the type, placement, and content of those ads that gets to me.

Don't be underhanded. (4, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889867)

I don't mind be advertised to. People have to make their money somehow, and if I want to get content for free, the publisher should be able to show me advertisements in order to make money for his/her content.

This advertising space is limited to the page I am viewing. I consider it unacceptable to:

- Show popups.
- Show popunders.
- Spam me.
- Install spyware / adware.

Basically if you advertise in any way that is not confined to the page/window I am viewing, all bets are off when it comes to blocking your advertisements.

Oh well... (1)

djinn2020 (874365) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889869)

Honestly, I would shell out bucks to not have to see "FREE WEBCAMS!!!! 24/7!!!!" all up and down web pages.

I have nothing against advertising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889870)

... except when it's everywhere on the site, detracting from the content. Some hardware review sites (unnamed) I used to go to had put nearly hundreds of ads on the same page, in between sentences, on the top, bottom, side, and even with one of those annoying Javascript windows that go right in the middle of the screen, not letting you close it until it's let you stare at it for up to thirty seconds or more.

On top of that, DoubleClick tracks online browsing usage and sells it to the highest bidder, so they can better advertise to your browing demograph

I seriously double DoubleClick is having any financial troubles at this point with a browser at 10% having a popup-block feature. Most users at home (was it 40% now?) don't even know what adblocking is, and probably have loads of spyware ((c) Gator/Clarica Inc.) installed.

Stop trying to guilt-trip the users into seeing your page-mutilating advertising. I understand a server costs a lot to maintain (up to $200 or more a month), but webmasters should only invest in a server that large if they can support it or have a certain paid-for feature than nullifies advertising.

Go cry me a river DoubleClick.

This Newspaper, Why, It's Like Swiss Cheese! (4, Funny)

TPIRman (142895) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889872)

Worst. Analogy. Ever. From TFA:

"He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers. 'You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were. You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value,' he said."

What if you went to a baseball game, and there were only open space -- holes, that is -- where the billboards usually were, and your beer cup had a hole where the "Budweiser" logo goes, and the peanuts were generic (with holes in them), and there were dogs with holes in their mouth and when they bark they shoot holes at you? I say, you'd somehow feel you didn't get a good value!

then stop.... (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889874)

When they stop making internet adds obtuse, gaudy and annoying, i'll stop using adblock. Google banners are nice, plain and don't attempt to infiltrate your browsing experience. It's the huge flash adds the blink and give you seizures that annoy the hades out of me.

Also, i've NEVER clicked on an add since i started using the internet. If they're not going to get a click-through on the add anyway, why does it hurt if i just block it? Never have, never will click the things...

IMO, most adds are just as annoying as popups. Mr. doubleclick up there needs to reform the way advertising is done instead of flaming people for getting rid of his ridiculous garbage...

Call it a flamebait or troll, but i'm sick of how stupid online advertisers have become...

'Negative vibe' goes way back (2, Informative)

Allen Varney (449382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889877)

I only wish the 'negative vibe' against advertising would prompt a wider examination of its toxic effects on society. For some inexplicable reason Adbbusters [] and No Logo [] don't get a lot of exposure on commercial TV networks, wonder why?

We have lost, almost completely, the concept of pandering as harmful. In the Divine Comedy, Dante put the panders in the sixth circle of Hell, lower (and hence worse than) than the murderers. Someday a lot of DoubleClick guys will join them...

Oh, right, so all the iframe-injected spyware... (1)

ArielMT (757715) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889880)

Oh, right, so all the iframe-injected spyware I remove day in and day out from my clients' computers don't come from ads that ad blockers block. Right? Ri-i-i-i-i-ight.

Online advertizing has failed, the reasons why are widespread and well documented, and DoubleClick itself helped to ensure its failure.

Hey, DoubleClick! Welcome to irrelevancy! If you had actually stopped to listen to your critics, your ad network might not have become the bane of Internet users everywhere.

Bite Me, Bennie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889881)

On second thought, don't - I'm allergic to rabies serum.

I hope stock analysts take this opportunity to note how popup-blockers reduce the value of DoubleClick's stock and that DoubleClick has no future.

I HATE spam! (1)

bornyesterday (888994) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889888)

1. The ad immediately below the article featured John Cleese 2. John Cleese reminded me of Monty Python 3. Monty Python reminded me of the Spam skit 4. Spam is related to ads 5. Ads lead to...PROFIT!

Stop being annoying (1)

StonedRat (837378) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889889)

If the banners weren't annoying flash or animated gifs then i wouldn't be so inclined to block them. Some of them now have sounds effects and huge popups when you mouse over them. Also I have never clicked a banner on perpose anyway, I doubt many adblock users would click banners either.

Warning! (1)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889896)

Your free internet content is in danger.

[ OK ]

My advice to DoubleClick, et alia (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889898)

Stop annoying me with grossly intrusive ads.

Stop tracking my whereabouts on the web, and then selling that data to others without my knowledge or consent.

Maybe then I might start letting your ads through my ad-blocking proxy.

A Negative Vibe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889902)

You mean I'm supposed to feel warm and friendly when I visit a site that opens fifty pop ups in my face, covers the main page with a large, loud, disruptive flash advertisement, and then has half a dozen spyware/adware programs installed behind my back?

The reason why things like Adblock exist is because a good number of assholes decided to cripple web content for a bit of ad revenue.

So, now that Doubleclick didn't meet its expected revenue this quarter, the end is near? I'll be sure to uninstall Firefox right this second, then.

Bill Hicks (1)

jbridge21 (90597) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889906)

"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do. Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers, Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself. Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke... there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations. I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags! "Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags!
Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!
"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that." God, I'm just caught in a fucking web! "Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..." How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you?"

DoubleClick still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889912)

I dropped most of their domains into hosts years ago, and when I get the time, the router will block them too. The browser doesn't even get a chance to block them, but it sounds like a darned good idea--just in case.

Ads are fine... (1)

scolby (838499) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889914) long as there aren't thirty of them popping up whenever I travel to a website. Unobtrusive ads on the side or bottom of a page that don't flash or blink or make stupid noises don't bother most people. It's not that we don't like advertising, it's that we don't like ANNOYING advertising. Ad filters were created to remove the aggravating stuff; the rest of it just kind of gets caught in the crossfire. I realize that the number one rule of advertising is to do as much as you can to catch the eye of potential customers. But there need to be limits. And if the ad agencies and the pages hosting them aren't going to regulate that, we'll do it ourselves.

In other news, burglars complain about police (4, Funny)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889916)

PODUNK, NH - John "The Weasel" Gibbons complained that active policing was putting a cramp on his style.

"Youz all needs burglars, see?" said Gibbons in an interview from his cell. "We're keeping the economy running, you shoulds be thanking us!"

Arguing that product theft spurred economic activity by forcing consumers to purchase more, Gibbons estimates that if burglary drops by a mere 15% nationally, the effects could be felt in the form of hundreds of thousands of workers losing their jobs as demand for replacement products wane.

"It's like this," he said as he preened his whiskers. "Them cops, they're always sniffing around where they ain't welcome, but instead of helping the economy by buying donuts like theys do in the movies, they're out busting honest, hard working economic invigorators like myself!"

His tail whipping back and forth in a frenzy, Gibbons then launched into a tirade against the specific officers that had arrested him earlier that afternoon for cutting a stereo out of a parked car.

Finally, he closed the interview with this prediction: "If yous all don't hold in the reins on Magruff over there, industries are gonna topple! Let me and my friends free, for the sake of our country!" He then scampered to his nest at the back of the cell.

Idiots (4, Insightful)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889918)

These people need to get the message. We don't like advertising. It was reasonably acceptable when it was a little here and there but as it has become more and more in your face it has become some people's mission (mine included) to block it as much as possible.

This isn't to say that I don't appreciate adverts when they are clever and targetted but this is very rare compared with the huge amount of dross that hits our door mats, or spews from every screen or the pages of magazines and poster boards. TiVO, Pithhelmet/adblock and registering with the likes of the Telephone Preference Service etc do make a big difference. I am generally indifferent to advertising these days as a result except when someone really goes out of their way to get to me and that really doesn't make me particularly inclined to listen to their sales pitch.

I find it particularly funny when people say that Mozilla/Firefox/Safari/Opera etc do not render web pages properly when compared to IE and yet when I use Safari or Firefox and filter out all the ads the pages look so much better than they do when using IE so frankly I don't care. And with the move to IE7 do we really think that MS will allow anyone to have something like Pithhelmet/Adblock? Doubtful. In which case I don't think the alternative browsers have anything to worry about for some time.

So, the message for advertisers? Learn the art of subtlety and grow a brain.

I remember when the web was free... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889925)

The best things in life (internet) are free...

Google (almost)

No, the difference is that in the offline world (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889926)

Doubleclick's animated ads don't walk across the content I'm trying to read and play annoying music.

In the offline world, my newspaper isn't locked up with a push button that, when pushed forces me to watch an ad before it will allow me to open the paper.

In the offline world, my newspaper doesn't try to steal my identity.

In the offline world, my newspaper doesn't inject me with a virus that records everything else I read and displays ads when I'm trying to read important things like traffic signs or other documents.

Your Ads Are Annoying (1)

CPIMatt (206195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889934)

DoubleClick's ads are NOT the same as ads in a newspaper. The ads, at least in my newspaper, are not animated, don't play a tune, and are not on the front page. Plus, the more elaborate that ads on a page are, the longer it takes to download an render.

I block ads that are obtrusive and distracting. Especially ones that are animated and play sounds. Plus, the more elaborate the ads on a page are, the longer it takes to download and render. I don't block Google ads. Can you guess why?


That's Fine... (1)

awhelan (781773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889937)

This is how the free market is supposed to work. Customers are showing that they will not tolerate intrusive advertisments and DoubleClick, one of the worst offenders, is responding. If they had chosen to advertise responsibly (see the success of adsense) insted of insulting users with "You won a billion Ipods!!!!! Click HERE!!" ads, they wouldn't have this problem. Also, 10% of internet users using firefox, and realisticly 1% of them using AdBlock correctly. Firefox growth is slowing down because it's very hard to reach into the percentage of people that don't even know what a browser is and think the "E" on their desktop is the internet. Those are the people that will be clicking his ads anyway... and they will be using IE well into the Longhorn years. Is this really a threat to him at all?

Let it end the era of intrusive advertizing (4, Insightful)

helioquake (841463) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889939)

The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default

Then let it end. I'm fed up with the business model of running intrusive advertizing that means nothing but annoying to the viewers.

I'd pay some extra $$$ for better content and service. I know many slashdot readers (read students) are too used to getting many things for free. But that business model CAN'T work for long, as the providers of information need to make some profit somehow. Either you yield to the advertiser's demand or stand against it.

Well the choice is yours. I am to choose against annoying flashy ads and pop-ups (not that I'm getting any of these with Firefox).

Content Should Be Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12889941)

Let them perish. Content should be free anyways! I don't think anyone will be willing to pay the ISP and a bunch of shwag websites pimpin content. We pay for enough as it is...much of which used to be or should be free. Plus most of the content isn't even edited. Must be using the Microsoft spell checker or something...


Use ad-blockers and make e-street pimp free!

Could he say that again (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#12889945)

But with people jumping up and down around him yelling about the things they have to sell and waving their arms franticly in front of his face?

I'd like to see how HE likes it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?