Blocking Ads, or, Browser Backlash

I haven’t written about Mozilla or Firefox in some time, and I’m okay with that. Ultimately, I don’t find writing about browsers satisfying anymore, and ones that I don’t use even less so. (If you haven’t been keeping track, I use Apple’s Safari now for personal use, and IE on my work computer. I even ditched Camino a while ago.)

But I’ll make an exception for Why Firefox is Blocked, a site that’s making the rounds that some people love. And I can’t figure it out. Total Whisky Tango Foxtrot over here.

See, the Mozilla Foundation supports ad-blocking plugins that let you filter out web advertisements. Why Firefox is Blocked picks specifically on Ad Block Plus, but there have been at least a half dozen of those in the last few years. Some block only Flash ads, some images of a certain size… but they all block ads.

Generally speaking, the web is a nicer place to browse without them — just like the real world. (No, really — take a look at what the world looks like without advertising. This isn’t a theoretical concept, but it’s a difficult one to get your head around when you’re used to a certain level of omni-present advertising.)

The idea behind Why Firefox is Blocked is that some web sites — and let’s be honest, they’re web businesses — support themselves solely on advertising revenue. Ad-blocking for them equals lost revenue, so since there is no way to stop Firefox users from blocking ads, they’ll block all Firefox users from visiting their sites.

Not only that, they’ll redirect them to a snarky website that treats incoming readers — potential customers, in this model — as criminals. By using a browser that supports ad-blocking, they’re 1) thieves, 2) aiding and abetting theft, and 3) really cheap.

No, really. Read the site. If you use Firefox, you’re a really cheap thief.

All of this wrapped in the smarmy language of, “it’s our content, if we say you must see the ads, you must see the ads, because that is our right.” It’s actually really offensive from a business standpoint; why would you say this to a potential customer?

Oh, that’s right, because the TV and movie industries have already said this to them, so it must be okay.

(But if you have to block ad-blockers, you’re no different than the TV stations fighting Tivo… and look how that’s turned out.)

If we were to accept these arguments, shouldn’t we:

• Block any browser capable of blocking ads, like Safari, Internet Explorer, and Opera?
• Block any browser capable of not displaying images from the non-originating site, like Mozilla or Netscape?
• Block any browser not capable of displaying images at all, like Lynx?
• Refuse to publish any RSS feed?
• Block any RSS reader who doesn’t display your ads?

Where will it stop? Where do you draw the line with this reasoning?

Furthermore, why pick on Firefox and not other browsers? Is it because it’s open source? Is it because it’s popular? I mean, don’t get me wrong. I’ve been hounded by enough Firefox zealots to turn me away from the browser entirely. (Where were you damn kids when it was Mozilla 0.6 and barely compiled, let alone worked? Posers. Get off my lawn.) The latest iterations are slower, less elegant the the first versions. And the 1.5 to 2.0 upgrade was rocky for many of my machines.

But something smells fishy here. This site has a grudge against Firefox personally, but doesn’t explain why. Firefox is a cult, a religion, and therefore bad. There’s not much to say to that, since it’s not a real argument.

So, if you’re considering deploying this on your ad-supported web business, let me offer two suggestions.

1. Don’t forget that your visitors are potential customers for your advertisers, so consider their experience.
2. Consider alternate business models. Ads plastered on your pages aren’t the only way to pay the bills.

They may not be your customers, but they’re someone’s else’s customers — and that business pays your salary.

Treat their customers the way you’d want to be treated.