Ad-blockers.

[Workingman]

Do any of you use them? I do.

Let's be fair. A lot of internet content is free to view, totally, but a lot of it is ad supported. Without the ads there would be fewer free sites, therefore less choice, and harder to find information. That is why I use my ad blocker 'responsibly', i.e. some unobtrusive ads are allowed. What I do not like are Flash ads or animated GIF ads or ads with sound. Those I block vigorously.

Google has now announced that it will release its own ad-blocker for its Chrome browser. This will allow sites to ask for the user to turn off ad-blocking or make a payment to view, it will also block specific ads that do not meet Google's standards.

Some sites already ask me to turn off ad-blocking in order to view. If I refuse some of them accept my choice and still allow me in, others either dim the page or redirect me to a locked page. The system works, for both sides.

My message to Google is this: I you think that I am going to give my card details out willy-nilly to make a payment for a site I know nothing about you have another think coming. As for your own standards, they are ever so high, aren't they? Or maybe not.

[TheOstrich]

I used to use AdBlock but after all the problems we had last year with malware, resulting in both machines being totally wiped and restored, I haven't bothered loading it back on them.

I was aware prior to that that certain sites were starting to block me because I had AdBlock, i.e. the Birmingham Post & Mail - my response was that I simply didn't use that site.

I certainly wouldn't pay-to-view. That said, if ever Kaz & Mick wanted a voluntary donation to help with the VV running costs, well that's an entirely different matter ...

[Suff]

I only use the ad blocking built into Norton. This allows a low level of "verified" ad's onto the browser. Personally if I have to ignore something for 30 seconds so that I can get free access then I'm fine with that. Aggressive ad blocking has never been my way.

However if an ad contains malware Norton prosecutes it immediately and removes it. Interestingly none of these ad's block a page, they just try to attack you.

It is a double edged sword. Adverts pay for a "free" web. A free web is a much more open web. If we only get access to what we pay for, directly, then we will restrict what we see and consume and that is open to abuse.

[Workingman]

We have a similar approach, Suff. I do not want to lose the free Internet so I am picky in what I block. My ad-blocker is set to a lowish level that I find fair to the sites without distracting me too much.

360TS, my AV, also blocks phishing sites, malware sites and scumware and if any of those are flagged up I just move on.