In recent times there's been a fair bit of new coverage regarding adblocking.

This has mainly centred on the gripe that individuals using technology such as the popular Adblock or Adblock Plus extensions for the Firefox web browser (There are many ways of blocking ads in all browers but the Firefox extensions are the easiest most effective and popular ways I know of.) are fleecing the websites they visit by depriving them of ad revenue.

However there has also been more positive news in the entries of Asa Dotzler's blog. That he and who knows perhaps others in the Mozilla organisation would favour some sort of content blocking implementation included in the default Firefox builds.

The most disturbing of that news was of some individuals blocking Firefox users from their sites because of this issue. Then in the recent episode 113 of the Twit podcast (About 44 mins in.) the idea that a lawsuit may be in the offing in the next year or so. Presumably against the makers of such technology as the adblock extensions.

It should be noted that this technology doesn't block the ads by default. You need define either individually or by means of lists which can be updated, what content to block. It's also worth noting you can also exempt specific pages, whole sites or even ad servers if you please.

So what's the argument? Well that many sites/businesses are supported by or survive on ad revenue. Even in some cases that plain old profit is made from the ads.

Somehow this seems to equate in the minds of those making the argument to the idea that by not viewing their ads you are stealing from the sites in question.

The righteous indignation just doesn't add up.

Lets say the adblockers could see your ads would they be the sort of people to click on any of them? I doubt it so where's the revenue loss? If your ad revenue is based on page views, well they are still viewing pages.

In truth though none of that matters.

The internet, assuming you have access at all, is an open environment. Unless you choose to close off your site to all but subscribers or some other chosen few. This you are absolutely free to do. Just like those mentioned that are blocking Firefox users, though in practise that method is very indiscriminate. Unless you do this you can't complain about the way in which people look at your content.

We live in a free market system and I'm only guessing but i think that most of the people complaining about adblocking would be proponents of that system.

Well guess what if adblocking is cutting into your revenue or your ability to produce a service. Then the market is saying there's not enough demand for those ads or maybe your service. The onus is for you to find another way to support your service or create your profit. Something there is a market for.

If that's not possible maybe your service/product isn't viable. Under the market system you need to go provide another service.

Stop whining and get thinking.

Some more reading -
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9770502-46.html?tag=blog.1
[url=http://www.news.com/Web+ad+blocking+may+not+be+entirely+legal/2100-1030_3-6207936.html]Another cnet piece. [/url]

Don't ask me why the second link breaks the bb code parser that's something to moan at Ahdkaw for.

I've not proof read or really thought about anything I say so feel free to complain and disabuse me of my views. However before you do make sure you've tried adblock or adblock plus with or without a decent fliterlist and then make sure you can't honestly feel the web is a better more beautiful place.