[if IE] [endif]

League of Inveterate Poets

The out-of-context contextuality of a foolish sage

The Ox and the AdBlocker



By on April 28, 2009

For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? (1 Corinthians 9:9)

oxteamThis post (from theGoogleCache blog) sets out a case against blocking ads on websites, particularly those whose content you value or find useful or entertaining. The blogger argues that viewing ads is a fair price in exchange for the value you receive. Actually, his argument is more complex than that; you should read the original to do it justice.

It struck me that the plea put forth by theGoogleCache harmonizes with a principle laid down by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament passage qutoed above.  The context in 1 Corinthians is Paul addressing a “damned if you do or don’t” situation. The Corinthian Christians were divided over whether or not Paul had any legitimate authority over them. Instead of claiming that such loyalty is his right as a legitimate apostle of Jesus Christ (and he makes it clear that this would be a legitimate argument), he pleads for the Corinthians to voluntarily recognize him out of their gratitude for what he has been to them.

As an illustration of this, he reminds them that he would be perfectly within his rights to demand monetary support from them, yet he refused to do so for their own good. Nevertheless, he supports the principle that “the workman is worthy of his hire.” He reminds them that in the Law of Moses it was forbidden for a farmer to put a muzzle on his ox when he was using it to “tread out the grain” (separate the wheat from its chaf by walking on it). The ox was to be allowed to benefit from its own work by consuming some of the grain it was processing.

Paul teaches that the Law wasn’t just setting forth an agricultural rule, but rather a much more general principle: those who produce have a right to benefit (take sustenance from) that which they produce. In other words, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”

In the developed world we have been moving in recent decades from a goods and commodities economy to an information economy. In other words, increasingly the “product” that we produce from our work is not steel or oats or widgets, but rather something much more intangible: information and/or entertainment. None of us would argue that if we want some steel or oats,  or a “widget” made from them, we would expect to pay some price in exchange. Is not the same due to those who supply us with information or entertainment that we find valuable? Not that it should sway the argument, but keep in mind how low is the price under consideration here: allowing advertisements that one does not even need to look at, much less click on.

What do you think? Is it unethical to block ads on web sites? (In case you might not be aware, there are browser plug-ins that allow you to easily do that.)

P.S. In a follow-up post, theGoogleCache  proposed adoption of a universal meta tag that would allow visitors to a site to decide if they want to “pay the price” (i.e., view ads on the site).

P.P.S. To be clear, I don’t advocate that all sites or all ads or ad delivery systems are worthy of this principal. For example, I will do anything in my power to block popover or popunder ads, which I consider an unnecessary annoyance of which no possible content could be worthy. Furthermore, I block ads on sites that routinely post ads that I find offensive or deceptive. Facebook would be a good example of this. I block their ads as a form of protest because they show me ads of scantily clad women and from advertisers operating scams.

UPDATE 5/11/2009: AdBlocker Plus (the most powerful ad blocking software) just informed the GoogleCache blogger that they will be implementing something like his suggestion for an add on that would allow users to make a conscious decision about opting in or out to ads on particulars sites.

The new feature of AdBlocker Plus will recognize sites that you visit frequently and ask you if you’d like to opt back in to showing ads.

Category: It`s All About Me
Tags:







Comments

Newer Comments →
  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Just posted: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://tinyurl.com/dj4phd
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Just posted: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://tinyurl.com/dj4phd

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    What do an ox and website ads have in common? http://cli.gs/uuvAAH
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    What do an ox and website ads have in common? http://cli.gs/uuvAAH

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    What do an ox and web site ads have in common? http://cli.gs/uuvAAH [pic] http://ff.im/-2r0Ab
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    What do an ox and web site ads have in common? http://cli.gs/uuvAAH [pic] http://ff.im/-2r0Ab

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/sagethefool sagethefool

    What do an ox and website ads have in common? http://cli.gs/uuvAAH
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/sagethefool sagethefool

    What do an ox and website ads have in common? http://cli.gs/uuvAAH

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark/statuses/1643418830 trappermark (Mark Traphagen)

    Just posted: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://tinyurl.com/dj4phd

  • http://twitter.com/iwestminster iwestminster

    RT @trappermark: What do an ox and website ads have in common? http://cli.gs/uuvAAH// Interesting ques. for all of us on web.
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/iwestminster iwestminster

    RT @trappermark: What do an ox and website ads have in common? http://cli.gs/uuvAAH// Interesting ques. for all of us on web.

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://www.mineandthine.com Chris D.

    First of all, I appreciate your thoughtful response vs. the blog you link to on Google Cache. I think you raise some valid points. Here are my thoughts.

    I think the web is ever-evolving and business models must change and adapt. If the web doesn’t adapt their fate will be the same as print newspapers. Newspapers, the recording industry, even telephone companies must change to deal with this new internet world.

    Let me give you an example. My family has a DVR, we use it mainly to time-shift programs we like to watch. But we also use it to skip commercials, although that is not our primary purpose. Are we possibly violating the principle “those who produce have a right to benefit?”

    Broadcasters are dealing with this in two ways 1)Trying to make sweetheart deals with the DVR producers (mainly cable co.) to disable commercial skipping and force consumers to watch the commercials, and 2)Making new types of commercials – product imbeds, games tied to commercials, special information given during commercials and the one I like the most “appealing commercials.“

    To me ad-blockers are not a moral issue. There is not a contract, nor even an implied contract – we are free to throw out ads, block ads, move ads of the screen or view ads. Framing it as a moral issue is like saying it’s unethical to use a DVR – you must watch the commercials, no DVR’s, no bathroom breaks, no muting the sound.

    What the web needs is a game-changing model. They need to turn blog advertising on it’s head and make it useful, desirable, relevant, targeted etc. You know… your in the biz:)

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    “Ad blockers are not a moral issue. There is not a contract…we are free to throw out ads.” Well, put Chris. I a… http://tinyurl.com/c833dk
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    “Ad blockers are not a moral issue. There is not a contract…we are free to throw out ads.” Well, put Chris. I a… http://tinyurl.com/c833dk

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2r8XT
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2r8XT

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    “Ad blockers are not a moral issue. There is not a contract…we are free to throw out ads.” Well, put Chris. I agree that “moral issue” may be overstating the case.

    And yet…I was brought up short when I thought of the biblical principle of the ox and the grain. The ox doesn't have to eat any of the grain, but we are told not to act to prevent him from doing so. We don't have to pay attention to the ads on a blog or site we are reading–much less click on them–but to use an ad blocker is to decisively “muzzle the ox.”

    If the blog is not subscription-only, then (as the GoogleCache blogger put it) the price and product are combined. Now the “price” demanded by various bloggers will vary. For some (like this blog, at present), the “payment” the blogger hopes for is that you will comment, link, or otherwise interact with what she or he has written. For others, particularly if they invest large amounts of time in providing high-quality content, they may feel justified in pursuing opportunities to monetize their content.

    In the early days of the WWW, that meant mostly banner ads. Banner ads were an attempt to import the old “interruption” advertising model. Like a TV or radio ad, banner ads attempt to take your attention away from the content at hand to consider something you are most likely not interested in. This model works to some extent on TV or radio because (pre Tivo/DVR) the ads had a captive audience. They knew they were annoying the majority of their viewers, but they didn't care becuase it was a numbers game. Inevitably, there were enough people viewing or listening at the moment who actually were interested in the product or sevice to make the ads profitable. This never worked well on the web, though, where it is much easier to ignore ads.

    The genius of pay-per-click (PPC) advertising (the kind of ads you see on Google's pages) is that it follows the principles of what Seth Godin calls “permission marketing.” Because Google incentivizes advertisers to target their ads to the relevance of the page they are on (the higher the click-to-impressions ratio, the less per click the advertiser pays), the ads can be perfectly content to lie dormant, out-of-sight/out-of-mind, until someone comes along who is actually “in the market” for what the ad is about. This person is ready to be sold to; they have given their permission, in a sense, for you to market to them.

    I want to address one other thing in your comment. You stated that there is no contract, actual or impied, between the blogger and viewer that obligates the viewer to view ads. But are we to live our lives only according to contractual obligations? Could we not choose to allow the ads to show, not because we are obligated to do so, but out of appreciation for whatever enjoyment or information the blogger is giving to us?

    One might object that if they “never click those ads,” there is no real value added to the blogger anyway. But that leaves out the principle of permission marketing. If you block the ads, you deny the blogger (and advertiser who supports him/her) the opportunity to provide you their ad on that one occasion, however remote you think it might be, when you just happen to be on their blog at the same time you have a burning need for a new widget, and that relevant widget ad is just the thing you need to make your life complete ;-)

    (An aside: if you are at all involved in marketing–which doesn't mean just hawking product, but also in selling others on ideas–I highly recommend Seth Godin's blog as a daily read: http://sethgodin.typepad.com. He has more wisdom per page than anyone else I've read in the field. And as a bonus, he is the king of the short-and-to-the-point blog post.

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2rcOF
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2rcOF

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Bill A.

    Hey Mark.

    I'd like to underscore your point about muzzling the oxen. You invalidated the excuse that because the ads are ineffective it doesn't matter if one blocks them. Paul lays out that the principal is to work with hope. Thanks for reminding me that to work is to hope. Your article brings dignity to what otherwise might be considered a mundane topic.

    One criticism may be that your current FB protest sounds like rationalization when you could simply not use the service. Personally I've found that voting down the ads has, to my surprise, worked pretty well with a few exceptions. I too block pop unders and overs. Abusing users with a sudden ad before he even has an opportunity to engage the site is unethical and potentially hazardous (like the time I visited a site looking for a digital color wheel at work and landed on a porno site that delivered non stop pop-overs).

    This conversation could encompass an even larger issue, online companies that undercharge for work or create free products that mimic competing products.

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    Thanks for some great thoughts, Bill.

    Ooh! I didn't realize you could “vote” on the margin ads on Facebook. Thanks for that tip. I'm going to make use of it. That is a great service on FB's part. I don't mind being served ads if I have some voice in what kind of ads I'll see.

  • http://conversationaltheology.wordpress.com Ros

    Could we not choose to allow the ads to show, not because we are obligated to do so, but out of appreciation for whatever enjoyment or information the blogger is giving to us?

    We could. Or we could choose not to show the ads and express our appreciation in other ways, such as commenting, linking etc.

  • http://conversationaltheology.wordpress.com Ros

    Hmm. I just don't see it, Mark. I know you have a vested interest in this issue at the moment and that's fine. I don't think there's anything wrong with people using this form of advertising if they find it effective. I just don't see that it puts any obligation on me at all to choose to view it. If that means that some of the websites I enjoy using end up being strapped for cash, well, okay. In fact, a few of the websites I enjoy using have paid options which eliminate the ads and I do actually pay for this in a couple of places.

    It's seems to me that using an adblocker is the same choice I make when I forward through the ads on commercial TV or choose to arrive at a cinema ten minutes later than the advertised start time. These ads work, as I understand it, on the principle that you scatter widely and a few respond. It doesn't seem to me that there is any implied or actual obligation on my part to respond, or even to view.

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2ryKq
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Ros, I’ve already made most of my arguments in the post and my other replies above, so I won’t repeat them here. … http://tinyurl.com/c7cv7m
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Ros, I’ve already made most of my arguments in the post and my other replies above, so I won’t repeat them here. … http://tinyurl.com/c7cv7m

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2ryKq

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    As I noted in another comment, those can all be acceptable ways of “paying” for what you receive from a blog or s… http://tinyurl.com/cxc7k8
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    As I noted in another comment, those can all be acceptable ways of “paying” for what you receive from a blog or s… http://tinyurl.com/cxc7k8

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2rz5j
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2rz5j

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    Ros, I've already made most of my arguments in the post and my other replies above, so I won't repeat them here. Actually, I feel silly even elevating them to the lofty status of “arguments.” It isn't like we're talking about global warming or baby seals here ;-)

    And full disclosure to other readers (if I haven't made his clear): I do, as Ros put it, have a “vested interest” in this area. By day I am an Internet Marketing Analyst (only one step above a lawyer, I know). Specifically, I write and manage for clients the little ads you see along side your search results in Google, Yahoo, and MSN search. Obviously, I would like to see that industry continue and thrive so I can keep food on my table and the rain off my family's head. However, I truly don't think I'm arguing here solely on the basis of self-preservation. The statistics show it: there are and will continue to be plenty of people who view and click on those ads. The vast majority of Internet users are either too lazy, apathetic, or technologically inept to bother with installing and using ad blocking software. So I don't really feel threatened. My arguments here are directed toward those who like to be thoughtful about their Internet usage and about how that usage intersects with the rest of their lives.

    I think maybe some have reacted so strongly to my thesis because (following the example of the GoogleCache blogger) I used terms like “morality” and “ethics” in conjunction with this issue. While I do think there are ethical dimensions to this (especially for the Christian, who ought to take seriously the debt to give honor where honor is due etc.), I don't want to be implying that if you block ads you've done something dirty or naughty. I guess I'm trying to convey a personal choice that I've made, trying to apply a principle of love in the complexities of the Internet age.

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    As I noted in another comment, those can all be acceptable ways of “paying” for what you receive from a blog or site. Actually, linking in particular would probably be more appreciated by the blogger who is using ads to help compensate herself for her time. That potentially brings in many people who may view/click the ads, even if you don't.

  • http://appsapps.info app

    Purpose of the muzzle must be considered.

    Is everyone that blocks ads actually muzzling an ox? Or are some people muzzling a rabid dog, in order to prevent themselves from being bitten?

    How about if I am viewing your content on an old slow computer with a very slow dialup connection? Is it fair to make me pay a higher price than people with newer computers on a fast connection?

    Ads slow down the loading of pages much more in the situation I described, and can potentially cause crashes.

    For the better part of last year, the only computer I had was an old P1. It only takes a single flash based ad to freeze it and create a need to hit the reset button and reboot the computer, losing all unsaved work that may have been open at the time.

    Is that a fair price to pay for anyone's content? What if I was working on a project that feeds my family and came to your website for information to help complete it? Should I lose my time and work for a glimpse of a small fraction of a page on your site? Should my family go hungry for a tiny useless glimpse of content that I never had the chance to use?

    What about sites that use ad networks that do not properly screen their advertisers? Is it a fair price to pay for anyone's content with the security of your computer? There are a lot of malware infested ads out there and one can never be sure what website they will or won't be on.

    Is it not unethical and morally wrong to tease people with things they can never have? What about ads attempting to sell things to people with no money? Does it even make any sense? I think it could even be considered cruel in some cases. Imagine forcing someone who is hungry and has no money, to constantly watch advertisements for food.

    What about the visitors sensitivities to certain things causing an adverse physical reaction? Is it a fair price to ask of an epileptic, for them to have a seizure from the flashing ads on your site?

    It is everyone's right to protect themselves and their property from harm, including the harm your ads may do. The fact that you didn't think of how they may harm someone when you pasted the ad codes on your site, and even if you don't agree with anything I have said, it still does not take away my right to protect myself and my property.

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2wOik
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2wOik

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Pingback: Twitted by trappermark

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2wOcM
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    Re: The Ox and the AdBlocker http://ff.im/-2wOcM

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    Thanks for taking the time to comment, “app.” It means a lot to me when someone new invests that kind of time in something I wrote.

    Please know that I don't disagree with any of your points. Here's why.

    What I've been working through here is if there is some kind of transaction taking place in our Internet activity that most of us have never thought through. There are many places on the Internet where each of us finds some kind of value. Whenever value is encountered, i believe there is at least an implicit (not necessarily mandatory) transaction. The “seller”–the content provider–offers up something in which we find value. The “buyer”–the consumer of the value–has a decision about the value of that information, and whether it merits something in return.

    There are many analogies in other areas of life to the way such a transaction works on non-pay, non-subscription site. A good one, I think, is the public broadcasting model. In the US public, non-commercial radio is “free,” that is, anyone can listen to it without making a payment. However, these stations are highly dependent on listener contributions to continue broadcasting. And they continue to exist because enough of their listeners do voluntarily contribute. They pay for something that they could just as easily get for free because they recognize that they receive significant value and feel it is right to return the favor.

    I probably should have been more specific in my original post and made clear that I am not giving a carte blanche to any and all advertising, nor saying that you ought to support any or all sites–whether that's by participating, referring others, donating, or even just allowing the site's ads to display. I'm talking about the “PBS” sites: those that you value so highly and that have added something to your life–whether through informing, enlightening, or entertaining–that you would consider supporting them in some way, even though there is no legal obligation to do so.

    So let em bring this around to your many examples above. Just as in any other free market transaction, there is never any coercive or mandatory contract that says you have to complete a transaction (give something in exchange for the value.) If the site (OR its advertising) is crude, obnoxious, fattening, or harmful in any way, you are under no obligaton to view it or to even use or revisit the site. In fact, as has been said several times in this discussion, you are under no legal or coerced contract to either “pay” or revisit.

    And that's where the public broadcasting analogy comes back. Sure, you can listen to your local public station for years and years and never fork over a dime. But if you keep coming back because you get something of value from it, is that right? That's really the question I meant to ask.

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    Thanks for taking the time to comment, “app.” It means a lot to me when someone new invests that kind of time in something I wrote.

    Please know that I don't disagree with any of your points. Here's why.

    What I've been working through here is if there is some kind of transaction taking place in our Internet activity that most of us have never thought through. There are many places on the Internet where each of us finds some kind of value. Whenever value is encountered, i believe there is at least an implicit (not necessarily mandatory) transaction. The “seller”–the content provider–offers up something in which we find value. The “buyer”–the consumer of the value–has a decision about the value of that information, and whether it merits something in return.

    There are many analogies in other areas of life to the way such a transaction works on non-pay, non-subscription site. A good one, I think, is the public broadcasting model. In the US public, non-commercial radio is “free,” that is, anyone can listen to it without making a payment. However, these stations are highly dependent on listener contributions to continue broadcasting. And they continue to exist because enough of their listeners do voluntarily contribute. They pay for something that they could just as easily get for free because they recognize that they receive significant value and feel it is right to return the favor.

    I probably should have been more specific in my original post and made clear that I am not giving a carte blanche to any and all advertising, nor saying that you ought to support any or all sites–whether that's by participating, referring others, donating, or even just allowing the site's ads to display. I'm talking about the “PBS” sites: those that you value so highly and that have added something to your life–whether through informing, enlightening, or entertaining–that you would consider supporting them in some way, even though there is no legal obligation to do so.

    So let em bring this around to your many examples above. Just as in any other free market transaction, there is never any coercive or mandatory contract that says you have to complete a transaction (give something in exchange for the value.) If the site (OR its advertising) is crude, obnoxious, fattening, or harmful in any way, you are under no obligaton to view it or to even use or revisit the site. In fact, as has been said several times in this discussion, you are under no legal or coerced contract to either “pay” or revisit.

    And that's where the public broadcasting analogy comes back. Sure, you can listen to your local public station for years and years and never fork over a dime. But if you keep coming back because you get something of value from it, is that right? That's really the question I meant to ask.

  • http://appsapps.info app

    As a donationware developer I understand full well what it means to support what you like, find useful, or of some value. And I also understand the plight of a content producer that relies on scraps of “whatever” as his only compensation for the work he has done.

    I have often said that if I had a dollar for every time someone downloaded one of my programs I'd never have to worry about if I will be able to pay my rent again. For ethical reasons I have chosen a licensing model that lets my conscience sleep at night, even if I have no idea how I am going to be able to afford to pay my bills.

    I have left it up to the user to decide the price, based on what they feel it is worth and their ability to pay. For many they have mistaken that to mean it is freeware and I get nothing at all. Some send me less than $1 and a thank you note and express how they wish they could afford to send me more. The fact is, that donations are rare and usually quite small.

    And that really doesn't bother me as much as the guy that is making money off my software and never sends me a dime or a thank you, and then turns around and tells everyone that my software is freeware, something not to be paid for. And since his voice is bigger than mine, because he's pretty much a “celebrity” in the blogging world, any potential income I could have made from them promoting my product is completely lost. The truth gets drowned out.

    But I feel times are changing and the way content providers on the internet earn a living is changing along with it. Once it was all about advertising, letting someone else exploit your “customers” and paying you for that privilege. I think we are moving away from that to something else, perhaps a public more willing to support what they use and enjoy, directly.

    Micro-donations never really took off before, mostly because most of the systems were too time consuming or bothersome for the one making the donations. But I think that may change in the near future, at least I hope it does, and I am placing my hope in the users to see the need to compensate us directly to keep the content alive. I only hope I don't starve to death before it happens.

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    App: You raise another aspect of this conversation: the independent shareware software developer. Talk about an ox worthy of not being muzzled! Your situation is most akin to that of the PBS analogy I made in my last comment.

    And I'm going to look through my most used shareware and send the authors a small donation right away.

  • http://appsapps.info app

    The shareware developer has set his price and gives a license key for continued use of his software. He gets paid, usually, or you can't keep using the software.

    It's the freeware/donationware developers that rarely get what they deserve.

    If you are really interested in this subject, Jesse Reichler (aka mouser) from DonationCoder.com wrote a fantastic essay about donationware and the experiences in his community with trying to find something that works for both the author and the end user. It's quite interesting reading.

    http://www.donationcoder.com/Articles/One/index…

    His community is one of the only ones that caters to both the developer wanting to adopt a donationware license model and users that want to support what they use. The generosity of the community there is incredible and hopefully some day what they have started there, the idea can spread out to other types of content on the web. It has been stated many times on their forum that there really needs to be something like a DonationBlogger concept and community of bloggers and readers willing to support it.

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    Looks like a fascinating read. Thanks! And now that I see your avatar, I realize that I know who you are from FriendFeed. My worlds collide once again!

  • http://appsapps.info app

    How do you think I found your blog? :-D

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    RE: UPDATE: AdBlocker Plus (the most powerful ad blocking software) just informed the GoogleCache blogger that they will… http://disq.us/1a8
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/trappermark trappermark

    RE: UPDATE: AdBlocker Plus (the most powerful ad blocking software) just informed the GoogleCache blogger that they will… http://disq.us/1a8

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://foolishsage.com trappermark

    UPDATE: AdBlocker Plus (the most powerful ad blocking software) just informed the GoogleCache blogger that they will be implementing something like his suggestion for an add on that would allow users to make a conscious decision about opting in or out to ads on particulars sites.

    The new feature of AdBlocker Plus will recognize sites that you visit frequently and ask you if you'd like to opt back in to showing ads.

Newer Comments →
«     »

Proudly Powered by WordPress | Theme by The Cloisters | Entries RSS  Comments RSS

email
This website uses a Hackadelic PlugIn, Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5.