Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)
Posted May 13, 2009 15:39 UTC (Wed) by
hunkymouse (guest, #58565)
Parent article:
Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)
What's the cost *to the reader* of running adverts?
Most of the posts here, seem to be based on the assumption that it's zero, or trivial. My tests suggest this is entirely wrong.
The reason I use ABP is simple; it saves me a lot of download AND - more important - electricity. The problem is that people aren't just putting up a simple graphic any more.
Some sites are extreme. If you go to Fox Business, you can actually watch Mozilla Firefox start to rack up the cpu cycles. It downloads video after video; and while one is playing, the robot stuffs another six down.
The site's assumption is that my PC is a free playground for it, and that it is entitled to my cycles. But when it gets to the point that my PC is actually cranking its cpu up to the max, and turning its fan on to keep cool, and I can *see* my ADSL traffic rising as well, then the word "abuse" comes to mind.
Small, amateur sites such as NoScript aren't guilty of this, of course; but we can't ignore reality. Right now, as Don Marti points out, almost nobody blocks adverts, and the storm is a mouse-sneeze in an egg-cup.
But the trend suggests that sanctimonious sermons about the "ethics" of allowing adverts (and this means both pro and con!) are irrelevant. If people find themselves upgrading their hardware to run adverts, and spending money on power to run adverts, and paying an ISP premium to run adverts, then eventually the penny will drop, and ad blockers will become standard.
It's an issue which the rogue downloaders should be confronted with. Civilized behaviour isn't automatic; and IMV, we need to be ready to confront excess.
(
Log in to post comments)
