digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why Firefox is blocked

whyfirefoxisblocked.com — "You've reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks the FireFox browser", says the website. They go on to assert that since Firefox users have the ability to block ads, they must be thieves and must be blocked. Simply unbelievable.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mindless2, on 11/13/2007, -55/+626http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6039/2004ftf4.jpg
    Haha check out the guy who runs this.

    Oh No, we are stealing! Hey buddy, I hate to tell you but people who block adds aren't going to start clicking on them if they have to view them. Chances are they will just go to a different site, or change the useragent so it looks like they are using internet explorer. Plus, most adds are crap anyways, so why click them?
    • zomgtehpwn, on 10/29/2007, -158/+38First of all, ***** that guy and his ugly family. Secondly, I agree with most of what the parent comments say. But I can't help but be THATGUY and point out the fact that they are ADS not ADDS.
      • theshiz892, on 10/10/2007, -18/+43that one kid looks like E.T.
        • CiXeL, on 10/10/2007, -108/+15i bet they all take turns sucking his dick
          • acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25You guys are real jerkoffs. Sure, this guy is tool, but do you really have to drag his family into it? For all we know, they might think he's just as big an idiot as we think he is. Seriously, try being decent people and leaving the man's family out of it.
        • sparkmonkeyz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+78wo, this is the line ___ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and this is how far you just went over it
          • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+44Wow, from that distance you can't even see 4chan!
        • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -6/+44They're just kids... I can't see why they need to be insulted...
        • damnasteroids, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3sins of the father amirite?
      • ToadLeg, on 10/29/2007, -6/+33Act like Internet Explorer on Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59

        Make your "User Agent" show up as "Internet Explorer"
        • AlexFerny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37No, coz that will spoil the Firefox use stats
      • terminal157, on 10/29/2007, -6/+65No need to insult the man's family just because he's a jackass.
        • remccain, on 10/29/2007, -2/+19Shame he wasn't Darwined before the kids came along.
    • Salgat, on 10/29/2007, -5/+159I'd rather have more visitors, even if they don't click my ads, for the simple fact that more traffic ultimately means more IE and non-adblocker Firefox users being referred there and generating revenue.
      • keyboardduder, on 10/29/2007, -6/+36All the ads are pyramid schemes, pay more to save less deals, and security scams anyway!
        • brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I bet he thinks that using a TIVO to skip commercials is considered stealing too.
      • Matteos, on 10/29/2007, -3/+53And we want to visit his site why...
        • ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30because he believes that if you access his public website, you're stealing his valuable property
          • lcmatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+39IE7 Pro addon supports Ad Blocking and userscripts to stop the text ads etc so he should also run a website called whyieisblocked.com
        • doshindude, on 10/10/2007, -20/+7IE Tab extension FTW
          • wburglett, on 10/10/2007, -18/+11Its odd how FTW is made up of the same letters as WTF. For your sake, I hope you meant WTF.
        • knowyourrights, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I hate the abbrevation FTW because it is overused and sounds super immature. I hope it fizzles away like a bad fart as soon as possible.
      • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34I agree. If your problem is some fraction of FF users blocking ads, how is it a good idea to cut off access to ALL FF users, including those who don't use AdBlock? Not all FF users use AdBlock, but now they are totally cut off from the site, and therefore from the ads thereon. His solution to not enough people clicking ads is to cut off more people from having access to them.
        • zwaldowski, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17The ***** thinks that Mozilla openly endorses the extension by not taking action against it.

          I'll just get my comment over with now: that's like saying you HAVE to sit on your couch and watch TV ads, or can't fast-forward when using your DVR. Or forcing you to keep your radio on the same station when ads... sorry, adds... come on.
      • Rijnzael, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Let me introduce you to about:config. Though I'm sure there are extensions for Firefox that allow more seamless user agent switching, if you create a new about:config element called general.useragent.override, the user agent of your browser becomes whatever you specify.
        • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -29/+4Anyone here know how to translate "brainy nerd" into "English"? Anyone?
          • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Yeah. "You can make Firefox tell web sites that it's IE."
        • antdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Just get an extension to do it easier with options.
    • mrfreeziexp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+388He should just block all browsers. That way nothing can happen to him that might be unfair.
      • toxicshok, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19Just get a useragent switcher. Have your FF say your IE works great.
        • magicjboy, on 10/10/2007, -15/+0I have it but i crashes you can get firefox to (proxy IE)
        • XFact0r, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26FF: IE works great!
          Me: Thanks.

          Have your FF say *you're* IE; it works well.
          • mraustin1337, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16How the hell did you decipher what he meant? Kudos!
          • sancho320, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I had to go back and forth about three times before I got it. Maybe digg could hire you as a professional translator.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -13/+139OMG is that dude serious? Firefox is a "small minority" and "spends less".

      He should be optimizing for FF and offering the Download Firefox button.
      • eKzibit, on 10/10/2007, -134/+9You're an idiot.
        • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36well at least you explained why. it was probably the establishment-based mindset in your argument that got you dugg down, not the lack of reasoning.
        • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Oh yeah, well just come to my web site and say it to my face! (IE is blocked so don't even try that)
      • rabiddachshund, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14So, let me get this straight: He doesn't like Ad-block, so he's going to ban FF? People die in drunk-driving accidents all the time but we don't blame the ***** cars.
        Also, if we're such a small ***** minority, why is it such a big deal?
      • irieKEN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"He should be optimizing for FF and offering the Download Firefox button."

        No he shouldn't. The Firefox community really doesn't need this guy's brand of support;)

        Let him continue to live in his own little world and do what he wants there; if he wants to inconvenience some of his users by making them switch browsers just for his site, so be it. It won't change how the rest of us view the web.
    • mrosetti, on 10/10/2007, -15/+90He's the father of a bunch of Macaulay Culkins, and that cannot be good!
    • vornan19, on 10/10/2007, -28/+11I only block single ads. I have never applied a blanket ad-block to the top level of an offending domain though I have been sorely tempted. I also have flashblocker because flash ads are the most annoying ever!

      By blocking a certain Browser that site is actually against freedom. I think Flashblocker and Ad-Blocker should be ported to MSIE7 and MSIE7 users should be encouraged to adopt--hell! they're probably waiting for these plugins. At least some of them.
      • Hunterville, on 10/10/2007, -29/+8Actually he's practicing freedom by instituting his choice. I think you're probably too stupid to wrap your mind around that one though.
      • natenovs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12IE7Pro has an adblocker. works like a charm
      • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Flash blocker, i need that. If ads want to be less offensively displayed then i wouldn't use ad blocker, but they are and i do.
    • tedhead2k, on 10/10/2007, -36/+258It just looks like a happy family to me.

      You don't need to go attacking the guy personally, that's just stupid and immature. I'm sure you are no supermodel either.
      • knetworx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+52bool ultimate_truth = (Diggers != Supermodels);
      • Lamtd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+88"that's just stupid and immature"

        Welcome to digg... :-/
        • mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Stupid, Immature, and now with a commenting system so bad, the page doesn't completely load before firefox times out the script.
          • acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Agreed. I usually shift+click a few stories, then go get a glass of water...by the time I've downed it and poured a second one, mozilla is (usually) done ***** itself and the stories are more or less loaded. Digg is definitely becoming more and more of a pain in the ass to use.
      • kaiwai, on 10/10/2007, -6/+42I wish it were just that easy; but the fact remains, look on his site, personal attacks, claiming that there is a Firefox cult, that Firefox users are some how deficient. I'm sorry but he pulled the first punch by slandering Firefox with little more than name calling.
        • Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -6/+40Therefore, lets insult his kids...?
        • kaiwai, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20I never said it was right, all I said is that he bought the reaction upon himself. If he has a bone to pick with Firefox, use facts rather than hyperbole and lies - or worse, attacking those who use it.

          Side Note: I run Opera 9.23 on Solaris x86.
          • acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Whatever happened to being the bigger person?
        • ropers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You don't really know what pulling a punch means, do you?
        • Optimaximal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pulling... Throwing... it's all movement
      • H3df0kus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Maybe sites are not meeting contractual agreements by having the customer (you) view the endorsers site by accidental (over used ads that get in your way) or forceful (redirect/pop up)?
        • acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5A webmaster's third-party contracts aren't my problem.
      • outsid3rNo17, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Maybe my standards are lower than those of the average digger, but his family looks very good to me. His wife is beautiful (unless she's Photoshopped).
        • Steeple, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6she really is beautiful , a lovely open face...too bad her husband loves the *****
      • Blah_Blah_Blah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1actually....
    • dryanal, on 10/10/2007, -102/+15Hopefully I meet his daughter when she's legal and I ***** her and send pop up ads to him of her face covered in jizz.
      • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -6/+32To quote sparkmonkeyz
        "this is the line ___ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and this is how far you just went over it"
        Have some class man.
        • magicjboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I agree dude come on no cool
        • sustren, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I'd concur, but the his username suggests that he's being as classy as possible.
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Oh. My. You must be going for personal Buried record or something.
      • bradmoreland, on 10/10/2007, -25/+6And to sweeten the pot, hopefully you're African-American as well. ;-)
        • ichbinladen, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Have fun at your Klan meetings, racist.
        • mscman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wow, grow up. That was one of the most racial comments I've heard on Digg in awhile. This will be the first time I actually have a use for the "report it" button.
      • Drain23, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4oh come on, that's ***** funny.
        • drakenlot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Absolutely THE funniest comment EVER!

          Epic Wins for you!


          ps. stupid system cut out the reply to dryanal's comment button. Tis why I reply here.
      • nondescrypt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4W O W ............. DUGG
    • EricJ2190, on 10/10/2007, -2/+142The people who go through the trouble to block ads are probably not the kind of people who would click on the ads in the first place.
      • Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -1/+42Why can't marketing folks figure that out? They always take the line of "we must try harder to target this hates-ads demographic!"
      • ogremidget, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22I wouldn't have Adblock installed if the ads weren't so annoying. If an ad blinks or flashes, it completely distracts me away from the content on the site.
      • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2its like the "no soliciting" signs. They are there for a reason.
      • prockcore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5While that's true, it's more complicated than that.

        The ad isn't just there to get clicked on, it's there to influence you. You see an ad for blarg chips. You don't click on it, you don't even think about it. Later you're at the store, walking down the chips aisle, and the blarg chips will ring familiar, you'll be more likely to buy it.

        Or do you think that every ad on TV is a failure unless it prompts you to immediately leave and go buy the product?
        • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Another goal is to make you happy about what you bought: you are eating Krappix in front of your TV and suddenly you see a commercial for Krappix: Krappix tastes better, makes you joyful, and you feel more valued. Because a lot of money has spent to air that commercial about the cheap product you bought, this product becomes more valuable (Marx actualized inside?), and you too feel more valuable. Mind control all the way baby! But the best part is that you are paying for it; people tend to never really think about where the advertising money comes from. If they did seriously, maybe they would call for a ban on ads, or see one more reason to get rid of the giant waste that capitalism constitutes.
      • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Ive have never brought something because I saw it advertised. If i see something I like I will search for alternatives for it anyway and find forums posts/friends advice, most products advertised on sites are from places that are reselling that item not the actual people that make the item and there normally not the cheapest source.

        Plus 90% of stuff advertised is from America and is either extremely costly to ship over rather than buy from a local distributer or won't ship overseas anyway.

        Car adverts are always the weirdest ones, are you really going to buy something that costs $20,000 because you saw it advertised somewhere, chances are your going to goto 5 car dealerships and look at heaps of different cars, check for secondhand prices and online etc...

        Do you really won't people like me wasting your ad providing bandwidth?

        Maybe sites of the future will only allow access to people who have brought from ad banners in the past buy cross site tracking.
        • makyron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's a shame that most consumers are totally unlike you... most people don't have the time/energy/motivation to do that much research for any purchase... :-/ *sigh* when will we all learn?
    • lazyrussian, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35This is a case of a person who doesn't understand that if there is a way to beat the system (with minmal effort), people will do it.
      So, all you need is a user-agent switcher and wa-la, your done.
      I hate morons who own websites and because they know HTML, they think they know how the rest of the web works.
      I'm glad his server went down
      • manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35voilà*
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11oh my god, I cannot believe he just said "wa-la".
      • bradmoreland, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8"Lazy Russian" is redundant.
      • jamespa66, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20He doesn't know html, the site reports as being built with FrontPage, enough said!
        • cpk121, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1FrontPage... he must be a bitter Microsoft/IE fanboy, who has to take out his juvenile rage at Firefox supplanting IE.
    • Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -32/+67Whether you agree or not with his decision to block firefox users, posting an image of him and his family to make fun of them is juvenile, unnecessary and where I am from, illegal. I had hoped the digg community would behave a bit more like civilized people and less like monkeys in a *****-throwing frenzy.
      • lazyrussian, on 10/10/2007, -4/+40If he posted the picture, then it's widely available on the web.
      • diblasio, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17First day?
        • nondescrypt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6exactly! take your respect-filled ass over to reddit, Bitch ! Digg deals the real.
        • wonkknows, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Thanks for the tip! I was unaware of Reddit. Looks useful. :)
      • knetworx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24Completely agreed (and Dugg); however, you overestimate the maturity of the Digg community.
        • Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Yeah, *****-throwing frenzies and circle jerks are about all you'll find here.
        • Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1...
      • lithera, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Hi, you must be new here.
        Welcome to Digg.
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Are you from Saudi Arabia?
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Are you from Saudi Arabia?
      • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"I had hoped the digg community would behave a bit more like civilized people and less like monkeys in a *****-throwing frenzy."

        I think people have been hoping that about every online community ever, so far I haven't seen it happen.
      • andoman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0ahh hell no, my church group ain't here.... I do what I want
    • ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4proxy anyone?
    • AmelFl, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5Wow

      Macaulay Culkin is his son!
      • diplo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4actually the lil kid on the left looks like a pre-burn freddy kruger....
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+68I cannot believe that this cat thinks that adblock is stealing. That seriously has to be one of the most inane, ignorant and ridiculous statements I've heard. It's like saying that Linux and FOSS users are theives.

      Our culture is innundated with advertisements. You can't move hardly without having an ad crammed down your throat. Someone willingly choosing not to be force fed ***** or to constantly have ***** pitched to them is making a sane choice. Yes, people use ads to make money for their site. But just because I go to your site, doesn't mean I'm going to click your ads. I NEVER click ads, especially pop-up or annoying, flashy ads. If I want a product, I google what I'm looking for and find it that way. I don't want things shoved down my throat.
      • Fhwqhgads, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Amen! Preach it brother!
      • PamalaLauren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Exactly! I mean I don't click ads at all no matter what site they're on. I've actually turned off ad-blocker because I don't care anymore but I still don't "see" the ads on the page. Just because he has ads his page doesn't mean I'll notice them. So go ahead and block my use of this site, it was probably crap anyhow! Hell I didn't even realize that Digg had ads up top until someone pointed it out to me!
        • irieKEN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I recommend that you re-enable adblock and have it actually block the ads. Not because the advertisements are visually annoying, but because they load from slow servers, which increases page load-time considerably.

          The alternative is to enable pipelining and rape the server whenever you load all 64 page elements at the same time:P
      • nondescrypt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is so funny... arbulus just said in 117 words what dryanal (see daughter comment above) said in about 10 with deserved bonus points for efficiency and for making your jaw drop halfway to your shoulders. I'll digg this comment anyways but man !.. some of you need it spelled out so slow & conventional, you'd probably be better off watching CNN
      • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Funny that you say you avoid ads, preferring to google for products...or you have an add-on that blocks the ads disguised as answers by google?
    • snotrokit, on 10/10/2007, -13/+28so THAT is what an asshat looks like.
      • Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -20/+5You know, there's a difference between being clever and being utterly rude. You fall under the latter of the two.
    • meshgiath, on 10/10/2007, -3/+74This is all you need to know about this guy: Page source the link.

      meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0" meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"
      • gildude, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4right, it shows he likes friendly GUI's instead of "GENERATOR" content="Microsoft Visual Notepad" or content="GNU/Linux vi"
        • nondescrypt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5we're sorry, that seems to be the IN-correct answer. Please remain buried or try again.
        • meshgiath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Welcome to the internet gildude.
        • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8For someone complaining about bandwidth being consumed by those not paying their way, it seems a little counter productive to be serving out pages with useless meta tags. It also seems counter productive to be asking other people to refer people using the Firefox user agent to his 'don't use Firefox' page. The funny thing is that by doing this he may be informing many Firefox users about Adblock. Plus, dude, it is FrontPage.
    • Mysk, on 10/10/2007, -14/+13> but people who block adds aren't going to start clicking on them if they have to view them

      Not true. I've had a website (which is now a blog) for years. When new advertisement systems first come out (such as when AdSense was new) you get many click throughs. The moment that adblockers begin to remove those ads, however, your click thrus drop dramatically.

      This is true with any ad system, of which I've used many over the years. They work wonders until they become popular enough to be included into adblocking tools.

      The same people who run those tools definitely do click through. Not only that, but they definitely purchase products from those ads as is shown by affiliate systems that only pay a percentage per sale.

      In the past, myself and many others fought back against adblockers using various techniques. Some worked and some were quickly "patched" away by the adblockers. I know exactly how this guy feels.

      In fact, back when Opera was advertisement supported I was one of many who blocked Opera because of their use of AdSense. Their AdSense ads were positioned at the top of their browser and took their keywords from our websites. Any ads that we had, if not blocked, had no choice but to be delivered below Opera's despite the fact that they used our content to produce targetted advertising. It was a mess, and Opera eventually changed their behavior.

      Is what he's doing the right thing? Maybe, maybe not. Do the same people who use adblocking software click through on ads and even purchase the advertised products? Definitely. So does it cost the web site owner money when adblockers are used? Absolutely.

      The sad thing is that many people would not mind the advertisements if it were not for the god-awful annoying nature of those ads. The flashing, the sounds, and other BS that they do. In the end it's the advertisers who are defeating themselves.
      • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Its his choice to host content on the web, its our choice to not look at it. If he doesn't want me to go to his website, its fine with me.

        I think you forget, that you don't have to serve content to anyone. We are not honor bound to look at your content how YOU wish us to look at it. Your revenue is not my concern, find another business model if yours doesn't work.

        The idea that WE are costing you (and him) money is preposterous. We cost you nothing. Noone costs you anything by taking up bandwidth that you offer freely. If you don't like it, don't offer bandwidth.
        • darksyde, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Well, now that you put it that way, Afreyt, I feel so much better about bypassing Diggnation's pay scheme to watch their episodes early. I mean, We aren't honor bound to look at their content how they want us to look at it, right? I mean, Rev3 and Digg don't need help paying for bandwidth since they have loads of money at their fingertips already. Their business model doesn't work, so none of it is reallymy concern. Same as if you had content you posted online. We'll all just bypass your business model and get what we want from you for free.
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Using your (il)logic, it should be illegal to turn the page on a magazine ad without reading the content.

            And, it should be illegal to glance away from a billboard on the highway.

            Blocking an ad is not the same thing as getting pay-for-view video without paying for viewing.

            If you charge a subscription to view the content on your website, fine - that would be comparable to your Diggnation example.

            But essentially putting my hand over a part of the screen to block out an ad - or using a technological tool to do it for me - is neither illegal nor unethical nor is it bypassing a payment scheme at all.

            I have no obligation to support your advertising business model. What's next, saying that if I keep the ads up but never click through, I'm a criminal?
          • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4@rationalist
            Precisely. It comes down to not being a tool about it. Most people are reasonable.

            One of the blogs I follow states that he doesn't care whether you block his ads. He even shows you how to modify your hosts file to redirect the ad server he uses back to 127.0.0.1. Yet if he writes a review about a product, and I find that review helpful in my purchasing decision, and I am more than happy to click through on his affiliate link providing they are selling whatever item for a reasonable price.

            @digg team
            I am getting pretty sick of seeing "Your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting."
        • Gerbil_Juice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Afreyt never said you can't pay if you truly feel the content is worth it.
    • mentor972, on 10/10/2007, -10/+29They look Mormon.
      • ProfessorShrike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Damn. I was thinking the same thing.
      • timlopez, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I swear, I was going to post that! I agree 100%. Damn Mormons!
    • blup3ace, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13who wants to visit your ***** site anyways?
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Has anyone emailed this guy and told him he's all over Digg?
        • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I certainly hope not. He doesn't need to be called ugly, or have his daughter spoken about like that.
          OH--and now I see below that some beautiful digger below is calling his children ugly. Nice. Really nice.
          • acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, and if he's reading this right now - dude, you're an idiot. I'm sorry that some of the stupider people here feel they have to drag your family into it, though.
        • nondescrypt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ya, gee, can't all 10 million of us agree on the same standards of conduct. Duh.
    • grivad, on 10/10/2007, -21/+8His kids are ugly as sin.
      • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7And you're criminally rude.
        • JCSaint, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7That's a crime now? *****, I need to watch my mouth.
          • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2"Is JCSaint being offensive? Report it"
    • apotropaic, on 10/10/2007, -9/+22So this guy is highly misinformed but it doesn't mean you have to attack him and his family like that!
      • jamespa66, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10No we didn't have to attack his family but out of the pure kindness of our hearts we did it anyways :-P
    • jamespa66, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18Quick someone sterilize the entire family before the gene pool is polluted any further.
      • nondescrypt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5In defense of "harsh" comments towards this guy & his family... Our Intertubing is like a free & wild beast. (thank god) Many people have taken a beating when trying to turn a wild beast into a mule ( as this guy was doing ). I think the punishments fit the crime. It is Digg's duty to hold this guy's cyber-feet to the fire.
        • acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Free and wild? Please. It's only 'free and wild' because nobody here is held accountable for their words. I'd lay down money that not a single person on digg making stupid and rude comments about this man's family would have the testicular fortitude to say any of it to his face.

          People get awfully civilized when they're in situations where their 'free and wild' remarks might get them punched in the jaw.
        • theeEqualizer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well there's no point to attacking his family. That's pretty juvenile. But having kids myself, I can certainly see why he's so defensive about his earning potential. He's got a lot of shoes to buy.

          But I still think he's ridiculously misguided. People don't want the damn ads. Why spend so much time and energy fighting a trend? There's no need to go all "Lars Ulrich" on Firefox users. Its the information age, things change fast. So you can adjust in order to tread water, or drown. End of story.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Webmasters out there... PLEASE remember, that not everyone blocks ads... But those who do, would NEVER have clicked on your ads to begin with.

      And for the few people out there, that actually like the ads, and use them... they don't block them...

      Rather than block Firefox users... you should be thankful Firefox users use your site at all, and increase traffic! That way, at least you can tell advertisers, that you have high traffic... They wont care if some of that traffic has adblock or not... -_-
      • acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1What kind of idiot logic is that?

        "oh yeah...my site gets lots of traffic, but n% of it will never see any of your advertisements! give me money now kthx! ^^ "

        sheesh.

      • Rekzai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dude, some ads give you money for the amount of views also.
    • FadieZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Funny thing is these idiots don't realize yet that Opera has its own block filter.
    • qsqueeq, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Title should now be... "Why all my sites are down"

      poor fella :(
    • sophiaperennis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Exactly.

      This man is seriously deranged. The difference in revenue for the following two scenarios is exactly ZERO dollars:

      Scenario 1: Firefox user who doesn't use AdBlock and doesn't click on ads
      Scenario 2: Firefox user who uses AdBlock and doesn't see the ads
    • kbro, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Moron. I trust/respect a dude who blocks Firefox traffic a hell of a lot more than some prick who posts a family picture in order for people to ridicule. His kids had nothing to do with his actions.
    • Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Am I the only one who thinks his wife is kinda hot?
    • Rukaribe, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4I don't agree with ad blockers.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5what about people running linux... i mean, do they get blocked? -_-
      • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8No you just have to install IE6 under WINE :)

        He doesn't block Lynx either, I'm sure that will be a prime audience for banners and ***** flash ads.
        • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah, good... force users to install THAT... just to view his site... no thanks... what a dick... xD
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Im in ur tubez, stealin' ur bandwidth!
    • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The site doesn't show up, because my Adblock Plus subscription just blocked the site.
    • selkie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Doesn't look like many people are bothering to use his block page either:
      http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=4gH&q=link%3Awww.whyfirefoxisblocked.com&btnG=Search&meta=
    • gotashovel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2i bet his kids get beat up a lot.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Couple of points...

      Firefox does not enable ad blocking by default, users have to download a 3rd party extension for that.
      IE is just as capable of blocking ads, as Firefox is, via 3rd party toolbars, or even IE7's ad blocking features.

      Blocking so many general users, for reasons such as, they MIGHT be using adblock, is silly and foolish... especially considering the amount of traffic they lose.

      By the exact same logic this guy uses... He should be blocking IE as well as any other browser, because all can block ads in one way or another. Why single out Firefox? Regardless of what the 3rd party Adblock Plus creators do...

      Also, any attempts he could make, to block Firefox users, can and will be easily circumvented. No block based on browser is ever solid. And Firefox users in particular, easily have the tools to circumvent such blocks. (UserAgentSwitcher, and NoScript work just fine)

      Lastly, if you run the kind of site, that wants to block Firefox... Most likely firefox users are not interested in your site to begin with, but instead they will circumvent it for fun, and mass viewing it, as Digg has done, causing a virtual DoS... lol Not a good idea to piss off a community.
      • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'll also add that this guy claims on his site, that he doesn't block firefox users, that he's only blocking those with adblock, and the rest of us can use IEtab...
        Problem with that is, Firefox users who don't want extensions STILL can't view his site, because regardless of what he says, he's still blocking ALL firefox users with the user agent "firefox"... Requiring people to get IE tab is silly.(especially when we can get around this stuff and view the site via other ways, if we wanted to go through the trouble of using an extension.)

        We need more sites, that are Firefox only.
    • omjeremy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1deleted
    • StormCommander, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2This guy's right about ad block being... evil... but blocking FF users because of it is an awful idea. Oh, and that was pretty stupid of you to show a pic of his family... way to to deal with this immaturely buddy.
  • gweedo767, on 11/13/2007, -7/+652This is just great. If someone can block ads in FF, they are probably smart enough to do it in Opera and IE as well. On top of that, they are probably smart enough to install User-Agent Switcher too.

    How about we just send them a little extra traffic today to help their bandwidth bill?
    • zomgtehpwn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26I only partially agree with you on this. Mostly because I've installed adblock plus with subscriptions on several computers belonging to clueless people. The simplicity is what makes me do it. It has become a part of the install process for me.
      • PeteyBugs, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5Why? I can agree with the argument that tech savvy folks who use firefox and isntall adblock plus are probably the most ad-blind, so websites arent really losing out on much revenue - but by installing it for those who don't fit into that demographic, that argument doesnt work - now you really are taking away potential revenue from site owners.

        While I agree that the guy who made that site is a moron and is overreacting, I disagree with the concept of ad-blocking - why are we so intent on removing the revenue source of websites that we use for free?
        • knetworx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Because if we're not going to click on them anyway, they're much less annoying if we can't see them and they don't waste space on our monitor.
          • skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1PeteyBugs already addressed that...re-read the first paragraph.
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13"why are we so intent on removing the revenue source of websites that we use for free?"

          Because online ads tend to be the most annoying, distracting, noisy and ugly advertisements in existence.

          If all ads were like Google Adsense I wouldn't care. I don't even care if they're animated, but those ***** ads that flash between bright red and bright blue about 4 times a second, or make noise of any sort that I don't initiate, or pops up/under, make me close the page it's hosted on. Not only do the ads make me NOT want to click them, I also feel that the host site that allows that type of advertisement does not want my traffic either.
    • p5ych0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32Admuncher ( http://www.admuncher.com/ ) will take care of ads in any browser, but changing the ff user agent would be easier. People that do this are just uninformed.
      • Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6haha yeah, I love admuncher. good thing they can't tell we're using it :)
      • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Ad Muncher blocks every ad (MSN Messenger, etc) I've been using it since 4th of August and its stats say:

        "Ad Muncher Usage Statistics for v4.7 Build 27105/1651
        Adverts removed by Ad Muncher: 33,248
        Approximate bandwidth saved: 259 MB
        Counter started: August 4, 2007"

        Awsomeness.
        • linx05, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Ad Muncher Usage Statistics for v4.7 Build 27105/1672
          Adverts removed by Ad Muncher: 1,009,908
          Approximate bandwidth saved: 7,889 MB
          Counter started: May 21, 2005
          • acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Congratulations, you have more nerd points. Hope you've got a nice pointy stick to beat back all the women you're going to pull in by saving ~8gb of bandwidth.
    • Genma, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29he's an idiot because you don't need ff or adblock to get rid of ads, you could easily do it old school through your hosts file. which is even easier to block with since you only have to update one file, people just use adblock because it has useful features.
      • trueshadow21, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yeah, ive never used an ad-blocker, i just download hostfiles with all the add sites in them and i never have any problems, accept if u want to make an exception it can be a pain to have to go and search through the hosts file and take it out of there.
      • Macskeeball, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Indeed. I do that sort of thing (but more efficient) on my Linksys router (which runs Linux) so that it applies to anything the entire LAN without any additional setup. I also made it so that it updates itself automatically once a week.
      • Mesach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"you could easily do it old school through your hosts file. which is even easier to block with since you only have to update one file, people just use adblock because it has useful features"

        Have you ever used the Adblock Plus plugin? Once its installed and you point it to a filter subscription, you never have to update anything. Let alone one file. How is digging down to you hosts file easier to update?
        • Macskeeball, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Unlike a Firefox extension, using a hosts file applies to your entire OS, and if you modify the hosts file of your router, it applies to an entire LAN zero setup on the client side..
          • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And if you have your router's hosts self-update, it's zero maintenance.
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1And how would that help you? You do acknowledge that he has bandwidth bills to pay, so does all sites. The fact is every costs money. Blocking ads is similar to me forwarding my tv ads using my dvr, eventually when too many people start doing that tv content will no longer be free or the tv channels would go bankrupt. I do still forward those ads and I don't like seeing ads (especially the flashy ones) on webpages either but to be open about it, the content provider's have to pay the bills so money has to come from somewhere. Just bashing this guy for pointing that out is not going to make the problem go away.
      • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Cable was supposed to be ad free because we paid for it. Look how that turned out.

        If you don't like people bypassing ads, switch to a pay for access model and see how it goes for you.
      • oojamaflip2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Sadly this website owner is not just pointing out a known fact about Firefox users, he is branding them all as thieves. It is simply ludicrous to stick up for people like this. I understand and accept that people need to make money by advertising, but there are far more subtle, interesting and dynamic ways of doing it than a banner full of dancing ducks, or some other flash based monstrosity.
      • CiDaemon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"TV content will no longer be free"..?
        Hate to break it to you, man, but TV hasn't been free for decades; quite the opposite...
      • rkuchiki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6What about people who have metered home connections? IF they didn't run adblock.. you know those annoying talking flash ads do add up to be quite a bit of bandwidth after a while, especially since people don't stop with just one ad embed, but usually 5.

        I happened to visit digg once before reinstalling Adblock, holy *****.
    • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19I've installed AdBlock Plus in spite of this story.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6> On top of that, they are probably smart enough to install User-Agent Switcher too.

      Yep, I am pretty clever.
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59

      If he is so concerned about paying for traffic serving pages to people running Firefox, why is the sample code he is asking others to use simply referring these users to his site? Why is he wasting his own bandwidth telling us he wrote the page using Frontpage 4 or by including a background image or by not compressing the text? If you seriously don't want FF users at your site, design your CSS based on IE6 ;)
    • seanmc303, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12The guy who maintains this website is a tard. Anyone can run Privoxy and proxy any browser connection so most ads are blocked. www.privoxy.org

      Perhaps advertisements would not be such a problem if there were some good ground rules to minimize user irritation. My top pet peeves.
      1. Flash ads that take up 100% of your processor while some Actionscript infinite loop crunches some snowflake animation.
      2. Flashing or animated ads that appear right in the content you are trying to read that cause unneeded eye strain.
      3. Mine field adds that pop up while your mouse inadvertently scrolls over them. Thank you Microsoft Live Search and others.
    • pkfx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Instead of just sending them extra traffic, why don't we send a ping of death or ping flood the server...
  • Haplo7, on 10/10/2007, -10/+70Mirror:

    http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:EfQ9fM1ZcooJ:whyfirefoxisblocked.com/+site:whyfirefoxisblocked.com+whyfirefoxisblocked.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
    • zomgtehpwn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Jesus, that didn't take long.
    • flashingcurser, on 10/10/2007, -2/+91This is one of the only times that I really appreciate the digg effect.
      • halleyscomet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15This is also on Slashdot.org. The poor bastard is getting Dugg AND Slashdotted at the same time.

        All he needs now is a Green Light on Fark.com and his servers will likely melt into slag.
    • ilovenicotine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://whyisfirefoxblocked.com
    • sven007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oddly enough, the page works when you use IE Tabs, but it gives a blank page when you use Firefox. that kinds defeats the purpose of the site, because IE users would never be directed there :P
      • nat1192, on 12/17/2007, -0/+0Do you have AdBlock Plus turned on? (It used to block the page)
  • cheesexbro, on 11/13/2007, -4/+473Too bad there's a plug-in for IE7 that has numerous features--one of them actually being ad blocking. http://www.ie7pro.com/ OH NOS I GUESS WE GOTTA BLOCK IE7 TOO NOW!!!
    • cheesexbro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+50Also, he claims that Mozilla endorses AdBlock... IE7Pro (along with a paid add-on called AdBlock Pro) are listed as popular items on the Windows Marketplace. http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/xml/XmlResults.aspx?bcatid=834&SortBy=POP&Order=D&Channel=Category
      • rmccabe916, on 10/10/2007, -20/+1That is a very shaky argument you make there. Windows Marketplace is not something that people are directed to right after they install Windows, but the Firefox extension page is.
        • cheesexbro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Windows Marketplace is on the top of my "PROGRAMS" in the Start Menu. In XP it was called "Windows Catalog."
        • cheesexbro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Actually, I just loaded up IE7 and did the initial set-up where it asks if you want Anti-Phisher on, etc. it then, just like Firefox, asks if you want add-ons--this takes you to the Windows Marketplace.
    • prattmic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+38And it's not like someone could just edit their hosts file. Therefore I believe every computer with a host file should be blocked.
      • jcaino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23muwahahah...as soon as his site is back up, im going to wget all his content and cat it to /dev/null. i won't see any ads. im a THIEF!
      • foooey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13which is exactly what we used to do "back in the day"
        I had a hosts file that was thousands of lines long
        • Macskeeball, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I do with a dnsmasq file (similar approach but more efficient) on my Linksys router (which runs Linux), so that it applies to anything on my LAN. I also have it set to autoupdate itself once a week. It's so cool.
    • anchorman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Microsoft Marketplace even has a featured page for IE7Pro at http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/details.aspx?view=info&itemid=3407728
    • ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14"Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing."

      Stop stealing my internet!

      LOLWEBPAGE: im in ur internets blockin ur ads

      GET A CLUE stop making the ads yell and flash at me and I won't need to block them!
    • CiDaemon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"LOLWEBPAGE"...priceless
    • outsid3rNo17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Let's block the Internet and we're done.
      • Pikachelsea, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You get outta here Elton John!! We don't want your malarkey here.
    • chewy5000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4IE7 Pro works with IE6 as well. Now we have to block that too.
  • zomgtehpwn, on 11/13/2007, -17/+206You know what I say to people who refuse to find a new way to bring in revenue from their site and lose money because people block their ads? GOOD. I don't care if you make money or not. DISAPPEAR. I'll find somewhere else to get my entertainment (even if it requires going outside). It really does not matter to me in the slightest if you can't afford to keep your site running anymore.

    You didn't make money off of ads when you first started the site, so what makes you think you're entitled to continue making money as the times change and people start blocking ads? Because you have a family to feed? I DON'T CARE. Go get a job at Starbucks. Work a job you can't stand the majority of us have to.
    • digudown, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22why are you being dugg down, its capitalism. After all the customer is trying to find the best alternative for himself without breaking the law. I do not think we are breaking the law as:
      1. Advertising is not created by web site, just displayed by it. Imagine you TV company saying u can only watch the channel they endorse, if you are watching some other channel.
      2. We are redistributing it. Say I buy a book and find a particular page offensive. If I tear it out, am I making derived work? Is it illegal?

      So yes as customers we are entitled so see the content we want to see from the website. If they are so interested in us viewing their advertisements, make then less intrusive and more relevant.
      • iticu, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I didn't have much of a clue what you were talking about untill I read your last paragraph.

      • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I've seen technology from Phillips which is going designed to keep you from fast-forwarding, changing the channel or even turning the TV off during commercials, so a TV analogy isn't too far off the mark.
        • halicon5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7So, they have some impressive technology that keeps me from unplugging the TV during the commercials? Maybe it's that wireless electricity that was announced a few months back...
          • vern01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Its the fact that when you plug your new Phillips TV in to the socket that it will take 5-7 minutes to be able to view the channel you are on. How much of that will be the commercials you dont want, and how much of that will be the program you WANT to watch??
        • Fhwqhgads, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2and so will be the downfall of the TV.

          Should have happened years ago imo
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Let them. It's their choice to do that, like it's my choice to not buy their products that basically harass me with ads.
        • CiDaemon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2...yes, and that technology's security will last about as long as the HD-DVD cypher. There would be a hacked firmware within hours.
      • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Edit: Source for my above claim:

        http://www.livescience.com/technology/060420_force_commercials.html
        • cheesexbro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0And are you going to purchase this trap-box? I'll stick with my Sony 1080p that allows me to control the device.
          • niceyuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean your Sony 1080p DRM trap-box with HDMI digital content protection???
      • LocalDocal, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Digudown, I don't think being wrong was necessarily the reason he was being dug down before. I believe it was because he's acting like a complete *****. I mean, look at him. "YOU DON'T WANT TO CHANGE? FINE THEN, ***** YOU!"

        No, really, I can't understand the reason he has over 100 diggs now. For Christ's sake, look at his second paragraph.
    • vornan19, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33I like google ads. I'll allow any ad that is only text. Also I'll look at static ads. If they flash bright colours-blocked!
    • radu79, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6You know, we have a pretty used web site (about 2+ GB of traffic a day), and we have no ads on it. We make money by other methods (such as people purchasing stuff).
      But I still highly disagree with you.
      I think it is immoral to block the ads, unless if they are really intrusive (like most of the flash ads). But if it's some small banner here and there, what is your problem?
      No one forces you to click on it, but saying that you don't give a ***** about the site owner (a site that you constantly visit) is just ***** up.
      • covertbadger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Immoral? What the hell are you talking about? I resent ads of all forms because they are designed to extract money from my wallet, pure and simple. If I want something, I'll go looking, and I see no good reason to accept people forcing their crap on me on the miniscule off-chance that I'll be interested. And if that results in the site owner having financial problems, then tough ***** - they should have found an actual business model rather than whoring themselves out. Why should I, or anyone else, give a ***** about site owners? As soon as one disappears, another pops right up to take their place.
      • zomgtehpwn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I didn't say I don't give a ***** about the site owner. I said I don't give a ***** whether or not they make a living off of their site. I also don't give a ***** if their site disappears from the internet. I support the sites I like when they give me other ways to do so. But the attempt to brainwash me and embed into my brain ads for products or service I don't want or need pisses me off.

        There's a very good reason why I bought a maddox t-shirt as well as a copy of The Alphabet of Manliness. I have supported the work of someone whose entertainment I appreciate.
      • Ansible, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah, imagine an internet that someone can't make a buck off of. It would be like wikipedia or something, a hideous den of immorality and moral degradation.
    • TygerrTygerr, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0There's no need to be quite such a dick about your opinion, although I appreciate your name indicates kicking off with a major handicap in that area.
      • anjinash, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I block any and all ads on sheer principle. Let's face it, the advertising industry is what's immoral - it's a manipulative business run by sleazy people who deliberately stir up insecurities and target other human weaknesses in order to profit. Furthermore, a great deal of online ads are used to infect people's systems with ad/spyware without consent of the owners.

        *****. All. Ads. If your site needs them to stay afloat, too bad... you're in the wrong business.
        • MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Exactly. Marketing is what makes the dark side look like the light side. It's an instrument of pure evil.

          No one with any moral grounding could possibly do such work. I do not even consider them human. Just spawns of hell.

          No seriously though: there is something very wrong with how they make money.
          Capitalism would be perfect, if not for marketing manipulating it. (and laywers)
      • micromause, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1AMEN! It's because of ads that men and woman are so insecure about everything (looks, actions etc.)
    • amishjim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"(even if it requires going outside)"

      There's an outside?
    • tech10171968, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7This guy's an idiot.
      (1) Hard for me to believe he recommends Opera: not only is Opera quite capable of blocking ads, but it can also block content on a pre-webpage basis. The proof is in the pudding: http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/. Shows how much he knows, huh?

      (2) He also misses the entire point: instead of whining about the fact that people are blocking ads, he should be asking himself *WHY* people are blocking them. It could be because most of these ads are annoying as hell (especially those "H3y, Look at Me!!11!!, in-your-face Flash pop-ups and scrolling sidebars.). The ads just take away from the web experience because they just plain get in the way. If there were a way to advertise without getting all up in the user's face about it then I'm sure not so many ads would be blocked.

      You know, that's the problem with a lot of marketing types these days: they feel as if they have to shout to drown out the competition, but they often end up drowning out the page's content as well. They just end up shooting themselves in the foot because they annoy the piss out of the very people they were hoping to attract in the first place. Sometimes to much really is too much.
    • magus_melchior, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Something tells me the guy who wrote this site up is some combination of:

      1) A marketing/finance type who believes that any potential loss is a real loss, and therefore anything that causes a potential loss is a thief (the general attitude of content producers and commercial software publishers everywhere).
      2) A troll, who sees an opportunity to piss off the geek community and have a few laughs.
      3) One of the people who STILL hold out hope for some easy wealth from the long-gone dot-com boom (and bought into the lie of easy money), in lieu of expanding his wealth through hard work.
  • EXTER, on 11/13/2007, -2/+205Just use the User Agent Switcher extension
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59
    • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15HAHA Thats awesome... got around this guys one dimensional thinking pretty fast.
    • tehmoth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6he actually checks for the existence of the google ads iframe 2 seconds after page load, so using adblock plus and user agent switcher will still get you to the whyfirefoxisblocked page.
      • Niz1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3no need to digg someone down when they say something true, i cant confirm this since the site is down.
      • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Seriously, how much energy has he been spending on trying to block maybe like the top 10% most experienced Firefox users that account for maybe 10% of the browser share? He's been spending time trying to stop 1% of the people, and piss off all ~10% of the market's Firefox users in the process! Wow, he must have had a bad childhood.
        • kilooneniner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3He's a zealot who constantly accuses others of zealotry.
      • bmartin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Not if you're running NoScript
        • CiDaemon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yeah, I've been playing with it; it has three checking methods which I can see:
          1: user agent check, searches for the string 'firefox' using php substr
          2: ad check, checks for the existence of a pre-defined ad
          3: IE proprietary code check, basically an if(!document.all) statement

          1 is killed with user agent switcher, 2 and 3 with noscript.
    • grenden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Still doesn't work, but I think this is a fake page, b/c I got the same thing using IE to view it... http://flickr.com/photos/11032221@N08/1153980719/
    • Pootle4rthur, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if you use the noscript plugin then I don't think that the redirect script that he must be using to kick people to his silly ranting site will work either.
      The man is a muppet
    • mrowlinson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't use Adblock for my ad blocking, so I don't know if you can do this, but couldn't you have Adblock get rid of the script that checks for the Google ads?
  • johndrinkwater, on 10/10/2007, -5/+89Lets ignore it, it might go away.
    • zovres, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7yes like the giant squid
    • oojamaflip2006, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I'm fairly certain that with no ad-revenue, and no creativity about revenue generation at all, that this site will indeed just go away.
      • InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes, just like the giant squid............................................................
  • caederus, on 10/10/2007, -10/+68Call me old fashioned, but no Ad-blocker here.. Just a robust hosts file... 0.0.0.0 is a fine address.
    • ahawks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Ah, I remember back in 2002 when I used a "robust hosts file"

      ... which turned out to be the root cause of Windows 2000 hanging on me several times a day. >1mb hosts file does bad things apparently.
      • MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9What's windows and what is your host file doing there? I keep mine on my router, thank you. Too bad I can't upload one to my ISP (that would be neat)
        • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not that I picture all routers would be happy about a 1+ MB host file either. They also run on software after all. But good if it's working well for you. Now go ask your ISP to host your hosts file and tell them that you don't know what Windows is. ;)
      • ronaldb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The hosts file is still robust. Now, as for your Operating System... not so much I guess.
    • mcduncan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27Indeed. I recommend :
      http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
      It is even better than the ad block extension. Why? Because it doesn't block ad sites only in firefox, but even - you are going to love this - PC-wide. That is, I no longer see ads on my yahoo messenger. Go hosts file :D
      • Macskeeball, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I block ads on my Linksys router (which runs Linux) using a similar (but more efficient) approach. Thus, it applies automatically to anything on my LAN with no additional setup. Like a hosts file, it saves bandwidth because the ads don't even download. Oh, and my approach automatically updates its list of ad servers once a week, so it's completely set it and forget it. I love it.
      • hongy_r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is the best thing i have learned this week. Thank you.
      • zerodaysoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1mcduncan thanks a lot dude!! the sites i regularly visit are full of that ad crap but now they are gone!!! lol thanks mang
    • ponerse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Old fashioned.
    • redxxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ad Block Plus with the nifty Element Hiding Helper means I don't even have to see annoying side bars or just about anything else that offends my tender aesthetic sensibilities.

      no more retarded news sites that only use 20% of the page for the story and fill the rest up with garbage I don't give a damn about.

      It is pretty keen.
    • jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11unfortunately wildcards don't work with hosts file. and maintaining list of all those domains is kinda painful.
    • lord2800, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Actually... no. 0.0.0.0 is a router's signal to broadcast the request over /all/ of it's connected ports. It's used for services such as DHCP. I'd recommend routing it to 127.0.0.1 or some other innocuous host.
    • Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10127.0.0.1 is better than 0.0.0.0, saves a dns request
    • gildude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4hosts files are fine for home, but at work behind a proxy server hosts files don't get used and become useless. So while I have ad block plus both at work and at home, I only have the hosts file at home. At work it doesn't do any good.
    • bedouin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I was a Privoxy user until its development seemingly came to a halt. That was the best method to have ad-blocking network-wide, and it could even be chained through Squid. Much easier than installing an ad-blocker on each machine.
      • Macskeeball, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, the best method for doing it network-wide is on the router with the router's host file or, better yet, with a file for the rouer's dns server (dnsmasq in my case). Then, you don't have to set each device to use a proxy. Not only is that more convenient, but it means that devices that don't let you set a proxy (a game console, for instance) still get the ad-blocking.
  • digudown, on 11/13/2007, -4/+106Lets rely on the digg effect to bring this site down.
  • ani625, on 10/10/2007, -17/+10Sad most of the sites are like this for opera
    • radu79, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Yes, every once in a while some site tells me that Opera is just not good enough, and I should use IE or FF. Most of the time this is not even the case, Opera supports most of the features FF supports.
      • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I like my bank though for online transactions. They put up a box that says the site has not been tested in my browser, and recommend IE or FF. Big difference, and more honest too, because it's almost always all about not having cared to test the site. And then they still let me in if I wish. And everything works just great. Sure, a little annoying with that box on login but I can cope with that. :)
      • Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I bump in one those site once in a while, then I hit F12 mask opera as IE or FF and 90% of time the site is working as intended, 5% it has some glitches, and the last 5% ranges from being broken to any other behaviour.
      • chugger1992, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5it supports more than Firefox, its completely Acid2 compliant (while Firefox is not), it just does some stuff in a different way.
    • Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5most ? are you sure?
      'cause I'm using opera as my main browser and I encounter such a site maybe once every 3 months or so...
  • CreepingDeath, on 11/13/2007, -12/+8Frankly I wouldn't give this guy the time of day even. Feeding the trolls is bad; and personally I only block a few; very annoying; ad servers, and I block them from my firewall which runs Squid.
  • jtb4, on 11/13/2007, -5/+83It's owned by a guy named Danny Carlton. Here is the Google cache of his site portfolio http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:i5x2B3OX1tEJ:dannycarlton.com/buylinks.html+familynethome.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

    Looks like there's too many Diggers trying to whois him to figure out if this site is a joke. Evidently it is NOT a joke- he really does think Firefox is evil...... so, so sad.
    • Ricapar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+45I was able to get a few peeks at this portfoilo before it went down. The guy uses FRONTPAGE for making sites. He's a joke.
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Frontpage? No way. I didn't catch that, but it sure as hell makes sense. Did you see the blog on The Cult of Firefox or the Firefox Myths Revealed page? Says IE is more secure than FF. Oh yeah, FF users have a cult going around trying to convert people.
        • cheesexbro, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Haven't you heard? Firefox is a religion. Nevermind the fact that the whole "about:mozilla" thing is an Easter Egg.
    • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16Whois data

      Registrant:
      Danny Carlton
      19724 E Pine St
      Suite #149
      Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
      United States

      Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
      Domain Name: WHYFIREFOXISBLOCKED.COM
      Created on: 06-Aug-07
      Expires on: 06-Aug-08
      Last Updated on: 06-Aug-07

      Administrative Contact:
      Carlton, Danny
      19724 E Pine St
      Suite #149
      Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
      United States
      (918) 697-4039 Fax --

      Technical Contact:
      Carlton, Danny
      19724 E Pine St
      Suite #149
      Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
      United States
      (918) 697-4039 Fax --
      • dxprog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Catoosa is about an hour from my house
      • CATSCEO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Time to spam this mofo!
      • dogstar0125, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yeah, first thing I did was whois him and sent him some nice hate mail. What an *****.
      • bigstinky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Someone should fax him a black piece of paper. A bazillion times.
        • CiDaemon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4done, although not quite a bazillion. Free internet fax FTW!
          (send spam to: remote-printer.Danny_Carlton@19186574039.iddd.tpc.int )
      • cbergeron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2One thing that could happen to him would be if people put his address on dozens of magazine subscription requests.

        I'm not suggesting anyone do that, however, it's just one thing that may happen to him if he's not careful about his internet privacy.
      • muppetFuckr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I just verified the address it's a trailer :-D You can kind of see it on google maps too, funny stuff
      • muppetFuckr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I just verified the address it's a trailer :-D You can kind of see it on google maps too, funny stuff
        • jamespa66, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Just proves you can take the trash out of the trailer, but you can't take the trailer out of the trash...
      • Narfmaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Let's send this guy a whole load of Firefox Merch.
    • Haplo7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/discussions/comments.php?DiscussionID=3060&page=1

      Danny Carlton is making a big fuss about adblock on the above link too.
      • qualish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Why bury Haplo7? This is relevant to the topic, and actually provided some humorous reading. Dugg up, good find.
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12"Using adblocker is selfish." OMG

        He also hates cookies. He says that companies are trying to use his computer as a storage box.

        Danny Carlton must be stopped. This guy's a menace to our cult
    • ruscoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Looks like he was selling links before his site went down. Google likes to hear about that:
      http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/
    • bepo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Some web designer, the meta tags indicate he is using Frontpage.
    • grenden, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Looks like a joke, can't get anything but that same page using IE... http://flickr.com/photos/11032221@N08/1153980719/
    • tobiasly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"he really does think Firefox is evil"

      He also thinks it's a compound word. Hey Danny, it's Firefox, not FireFox.
    • sm1l3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1funny how is "script" doesn't work. I was able to view all of his sites with AdBlock running :-)
    • Crispuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dannycarlton
      ^ His Yahoo ID
  • AnteChronos, on 11/13/2007, -6/+360This guy's reasoning is kind of funny (and often wrong):

    "Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers."

    Like hell it is! That's like claiming that changing the channel on my TV during commercials is an infringement of the rights of the networks, or that having a friend cut all the advertisements out of a magazine for me is an infringement of the rights of the publisher.


    "Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing."

    You have *got* to be kidding me! Stealing?! Better not change the station on the radio when commercials come up, buddy. Wouldn't want to be a thief, would you?


    "Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending"

    But we're much bigger in terms of technical know-how. Let me introduce you to my good friend, the user-agent switcher.
    • archistudent, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20"Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending"

      Then what's the big deal. Obviously you aren't going to make any money off us FF users anyways...
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3True. He just really believes that using ad-blocking software is stealing. In his blog he says "if you don't want the ads there don't come to the site". Poor poor Danny Carlton....
        • dogstar0125, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, what a moron. If you don't want people viewing your content, don't post it on the public internet. You can't control what the browser does with it on the client side.
    • livevil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Monkey balls! They want to take user controls away from us. We pay for our internet and we can download and block whatever the hell we want - Mr. Dark Vader looking guy.
    • Kn1ghtmare, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Actually it's not like changing the channel during a commercial, it's more like fast forwarding through the commercial via a DVR. Changing the channel when there's a commercial would be more like close the site when you saw ads and going to a different site.
      • ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And sadly, this is already being (or has already been?) developed.
      • Zarokima, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually it is like changing the channel during a commercial, because you still get to watch the show without the ads, just like with the ad blocker addon you get the website content without the ads.

        Not defending the guy at all, just saying he's right about that.
    • noodlez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16heh.
      the demographics are incorrect because FF users tend to block or outright don't use the stuff that tracks demographics.

      its like saying that 95% of people in america surveyed are american, therefore, america is the most populous country in the world.
      • gildude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2To follow you - since a lot of FF users block scripts and all - its like those of us who hang up on surveys. They end up giving a number but they should actually say something like, "95% of the people in America dumb enough to answer a phone survey and having enough money to have a phone (and a place to live) are American".
    • kjcdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14He should really take a second and think.
      Most publishers ONLY pay when a link is clicked. Now someone who has installed adblock is not someone who would be clicking on your add in the first place, thus you don't loose a single dime. *****
    • tehmoth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Changing the user-agent is not enough, you'd have to whitelist his site since in addition to server side user agent blocking, he has javascript to confirm his google ads (well the iframe anyway) are in place.
    • cbergeron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10He's a Churchie and apparently he has an agenda because of the "Firefox is a Religion" content in the about: pages.

      He's doing this politically.
    • earthforce1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So by his logic, you are obligated to accept whatever crap his website serves whenever you click on the link. It logically follows then, that you are a thief if you run a virus scanner to block the malware I am trying to install on your machine when you view my website. After all, the malware authors are paying me to keep my site up by infecting all visitors and adding them to their botnet.
  • carstairs, on 11/13/2007, -3/+120Some of us don't use Ad Blocker. But (almost) none of us click on ads anyway, so who cares?
    • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I ignore any/all online advertising and have for a long time, nothing can change that. The main reason I use adblocker is to speed up my browsing.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Danny cares
    • MikeGrenade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Somewhere there's some idiot who keeps clicking these things and making them profitable.
    • Floodle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I use Firefox AND I sometimes click on ads (never ones that are animated in any way - I just close the page) - I must be some kind of freak
    • betona, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Apparently none of you has worked in internet ads. Yes, people really do click on them -- in the 0.2% range to (rarely) as much as 2-3% clickthru depending on if the ad is relevant and contextual to the user. I click on an ad a few times a year--but certainly not often at all. And I've watched people in user test labs purposefully click on search ads because it gave them what they were looking for.

      It costs huge dollars to host and operate a site, so if you can come up with a better way to pay the bills and make a buck than by advertising, the industry is all ears.
  • Piedramente, on 11/13/2007, -5/+214So not viewing an ad is stealing? I guess all those people who use the restroom during a commercial are stealing too.
    • MrSketch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12If you have to use the restroom during every commercial, you should see your doctor.
      • Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Huh? I don't know about you, but I think it is normal for people to wait for a commercial to go. Not get up right in the middle of the show and go "****, I think I have to go". This has nothing to do with the frequency of going. Yes, if you go that often, you need to get checked by a doctor for diabetes, etc...
      • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3He said "a" not "every" but yeah, I lol'ed. ;)
    • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10But, it's perfectly within the rights of a site owner to block you if they don't think you're viewing their ads.
      You're not required to watch the ads, but you're also not guaranteed the right to view that content.
    • Anteros, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5The difference is the site owners have to pay for bandwidth and server costs, so people with ad block are costing the site owners money without any chance of ad revenue.
      • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Why? Did we force him to give away bandwidth and pay for a server? Did I sign an agreement with him promising to look at ads in exchange for content?

        What are you smoking. Take your site down if you don't want people to use your bandwidth. I'm under no obligation to click your ads just because you'ld like me to.
      • prammy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There are other ways to make revenue from the sites.
        If you think that you should get paid, then have a subscription which provides benefits to the visitor. Most of the people who install Adblock will not click on ads. I installed adblock because for the most part site slowdowns were due to the browser waiting for the ad server to dish out the pages. I installed adblock so that my can browse without waiting a long time for the page to render.
        Slashdot had an article about that very thing today: http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/17/1617259
        Ironically it is posted right above the whyweblockfirefox.com article. Prior to me installing adblock, I never clicked on ads anyway.
        Either way, all this guy is doing is reducing the number of visitors he gets to his site. I'd say thats a win-win for everyone.
      • Zarokima, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3To quote kjcdude:

        "He should really take a second and think. Most publishers ONLY pay when a link is clicked. Now someone who has installed adblock is not someone who would be clicking on your add in the first place, thus you don't loose a single dime. *****"
  • DeFex, on 11/13/2007, -4/+166dont worry, if they want to block you for that reason then the site is not worth visiting.
    • outlaw686, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0thought the exact same thing
    • balaurul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1stealing ha .. but forcing me to watch ads before asking me is called what? working
  • nonpareil, on 11/13/2007, -3/+99This has to be the most asinine argument I've ever seen - and trust me, I've seen MANY. TiVo, DVR all allow you to blast through, or simply pass over commercials. Should television studios start blacklisting customers who use this because hey, "ADS PAY FOR THIS CONTENT?!" I don't think so.

    With respect to internet ads, and specifically the number of folks using AdBlock, the Firefox market is tiny (though on Reddit it will be inflated), and the fraction of people using AdBlock is even smaller. Calling that small group out may, if anything, bring more people to AdBlock (and Firefox) than it will persuade current users that their use is somehow "unethical." Still, this is a preemptive strike directed to stop the "bleeding" early on. No idea how it got nearly 1000 upvotes.

    Websites are openly accessible anywhere in the world, and through a multitude of browsers. There are options for text-only browsing. Is this too unethical? Then there are nuked browsers that provide that only certain things load. Unethical yet? I don't see anything "unethical" about browsing sans ads. To call it illegal is just plain fatuous (and sadly reminiscent of the fear-mongering we see all around us in other contexts). Firefox and AdBlock allow you to cut the fat off stupid websites and basically empower the folks who are otherwise COMPLETELY UNSWAYED BY ADS to blot them out of their online browsing experience. The occasional dimwit who clicks on a flash ad for LOWER YOUR MORTGAGE RATES or FREE PS3 NOW!!! would not install AdBlock plus.

    That being said, I would argue that maybe the folks who put up websites should be more "ethical" in choosing their ads. I have never seen a web ad that offered me anything resembling a deal on something I wanted. Moreover, I would wager that many ads only seek to add emails/personal information to spam databases. In this light, AdBlock isn't unethical -- it's essential.
    • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Radio stations should start blacklisting car stereos that allow you to change channels when a commercial comes on.
    • nonpareil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I should have added that I first saw the article on reddit and made the same comment there. Still, I'm sure this will rise to the top of digg as well, as the sheer stupidity of it all is too much to resist indulging.
    • Anteros, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2If a million extra people watch a tv show and not the ads it wouldn't cost the network extra money, if a million extra people visited a website one month with an ad blocker it would cost the site owners a lot of money.
      • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You accept that risk when you put up a website. Its not the visitors fault. You ASKED them to look at it by making it available. That they don't look at it how you would like is irrelevant, they don't have any contract with you.
        • HUKI365, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly. So this guy on your argument has said "No I don't want Firefox users looking at this site."
      • oojamaflip2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I seriously can't believe people like you are peddling this argument that I have to view adverts to justify my looking at your website. Its almost like you think I _owe_ you something for increasing your page rank/site traffic. If you are so incompetent and uncreative that you can't work out how to make money from the internet in the Ad-Blocker age then you deserve to lose money. Just ***** the hell off you sanctimonious wanker.
    • ScionAltera, on 10/10/2