digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Why Digg is Blocked

whydiggisblocked.com — You've reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks visitors from Digg and other social media sites. If you wish to view the site you came from we suggest STOPPING USING SOCIAL MEDIA SITES and finding the resources through Google instead.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Four20, on 11/25/2007, -21/+771That is messed up. I agree that a webmaster can block any traffic they want(or at least try). But saying digg, reddit, stumble and the rest 'endorse' ad blocking software is bogus.
    • betterth, on 11/25/2007, -6/+197Yeah it is, which is why no self-respecting site will block the traffic. What's better, trying to optimize for Google and getting say 1000 hits per week, with a 10% ad click ratio or getting a nice burst of 30,000 users in a single hour with a 3% click ratio? It sucks we click less but theres a ton more of us.
      • Wrathernaut, on 11/25/2007, -3/+38I am trying to figure out where they get off saying we don't click ads. If I'm on digg looking at hardware news, I'd say I'm quite apt to click links for discounts on hardware from said site.
        • neomillenium, on 11/25/2007, -2/+26I think they mean we're too smart to click on the standard FREE PS3 IF YOU CLICK NOW!!!1!!11!!!1111!!1 ads.
        • AwesomeAndy, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1I clicked NOW and nothing happened. :(
      • jtbandes, on 11/25/2007, -7/+58Attracting more users who use AdBlock is NOT THE SAME as repelling users who don't.
        • kingraoul3, on 11/25/2007, -8/+8Dugg for truth. Follow it wherever it leads you.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 11/25/2007, -4/+31I don't use AdBlock software.
          I just use IGNORE AD skill. AdBlock is just a convience for other who don't feel like dealing with Ads and would ignore them in the first place, as well as the ads themselves may introduce security risks
          • Plezops, on 11/25/2007, -3/+12i haven't clicked on an ad in who knows how long probably a year or so... not even a adsense ad... so I guess I should be punished for not installing anything and still ignoring your ads... makes sense /sarcasm

            Adblock just makes a page prettier making me want to stay longer... though I don't use Adblock I do just ignore (with MindBlock 2.0 beta) the ad's which seems to do a better job of blocking them for me anyway, I just think and it blocks... nifty...
          • chedabob, on 11/25/2007, -1/+29I'd happily turn adblock off if advertising companies stopped using retarded techniques to get my attention. Flashing banners and annoying sounds won't get my attention.
          • vornan19, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2He forgot http://slashdot.org.
            But honestly when I go to a site from digg/reddit/slashdot/whatever I'll usually stay and click around. Maybe I'll click on an ad. I don't unusually click on an ad in my other surfing habits so why should these sites (the ones that refuse our visit) give a copulating electron's crap Beats me.
        • fredkreuger, on 11/25/2007, -6/+50'I just use IGNORE AD skill'
          That is only available to those who have the Helm of Wisdom. +6 INT
        • Audacitor, on 11/25/2007, -3/+23I have a +6 Int Helm of Wisdom, and said wisdom advises me to use AdBlock.

          [no, there was no reply link]
        • Rocketbird, on 11/25/2007, -1/+22Sometimes, when the server that's loading the ads is acting up, it multiplies the time it takes to load the page.
          • vornan19, on 11/25/2007, -1/+10Too true. I can't count the times I've waited for a page to load just to notice that what's hanging it up isn't the site I'm trying to see. It is always another site, like adsense, that is taking too long to respond. Grrr. Add to that the loud flash-based ads, and ads that flash bright colours and I'm surprised I'm still on the Internet. /rant
            Thanks guys.
        • KingBabi, on 11/25/2007, -2/+16I think I have clicked on an add purposefully maybe a dozen times in the 10 odd years I have been using the internet. In none of these cases have I actually bought/used the product advertised. I use Ad-Block to make sites prettier, not to stop seduction by the ads.
      • mrASSMAN, on 11/25/2007, -3/+58Also, getting dugg means the site gets a huge bump in pagerating on google. A site that previously only existed on page 5000 will suddenly become much more recognized by google and end up on the top 10 pages with many more keywords. Google pays very close attention to digg.. search anything that has been on digg's front page on Google and you'll find digg's headline very quickly.

        So my point is, a site that ends up on digg's front page, especially smaller sites and startups, is destined for success. It has been shown that it causes a sustained increase in visitors, long after reaching front page. Thusly, the rumor that being dugg does more bad than good for a website owner is absolute *****.
        • AscendoTuum, on 11/25/2007, -19/+5Well since you don't know what pages will hit digg in the future, you can't know their initial page-rating on google and thus can't really claim to know the difference made by digg.
        • sigloiv, on 11/25/2007, -3/+12Unless, of course, he's the one submitting a link he found through Google.
        • mervis, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Good point Mr. Assman.
      • DocHoliday22, on 11/25/2007, -3/+8"Demographics have shown that not only are Digg and other social media users a somewhat small and insignificant percentage of the internet".... Yeah so the Digg Effect must be an illusion?
        • Jason4000, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4I use add block. I admit it. As soon as they cut down on obnoxious in your face attention grabber adds that flash and startle you with some sound because your sound level is too high in the middle of the night, I might be inclined to stop using it. There are some sites that block me yes but I can then just disable the add block for that specific site. Who ever stops you from changing the channel on the tv during a commercial or someone who uses a PVR or TIVO. Go to **** ad ****!!!!!!
    • NSMike, on 11/25/2007, -3/+51Well, to be fair, it says the "users" endorse it. Don't know if that's a correction after the fact or not...

      But regardless. If there are sites out there getting SO much traffic from Digg that they feel this is necessary, they're going to be disappointed with the results. Those submissions that block digg will get buried into oblivion, and those sites will see a sudden drop in traffic. It's the same as when Google news de-listed some major news outlets. Their traffic dropped so dramatically that they panicked. Now obviously, the Digg user base is a LOT smaller than Google news, but like I said, if a lot of their traffic comes from digg, they're going to miss out on the users that don't use AdBlock. And besides, NO ONE, not a single visitor, is obligated to click on your ads.

      I'm hoping that most sites are smart enough to never exclude potential traffic.
      • JeffD, on 11/25/2007, -2/+14"Well, to be fair, it says the "users" endorse it. Don't know if that's a correction after the fact or not... "

        I dont really get his logic, the USERS of digg use addbloxk addons so hes suggesting that those same users use google instead of digg. Does he think that for some reason those same users will decide not to use addblock when they start googleing more?
    • deviouskoopa, on 11/25/2007, -5/+124Is it going too far to say Digg users (such as myself) are less likely to click ads because we actually know how worthless clicking flashy ads for a "Free iPod!!!!!!!!!" is? ABP or not, I wouldn't click any ads and I bet that many Digg users wouldn't either. So comparing Digg users to the much larger population of Google users is just plain wrong. Just a thought... feel free to add yours too!
      • Scaryclouds, on 11/25/2007, -6/+17Actually I do click ads. Not the ads you describe mind you, but say if I go to tech blog and see a link relevant to my interest (web design) I'd say there is a good chance I will click it. Not only because I am interested but also to support the site.
        • PAStheLoD, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3What kind of ***** up world are we live in so that you can show your support by clicking ads that are totally irrelevant for you?
          I'd rather send them money via PayPal than click the fsckin' ads.
      • TeacherOfHeroes, on 11/25/2007, -2/+74What they're really lamenting is the fact that Digg's readership is too smart to fall for the "You have spyware! OH NOES" ads. Digg isn't directing a high enough percentage of gullible morons to their site - I know, I'm as shocked as you are.
      • kingraoul3, on 11/25/2007, -3/+10No, it is not going too far. OTOH, I purchase plenty of stuff online.

        If advertisement was based on the quality of the product in question, rather then designed to prey on my stupidity, they might have a better success rate.
        • PAStheLoD, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1I also buy some stuff over the net, but not based on ads! I make my decision based on facts (if available) or getting suggestions from friends or other people on the net (such as forums, IRC .. etc), anyone that just buys something because of an ad deserves to be shot on sight.
      • yosempai, on 11/25/2007, -3/+33FTA: "Sitepoint.com—Digg Users 3 Times Less Likely to Click Ads Than Google Users"
        Interpretation: Digg Users 3 Times Less Gullible Than Google Users
    • OpenFuture, on 11/25/2007, -8/+313I wonder if whoever registered this site realizes that they are infringing upon digg's trademark by using the logo on the site.
      • NSMike, on 11/25/2007, -7/+124Oh, that's rich. Sent to abuse@digg.com.
      • DeathfireD, on 11/25/2007, -32/+2*****
      • DeathfireD, on 11/25/2007, -32/+4$userAgent=strtolower($_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER']);
        if ((strstr($userAgent, 'whydiggsucks'))||(strstr($userAgent, 'drewmckinney'))||(strstr($userAgent, 'downloadsquad')))
        {
        header("Location: http://digg.com");
        exit();
        }
      • MasterQ, on 11/25/2007, -16/+29using a small image of a company's logo for identification purposes generally falls under fair use in the DMCA
        • OpenFuture, on 11/25/2007, -13/+19Ahem.. Referring to the bottom of all of digg's pages: "DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc."
          • kingraoul3, on 11/25/2007, -13/+10You have not disproven his point by pointing out that the logo's are trademarked.

            You cannot own an idea.
          • maverex, on 11/25/2007, -4/+13You can't own an idea but you can patent a living organism? What a world we live in.
          • sabach, on 11/25/2007, -0/+18You can own an idea, it's known as intellectual property.
          • Terc, on 11/25/2007, -1/+27Reply threads like this are what happens when children act like they know law.
        • Matt2k, on 11/25/2007, -0/+19No, it doesn't, since the DMCA has to do with _digital copyright_ amendments to the existing US copyright laws, primarily regarding anti-circumvention and backups. What does that have to do with a trademark??

          I would think simply using another company's logo would be considered a "nominative" usage and not cause any confusion over who owns the trademark. It's pretty obvious that "whydiggisblocked" website isn't run by digg.com
        • samuelcotterall, on 11/25/2007, -1/+5Digg have already sent out cease and desist letters to a bunch of websites that use 'Digg' in their title or URL simply because they have a duty to protect their trademarks.
        • NSMike, on 11/25/2007, -1/+6Since when did the DMCA have jurisdiction over trademarks?
    • Nerfdude, on 11/25/2007, -6/+88sounds like some webmaster ordered a waaaaahmburger with a side of french cries.
      • xkorbin, on 11/25/2007, -2/+8My favorite part: "Digg users don't click on advertisements like traditional users do..." -- because DIGG USERS AREN'T STUPID.

        I mean, seriously. Nest a comment under me if you are operating adblock plus.
        • thetinguy, on 11/25/2007, -3/+6indeed. Also I love stealing *****.
    • arbulus, on 11/25/2007, -13/+290This ***** pisses me off to no end.

      Just because I see an ad, that doesn't mean I'm going to click it. And my visiting a site is in no way a guarantee that I will; I made no promise nor signed any agreement that I would click on your ads because you "allowed" me to visit your site. You should be ***** happy I'm there, because if I'm there, I might tell others about your site, and someone else just might click an ad.

      Saying that software blocking ads is an infringement on the website's rights is the most asinine ***** i've ever heard. You don't have a right to profit or make money on ads - you have an opportunity. Saying that my vising your site and not clicking your ads means i've violated your rights is like telling someone that going to the mall to compare prices but not actually buy something is infringing upon the store's rights. It's complete *****. Furthermore, saying I'm "stealing bandwitdth"? I paid for my internet access, and you paid your hosting fees. You put up a site that is free to visit. If you think people are "stealing" then you need to charge a fee to visit your site. I haven't stolen a goddamned thing and have done everything according to proper law and guidelines.

      You wanna talk about rights? I have the right to choose when I want to see advertisements. I have the right to decide if I want products and services shoved down my throat 24/7. I have the right to decide that I don't want to see ads every single place I go. I'm tired of this advertising culture we've become. Ads are everywhere you go: on you coffee cup, in your online games, before movies, hell even clothes are ads: go to PacSun or Hollister and buy one of their Tshirts and all the shirts are covered in big logos of the companies who make them. It's revolving door marketing - like pyramid scams and envelope-stuffing "businesses." You can't escape the ads anymore. And goddamnit, if I can control when where and how I see ads, then I am damned well going to do it.

      I understand your site needs to make money, but blocking and entire segment of the population will only lessen your chances for revenue. You are only hurting yourself. And if you as a business can't comprehend my right to choose when and where I see advertising, then you are not a business I want anything to do with.
      • Atomic1fire, on 11/25/2007, -1/+14if a driver sees a bulletin board and sees the number on it
        more then likely they wont care
        and they shouldn't because they are driving and not looking for advertisements
        you cant make people click advertisements because thats not what they are there for
        they are there for content
        if the ads are related to the content in some way they may click them but understand that the only thing that will make you money is content not forcing people to view sometimes intrusive and annoying ads
        • deelirium, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2I haven't seen ads in months, if not a year or longer.

          If they really wanted to spend their time wisely they would figure out a better way to do their marketing instead of dumb, irrelevant, annoying ads. Being annoying doesn't persuade me to do anything except ignore you.
      • fatlip, on 11/25/2007, -1/+15a-*****-men, brother!
      • NikoKun, on 11/25/2007, -16/+11The Anti-AdBlock guy(/people) has to be such a complete moron, not to see the logic...
        It's almost as ignorant and blind... as religion.
      • xkorbin, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2You think these comments on Adblocking are bad? Take a look at the Discussion page on Adblock Plus on the mozilla page.
      • bluesdealer, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4Nice analogy. Imagine the reaction if you went to a mall and "stole" the use of their facilities and shopping space, so they forced you to buy a product. I don't use software that blocks ads, only script blocking software to stop adware/malware/etc. If there's a banner on a page advertising something that appeals to me, I'll probably click it.

        However, even if I did use Adblock, it's my right to render your freely available html in any fashion I choose. Piss off.
      • Genma, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2seems common for people in advertising affiliated with free content to view everyone who doesn't like ads as thieves.
    • SquigglyP, on 11/25/2007, -4/+32Does this really matter at all? So they aren't going to let us see their ***** because we avoid the ads? If the whole reason for their site to exist is to generate ad revenue, then their site probably isn't worth going to, anyway. Doesn't seem to keep the retarded blog spammers from posting every other entry on Digg.
    • WildJimbo, on 11/25/2007, -2/+30Furthermore I'm betting that his stance of insisting people click ads is against the ad company's TOS. For example Google Adwords states: "In order to ensure a good experience for users and advertisers, publishers may not request that users click the ads on their sites or rely on deceptive implementation methods to obtain clicks."

      I'd bet the other companies have similar policies.
    • arcooke, on 11/25/2007, -2/+24If someone has an ad on their site strategically placed and relevant to what I'm currently looking at.. I may click it. I have plenty of times before. If you want your clicks you need to earn them by putting some thought into where they are placed and what they are advertising. Don't place ads about things like insurance, medicine, financial consulting, or anything else like that. Those are things people will manually search for WHEN THEY NEED THEM. If I'm reading a review about a video card, give me an ad for Newegg so I can go check the prices, and stick it where I can see it. It's not the end user's fault the ads aren't getting clicked.. it's the webmaster's fault for putting irrelevant, poorly placed advertisements on their site.

      Someone needs to submit one of this guy's websites to Digg via a TinyURL link so all his referrers point there.. bombarding the ***** with traffic he doesn't want. He makes a valid point, but he comes off as a complete *****.
      • thetinguy, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1Actually he doesn't make a valid point.
    • Firehed, on 11/25/2007, -1/+7Well the SitePoint bit at the end was the most interesting. It basically suggests that if a Digg (etc) user is blocked by a site as a result of their referrer header and then googles for the page in question, they'll suddenly be more likely to click ads.

      Most of the stuff posted to Digg isn't worth the effort nor the five seconds it would take to get around these kind of stupid blocks. However, while I haven't yet encountered a site with a dumb enough webmaster to employ this kind of thing, I'll be sure to break out an old click-fraud script from decades past so they can get all excited over the new moniez! only to find out they've been delisted from Adsense. *evil cackle*

      Basically, if your ads aren't paying out well enough from random traffic spikes, it's from one of two things: your ads suck (generally poor targeting) or your content sucks (hey - it made it to the front page of Digg, didn't it? Your content definitely sucks if us basement-dwellers approved). With a couple Amazon affiliate links on my blog linking to products I was already talking about, I made more in a couple weeks than I ever did with Adsense. Granted, I'm still talking on the order of $20 or so, but as decent as Google's ad targeting may be compared to Yahoo or Microsoft, it still positively sucks compared to hand-picking your links - and if you're already talking about products, it's not at all hard to do.

      For a wide variety of content or a large audience, Adsense may pay out very well - I wouldn't know. But when you're honing in on specific niches, it's all about the affiliate programs. MUCH better targeting, and generally better rates to boot. Both translate to higher revenue. And as an added bonus, affiliate programs/links are far less obtrusive than any of the traditional banner ads, even Google's text-based stuff.
      • kingraoul3, on 11/25/2007, -2/+2Your content definitely sucks if us basement-dwellers approved.

        Do you like this site or not?
    • themastersb, on 11/25/2007, -3/+18Isn't this from the same person who made "why firefox is blocked" and a Digger hacked the site and changed it to promote firefox?
      • yosempai, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2I think so. And now, its just ***** personal.
      • toxictonic, on 11/25/2007, -1/+6Not hacked but the person bought the same domain name with a different extension.
        • eshiki, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2actually the TLD was the same and it they just switched the words "is" and "firefox"
          old: whyfirefoxisblocked.com
          new: whyisfirefoxblocked.com
    • NikoKun, on 11/25/2007, -3/+6Is this ***** serious??? Is this guy nuts? The Ant-AdBlock guy is now making it personal with Digg???
      Oooo this could get good! *grabs popcorn and watches what ensues*
    • Chompy, on 11/25/2007, -3/+14My answer to that is to cut and paste the content right off the site:
      "You've reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks visitors from Digg and other social media sites.

      The users of sites such as Digg, Netscape, Reddit and StumbleUpon openly endorse Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites, and are well known for providing no value to the sites they visit. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads, Digg users who don't click on these ads are stealing bandwidth without paying for it and website owners deserve a method to block this unauthorized bandwith theft.

      Since social media sites do not allow website owners a method for excluding content and do not obey robots.txt law, abiding webmasters are forced to block all users from social media sites. Demographics have shown that not only are Digg and other social media users a somewhat small and insignificant percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking these users seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers..

      If you wish to view the site you came from we suggest stopping using social media sites and finding the resources through Google instead."

      There, now nobody even had to waste time visiting your site, idiot.
      • KrazyA1pha, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1The brilliant part is the fact that he is wasting /his/ bandwidth for the sites who are receiving digg traffic. I encourage everyone to visit this site... several times a day.

        This guy is brilliant.
    • caboosemoose, on 11/25/2007, -5/+3This really is messed up. Satire can be so close to the bone very occasionally I find it difficult to tell. This site is surely a joke I don't see any comments working on that basis, so I have to assume it isn't. And in any case, does anyone at all really ever click on ads? Websites really do genuinely make any kind of serious sum of money from ad revenue? This all seems to me an impossibility commensurate with two like snowflakes.
      • flameboy, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Web advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry. Where have you been?
    • Audacitor, on 11/25/2007, -2/+4http://www.stardrifter.org/refcontrol/
      Problem solved.
      • joeleslie, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Too much hassle. I wouldn't want to visit his site anyway.
    • steppinrazor, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1This site needs to use its own code.
    • junaru, on 11/25/2007, -2/+5In other words his target audience is rednecks with AOL
    • xkorbin, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Why not get out a trusty refspoof, and just shut him down that way?
    • sjl127, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1The free market in action!
    • GreenAlien, on 11/25/2007, -0/+2"Demographics have shown that not only are Digg and other social media users a somewhat small and insignificant percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking these users seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.."

      So Digg is a "small and insignificant percentage of the internet", yet he goes through all that time and hassle to set this website up and modify other websites to detect Digg and redirect to it.

      It's funny because this idiot also represents a "small and insignificant percentage of the internet" so who cares about him. He's managed to grab the attention of thousands on Digg by doing this - I hope he gets a warm fuzzy feeling, but make the most of it while it lasts because he's a very "small and insignificant" individual.

      Would be funny if people do a DDOS on him so he thinks people are making use of the site all over the internet. Heck, he's so clueless he might invest in extra servers to handle the load. Then stop the DDOS and he's left with several useless servers and nobody who gives a crap about what he does.
      • Player03, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1"So Digg is a 'small and insignificant percentage of the internet', yet he goes through all that time and hassle to set this website up and modify other websites to detect Digg and redirect to it."
        ...and plus, he complains about how many visitors Digg brings.
    • NikoKun, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Couldn't one just... ya know... use the RefControl FireFox extension? Effectively blocking this guy's attempt to detect what site I'm coming from? LOL
    • flameboy, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1TO: WHYDIGGISBLOCKED.COM@domainsbyproxy.com

      I am emailing you to point out a serious flaw in your argument regarding the supposed "Theft of revenue" perpetrated by diggers. You say:

      "Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads, Digg users who don't click on these ads are stealing bandwidth without paying for it and website owners deserve a method to block this unauthorized bandwith theft."

      This argument uses the same "lost sale" fallacy as the big record industries. You have no evidence to support that those users who use adblock would have clicked your ads anyway. You are failing to understand the fact that this audience is simply more ad-conscious. Just because digg traffic doesnt convert the same as regular google traffic, you say thats stealing bandwidth?

      Get with the program, its a different demographic. Learn to adapt: if your site gets dugg frequently, maybe you can better target diggers through some other more creative means?

      Blocking diggers is a stubborn and ignorant method used to preserve your old business model at the cost of gaining additional potential revenue or site exposure. You are no better than the annoying copy protection software on Sony music CDs.
  • topperstone, on 11/25/2007, -14/+501"Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers" bla bla bla
    • Avor, on 11/25/2007, -15/+246Ads that ***** all over my screen are an infringement of my rights.
      • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -74/+7No- they're not.
      • ben_nushmut, on 11/25/2007, -2/+90Ads that ***** all over my processor piss me off. If you decide to use Flash, you deserve to be blocked.
        • mrASSMAN, on 11/25/2007, -1/+24Which in turn means the ad ***** all over your laptop battery. You'll get much more batt life on your laptop when browsing the internet with the flash ads blocked.
      • kerzhaw, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Amen to that (meant figuratively)
    • lohphat, on 11/25/2007, -3/+55"infringement of the rights"? Can someone please enumerate these rights on the books?
      • kingraoul3, on 11/25/2007, -15/+1By your logic, we do not have a right to healthcare.

        Myself, and the overwheling majority of the public, disagree.
        • HAKdragon, on 11/25/2007, -1/+11We (at least in the US), don't have a right to healthcare. You get healthcare if you can afford it or if your employer pays for it as part of a benefits package.
          • kingraoul3, on 11/25/2007, -6/+1So is the law the ultimate determinate of what is right?

            By your logic, the Duke of Alva was right in slaughtering Netherlanders becasue of their desire for religious freedom.

            Note that I have asked you a yes or no question; and I defy you to answer it with a yes or no response.
          • amdahlj, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4You misunderstand completely. There are legal rights, then there is what is morally right. Those are two different ideas.
          • NintendoJoe, on 11/25/2007, -1/+0Under US Patriot Act, I must say yes to kigraoul's question.
        • Cenobite, on 11/25/2007, -3/+8Nobody's going to die or suffer a severe detriment to the quality of their life if I don't click on some douchebag's ads. Healthcare is necessary, because without it people die. Viewing ads - let alone clicking them - is NOT necessary (and therefore not a right), because without that happening the only result will be the webmaster being forced to get a real job.
        • halligan00, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3We have a right to healthcare, just like we have the right to bear arms, travel between states, and the right to own property. The state doesn't pay for any of them.
    • databoy, on 11/25/2007, -4/+7I do not know what country he lives in. In Australia if he made that sort of corporate claim, he would get a kick in the ass from the Government Authorities
      • nastajus, on 11/25/2007, -2/+3Really? COOL!
      • akira117, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1It's not even funny how easy it would be to get around this :D
        Thought I doubt any real site would try this
    • directedition, on 11/25/2007, -3/+43I started using Ad Block when sites saw fit to use ads that distract me from reading the material. Same reason I don't miss cable. Sci-fi channel was fine till they started running frequent ads on the lower half of the screen while the shows were playing, and going so far as to use ads that had sound effects. Screw that!
      • FizixMan, on 11/25/2007, -2/+18My mother has issues reading her news sites (CBC, CITYTV) because they had these distracting, moving, flashing ads all over the stories. She was having trouble reading the text. I didn't shed a single bloody tear installing adblock for her, and neither did she.
    • karel747, on 11/25/2007, -2/+19So then I suppose when I turn off my TV during commercials, I'm infringing the rights of the broadcasters because I'm not watching their ads? This is one insanely stupid argument. Man, stupid people piss me off so much...
      • chedabob, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3There was an article about Time Warner attempting something along those lines, a couple of months back.
      • ChileanGoD, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3Or maybe not turning it off, but changing to another channel to see if there is something interesting in the meanwhile.
    • TotalHalibut, on 11/25/2007, -18/+8If anyone actually bothered to read the article linked on that page 'Why Digg is destined for failure', they're realize on what grounds this fellow is actually making his statement. And they're pretty damn solid grounds.

      http://www.downloadsquad.com/2006/12/11/why-digg-i ...

      Now Digg me down and prove his point for him.
      • fatlip, on 11/25/2007, -1/+8you're digg traffic. stfu.
      • Tippis, on 11/25/2007, -1/+5That whole article build on the assumption that Digg is here for site owners to promote their sites, rather than for people to show others what silliness the net has to offer. From that perspective, yes, Digg is destined for failure... *for self-advertisers*, but *only* for them.

        It's also worth pointing out that since Digg users are apparently savvy enough to ignore or block ads, they are most likely savvy enough to block referer info... Fx and Opera will quite happily and easily make sure that no such information is sent.
      • SinnerChrono, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2AOL/blogsmith sucks
    • castleking, on 11/25/2007, -2/+5I don't understand how they can say that we are infringing their rights, even if we use adblock. We use the site on the terms that we will recieve the advertisements. With adblock, we recieve the advertisements, but on our client side computer, they are removed. It can be assumed that your client machine = you, so legally i believe it could easily be argued that we are recieving the ads.
    • Buckiller, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2i need tivo for the internet.
    • WallyAnti, on 11/25/2007, -3/+10What a prick of a site owner. I've got news for him. I'll remember his site and never buy anything affiliated with him. It's not my job to buy things so you can stay in business. It's your job to entice me into buying things, but I am in no way obligated to click your ads. The site owner is a moron who has the horse and buggy in assbackwards order.
    • buckrogers1965, on 11/25/2007, -3/+12The main reason I use adblock? I get tired of 30 second pauses as my browser waits to load in slothlike ads into the page. If a page takes more than 5 seconds to load I am off to another site.
    • Fhwqhgads, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2http://ventibate.com/3143/Annoying_obnoxious_inter ...
  • gbarberi, on 11/25/2007, -17/+530I'm stealing their bandwidth? First, I pay an ISP for my bandwidth and it looks like they can still tell me what I can and can't do with it. Now because I don't want to look at their silly ads, I deserve none!?
    • TerrorByteX, on 11/25/2007, -4/+52I really hope that site goes down due to the massive traffic we can generate. CRASH AND BURN!
    • databoy, on 11/25/2007, -5/+13I totally agree with you. I pay for the broadband connection; not some silly blogger. I use ad blocking in Firefox because I don't want to read ads. When you total it up the ads on sites chew up a lot of bandwidth. Most of the information on blogger sites are only plagiarised from other sites. As for clicking on the ads in Google; Google place small ads on the pages which they earn revenue from when you visit the page. Its the bloody large ads which take up 75% of a web page that really annoy me.
    • haker0, on 11/25/2007, -21/+9First they spend their time producing the content and then they pay for the bandwidth to deliver the content to you. Last but not least you feel entitled to the benefit for free and complain when you have to deal with a few ads? hmm suddenly it does not seam like they are the unreasonable ones.
      Just because you pay for a car and gas to get to a store does not mean that it is alright for you to walk out with merchandises.
      • Zarokima, on 11/25/2007, -5/+6Your analogy is crap. Visiting a website is not like going to a store (online shopping excluded). With a website you are viewing material that you choose in your home on your computer. If I don't want ads on my computer, that's my right. The person that did the website has every right to put the ads there, but if I don't want to see them, then tough *****, I'm not looking or clicking.
        • siszam, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4Then they have the right to stop you from visiting their site. It goes both ways.
          • missingnoh4x, on 11/25/2007, -2/+1Yeah, but anyone who would do that is a real dick.
      • karel747, on 11/25/2007, -4/+10Wrong. If the developers build something which they think they should be compensated for, then they should make their site a pay-site. If the populace feels the content is worth paying for, then so be it. If not, then too bad. If a site is open to the public, like most sites are, then there has been no contractual obligation for anyone to click on an ad when they visit the site, and that's as simple as I can spell it. I've never felt compelled to click on an ad, because I don't generally purchase anything from the internet - which is what the ads are for. What difference does it make if I get rid of the ads, if I'm not going to click on them anyways?
    • versusgorilla, on 11/25/2007, -3/+53Exactly, also, anyone who mutes the television during commercials shouldn't be allowed to watch TV.
      • Firehed, on 11/25/2007, -2/+17Trust me - if advertisers could make it work that way, they would.
    • funkytommyman, on 11/25/2007, -3/+21Stealing their bandwith? That's like saying I steal money from McDonalds every time I don't watch their commercials.
    • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -4/+17I have to get technical here- it's THEIR bandwidth, it is on their website.

      Its absolutely NOT theft though- they're offering it up so long as you go to the site- you do.
      • Disfnord, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1Bandwidth goes both ways, my friend.
    • SquigglyP, on 11/25/2007, -3/+19yeah this is a backwards argument. You don't want me to 'steal' your bandwidth? Then take down your ***** website. I;m not going to click any ***** ads either way.
      • sekhui, on 11/25/2007, -3/+11don't you get it? they make pages that they don't want us to read! they want it on the intarwebs, we're just not supposed to read it.
    • nastajus, on 11/25/2007, -2/+9Hey, come on, be fair. Both parties involved pay fees for bandwidth. Us to download, and them to upload. Furthermore it's frequently mentioned on this site the "Digg effect". This process involves linking to site, whereby we frequently kill it using up the alloted bandwidth beyond, just be sheer number of visits that suddenly we're unexpected increased. The site raises valid points.

      Just the "infringement on rights" part is garbage. We can deform your page on our computers any way we want within all our rights. Deform it into a readable non-distracted format with ad blocking scripts/software that is.
      • gettophilosophr, on 11/25/2007, -3/+1Thank you for the elementary school definition of what the Digg Effect is. And all this time I thought it was a brand-name toaster...
        /s
    • digitalarcanum, on 11/25/2007, -9/+9AH'M IN UR TUBEZ PIRATING UR BANDWIDTH.
    • Flashman, on 11/25/2007, -2/+7I demand he remove ads from his websites, because I pay for bandwidth and I didn't visit his site to receive ads! Perhaps I should invoice him for the kilobytes he has forced upon me.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1"Digg users who don't click on these ads are stealing bandwidth without paying for it"

      What a ***** idiot.
  • theblueprint, on 11/25/2007, -7/+150Damn... sour grapes, anyone?
    • Kanidia, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1Well it's not sour anymore, that's for sure. Except it's probably bitter by now.
    • GeckoSlayer, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4lmao, i think everyone should keep refreshing.
    • PiKo85, on 11/25/2007, -2/+2It's always gonna be sour grapes with you boy until you get right with JESUS! AMEN!
      • IMA_Sellout, on 11/25/2007, -1/+210 points for the Puscifer reference.
    • ChromaVita, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1No thanks, I've got some Oreos, but thanks for the offer.
    • cmorwhat, on 11/25/2007, -1/+0are those sour grapes of wrath? cuz those are pretty damn good
  • vtmn, on 11/25/2007, -4/+792Is this from the same guy that blocked Firefox?
    • vtmn, on 11/25/2007, -2/+264Hm, both domains were registered by the same company, so I'm gonna assume so. I guess he's pissed about last time and/or wants more attention.
      • BlueSkyfish, on 11/25/2007, -3/+35Can you link to his website please? Also, a couple of high bandwidth images on hie server.
      • heartsblood, on 11/25/2007, -1/+6We're still waiting on links to those high bandwidth images >:)
        • chiefbandit2200, on 11/25/2007, -1/+17He runs this site (but you cant view it in firefox) http://www.jacklewis.net
          And he also runs this one http://dannycarlton.com/
          • roycifer, on 11/25/2007, -1/+16funny...he's a web designer but his pages are "coded" by frontpage. he'd sure learn a thing or two about web design from reading some helpful links via digg.
          • combatchuck, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4He doesn't have anything worthwhile to say anyway. Too bad for him. I disable Adblock on pages that I want to support.
          • IMA_Sellout, on 11/25/2007, -4/+7Notice the fact that he's a right-wing Jesus freak (check the pages he's built, I'm not wrong)... he probably barely knows what a computer IS.
          • sevenalive, on 11/25/2007, -3/+4This guy is a nutjob, you can tell just by looking at the freaks. Them and there jevus and there homeschooling hippie crap.
          • jeremymccurdy, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2For a supposed web designer, he's pretty ***** terrible at design.
        • FizixMan, on 11/25/2007, -1/+7I wonder if Microsoft develops/supports an IE version of AdBlock if he'll block IE users as well.
      • rakous, on 11/25/2007, -1/+0I wonder if he is related to JackThompson.
    • Lionhart, on 11/25/2007, -2/+66Yes it is. Another publicity stunt that seems to be working pretty damn well.
      • nepawoods, on 11/25/2007, -2/+13At getting a little short lived publicity, yeah, it's working. Getting that publicity here at digg no less (now that's ironic).

        But nobody is actually using his pages. Nobody is actually blocking firefox, or blocking digg referrals.
        • IMA_Sellout, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3I think more than one person has to use his poorly coded services for it to be a "campaign". The block FF thing just blows my mind, though.
        • Tippis, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1Maybe because they understand that, if they have something people want, people will pay for it, and that blocking Fx or Digg only ensures that less people can find out if they want that something or not...
      • Firehed, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Publicity about what? If he was selling something on his site, my Adblock nailed it.

        Guess someone's not getting on my whitelist. I'm probably in the minority, but I actually DO whitelist sites that are a valuable asset to me, whether I'll ever click ads there or not.
    • bitspace, on 11/25/2007, -3/+17Yes, it is. We need to bury this into obscurity and not pay another second's attention to this schmuck.
    • Kanidia, on 11/25/2007, -1/+51Maybe he's just a failed web designer.
      • dickbain, on 11/25/2007, -1/+18Looking at his sites, I think you can drop the word 'maybe'...
    • BassJunkie, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4As most other people have stated in the comments this guys logic fails on so many levels if difficult to comprehend how he came up with it! Firstly I use Firefox with Adblock, not because I want to "steal" bandwith, but because I don't like having my web browsing disrupted by adverts. Admittedly I wouldn't click on them if I was using IE but it just find websites look much nicer without the annoying flashing, animted ads plastered all over them!!

      If this guy wants to stop his site being visited by any of the big social news sites (I notice he left out /.) then that's up to him, but he's the one losing potentially thousands of visitors, but then if they guy has this mentality then I doubt he'd get attention on any of them without resorting to retarded items like this!
      • Zippo, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Even if I do use a browser without ad blocking, I don't click on ads. Therefore, they wouldn't be getting money from me regardless. So, there's no difference whether I have AdBlock or not. I choose to use adblock to clean up websites from ugly banner ads and speed up my browsing.
        It's the same with downloading music. Some of the music I've downloaded I would not have bought anyways. Therefore, nothing lost, nothing gained.
    • ChromaVita, on 11/25/2007, -1/+5He's just using these publicity stunts to drum up clicks to his website where he can make money from the ads.
      (I assume there is ads? ABP...)
    • joeleslie, on 11/25/2007, -1/+5Seems so. The same guy who fails to realise it's also possible to block ads with IE. Someone should point that out to him, so, by the same logic, he can block IE users as well.
    • sonu27, on 11/25/2007, -7/+2Seems like da same guy, Let take da site down!
    • NikoKun, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Seriously... The Digg army needs to take this guy out...! >=3 If you know what I mean... LOL
  • Sirocco, on 11/25/2007, -7/+556Now we simply all visit the site and send his bandwidth bill into the stratosphere via the Digg Effect.
    • NicksVideo, on 11/25/2007, -7/+110http://www.gigaloader.com/
      • affanjam, on 11/25/2007, -3/+70and run this image
        http://whydiggisblocked.com/head.jpg
      • NSMike, on 11/25/2007, -3/+43Oh, that's downright cruel.

        I love it.
      • ufia, on 11/25/2007, -2/+24"Optional: Enter a message to appear in the server logs."

        I LOL'd.
        • mrfreeziexp, on 11/25/2007, -3/+12I said "adblock ftw!" Think they'll get the message?
        • unusualbob, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4i just went with "You are an *****"
      • KennMac, on 11/25/2007, -4/+34Currently running this on 3 separate connections... Each pulling http://whydiggisblocked.com/head.jpg at 300 KB/s
        • 42Vindictive, on 11/25/2007, -2/+9So far 9375 pictures loaded...
        • combatchuck, on 11/25/2007, -6/+21You wonder why people hate the average Digg user...
        • unusualbob, on 11/25/2007, -3/+1so far 37539 images loaded...38486.....39087
        • thinsoldier, on 11/25/2007, -2/+111704
      • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -53/+4I've reported you for trying to DoS him.

        It's illegal, BTW.

        Federal offense.....

        Felony, up to 5 years in jail.....
        • Nossie, on 11/25/2007, -3/+11Danny, is that you?
          • acceptab1euname, on 11/25/2007, -8/+3Does it have to be him? It's not hard to realize that that's a DoS attack. Pretty ***** thing to do to somebody whose website you disagree with.
        • CaptainWoogie, on 11/25/2007, -4/+0wtf?
        • KennMac, on 11/25/2007, -5/+14Nah, no DoSing here. Just very interested in this image.
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -12/+3That argument will stand well in court.
        • hmunkey, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Lol... half of us are proud pirates. Report us all and Digg is gone.
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Pirating is a little different than attacking a server.
      • mrfreeziexp, on 11/25/2007, -8/+20aren't DoS attacks illegal?
        • Ozzy73, on 11/25/2007, -2/+8I think my country hasn't redacted any law against that yet ;)
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -5/+2Are you sure?

            If you're in Canada you're absolutely wrong.

            www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/19/dos.investigation/index.html
          • Ozzy73, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3I am sure... I live south of Canada, USA and even Mexico... South enough for my country to have only one internet law and that is from 1999 but it is just focused on copyrights (which still isnt enforced)
        • karel747, on 11/25/2007, -5/+3Are they not (attempting to) deny us of something unreasonably? I think it's fair.
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -18/+2Their server their rules- no mater how stupid. Assholes like you who think they OWN their server are what is bringing this country down!
          • karel747, on 11/25/2007, -3/+4Wow, really? I'm destroying this country by not clicking on ads? How about instead of calling me an *****, you counter my argument. I know what's wrong with my post - it was mostly a joke - but I want to see what you have to say about it.
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -5/+2I never said that. You're destroying the country by thinking you own the server, thinking that you can attack it VIA DoS because you disagree with it. A server owner (like a property or busniess owner) has the ultimate rights over his own server / property to do what he pleases.
          • Nineless, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Tell that to the RIAA, MPAA and all those anti-piracy organizations demanding that torrent trackers like The Pirate Bay, Mininova, What.cd, Sumotorrent, etc stop their activities and threaten with lawsuits when they do nothing illegal. Just look at BREIN infringing Torrentfreak's copyrights. Those bastards (MPAA, RIAA, BREIN and all those organizations) think they are above the law. Nobody can control the internet, the internet controls you.
        • skyfire1, on 11/25/2007, -3/+5Not if it's done by a lot of people.
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -8/+2Um, still illegal. That's called a DDoS.... Still illegal.
        • nastajus, on 11/25/2007, -3/+1They bold the word blacklist and leave an easy email to assemble immediately after.
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -5/+2You have to pay them to get on their blacklist.
        • abcdefghij, on 11/25/2007, -3/+2no if it's for the greater good..

          it's like white lies ;)
        • missingnoh4x, on 11/25/2007, -2/+4The fact that something's illegal hasn't stopped me in the past, it won't now.
      • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -29/+4I'm going to laugh my ass off if he reports you and you all get raided by the FBI or SS. What you are doing is ILLEGAL.
        • 42Vindictive, on 11/25/2007, -3/+17Hey guess what? America's laws DON'T APPLY OUTSIDE OF AMERICA.
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -15/+2I'm sure your country would be happy to extradite a felon.
          • 42Vindictive, on 11/25/2007, -3/+14I'm pretty sure theres been 100's of cases where Canada hasn't handed over criminals to America.

            Besides, your country has so many laws nowadays, a felony is nothing.
          • Flamekebab, on 11/25/2007, -0/+2DucoNihilum, I'm sure they'd all be more than willing to go through the mountains of paperwork involved in doing that over a simple denial of service charge on some tiny website. Yeah, I can definitely see that happening..
        • baron1703, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4The SS? :)
        • chedabob, on 11/25/2007, -1/+5Yeah, I'm sure he's going to go after 30,000 or so digg users. Get real.
          • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -5/+1I don't think all 30K users are involved in the DoS.
        • missingnoh4x, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Somehow I doubt that this dumbass is smart enough to trace the people DoSing him, let alone sue us.
      • Narwaffle, on 11/25/2007, -2/+6Although DucoNihilum is acting like a dick of exceedingly large proportions, there's some credibility to what he's saying. Denial-of-service attacks, depending on severity, are punishable by imprisonment and certain conditions relating to internet/computer usage (a la Kevin Mitnick) can be enforced. While highly unlikely, don't act surprised if you receive a disgruntled letter from your ISP.
        • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -4/+4A friend of mine got just in serious trouble with the secret service for putting autoplay music in a signature at G4. The secret service takes these matters seriously- if he wanted to actually press charges he could cause a lot of grief for a lot of people. It's incredibly immature than any of these kids (script kiddies) would stoop as low as DoSing some site for disagreeing with them.
          • Narwaffle, on 11/25/2007, -3/+1Unfortunately, the majority of small-scale denial-of-service attacks (ie. those that originate from forums like 4chan) are probably triggered by someone disagreeing with another person's opinion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Heartsees2# ... as an example of forumgoers using DoS attacks (among other methods) to cause harm/discomfort towards someone. It's disappointing that a small minority of digg users failed to do the logical thing and bury the article (this is obviously garnering the author of the website the attention he seeks), but instead resorted to DoS attacks.
    • DucoNihilum, on 11/25/2007, -46/+7Oh come on you guys. DoS or DDoSing him is lame, no mater what he did.
      • missingnoh4x, on 11/25/2007, -2/+9Not near as lame as you posting a zillion comments to whine about it.
    • WallyAnti, on 11/25/2007, -1/+5Haha, great minds think alike. I just re-enabled prefetching on fasterfox just so I can stamp all over his bs.
  • Shananra, on 11/25/2007, -5/+335Oh god, why do you guys give this guy so much attention? There is absolutely nothing worthwhile on his websites, he is a terrible blogger and even worse designer, and he's dumb enough to block users who are smart enough to use a real web browser. What's more, he actually thinks that his opinion somehow matters, and by giving him attention your are feeding into this delusion.

    I'm not giving up my adblock, so if that's what this whole thing is about then he is not worth my attention and he should not be worth any of yours either.
    • Worldchrisis, on 11/25/2007, -3/+27But if his site gets on Digg, we can all go to it, not click on his ads, and screw his bandwidth.
      • nastajus, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1As much as I enjoy being evil, he'll hate us forever.
        • jak119, on 11/25/2007, -1/+9He does already, might as well have fun with it
        • jeremymccurdy, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2So? I don't care if a douchebag hates me.
      • nonsequitor, on 11/25/2007, -1/+5His site had ads? I must not have noticed because of Ad Block Plus ;)
  • smackjack, on 11/25/2007, -71/+7I hope most of you realize this is a joke..
    • bagelpirate, on 11/25/2007, -3/+40I don't think it is.
      • smackjack, on 11/25/2007, -19/+8If digg users are so tech savvy, they should be advanced enough to just copy and paste the link. This would be a waste of time for anyone to implement. No one in their right mind would block firefox and no one would block users from social news sites.
        • latrosicarius, on 11/25/2007, -3/+7Yah, open new tab & paste link. The site then thinks you are coming from about:blank, not digg.com
        • roomforpanic, on 11/25/2007, -2/+6I just right click on links and click 'Open Link in New Tab' - besides I open most Digg stories from the widget on my iGoogle page, not from Digg.com.
        • deadmann, on 11/25/2007, -2/+2Or just use some referrer spoofing extension.
        • Tippis, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4Or use Opera... F12 -> Enable Referer -> Uncheck
        • CeeJayDK, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1We could also start submitting stories that link to a URL rewriting service like tinyurl or the tons of other services just like it.
  • funknjunk, on 11/25/2007, -15/+333Ad Block Plus FTW!
    • AdamWillis, on 11/25/2007, -1/+15Even if I do go through Google, my Ad Block will still block his ads. Now I have less of a reason to give his crappy sites any attention.
    • NikoKun, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1And now it would seem RefControl, UserAgentSwitcher, and NoScript FTW too... That's a sure fire way to block this guy's lousy previous website detection scripts and whatnot... LOL
    • TrevorBelmont, on 11/25/2007, -3/+2I love my AdBlock Plus and I heartily endorse it's use for everyone everywhere.
      -Trevor Belmont, Digg user
  • Bviper, on 11/25/2007, -6/+67Ok, so I won't visit any site that does this... like I'm really dying to anyway.
  • megaton, on 11/25/2007, -7/+186The circular argument he uses is laughable:

    "Digg...users [are] a somewhat small and insignificant percentage of the internet...[and] ending [their] resource theft has tremendous financial rewards..."

    If they're insignificant, then isn't their "resource theft" also insignificant?

    Additionally, there's gobs of evidence of fringe users and early adopters (like diggers) can make or break a product or service. I'd like to see some financial data regarding the actual "harm" diggers and the other ad-block using populace cause websites like this. (Unfortunately, it's impossible to measure the unrealized value of early adopters.)

    Frankly, this sounds unjustifiable and prejudiced to me...
    • arjung, on 11/25/2007, -10/+5i think you're misreading it. he meant that the proportion through which they click ads is insignificant so if you're goal is getting ads clicked then you don't lose money. but their bandwidth usage can be terribly large for a small site (everyone knows the digg effect) and this can cost you a lot if your webhost sucks.
      frankly, if you're goal is to make a lot of money by blogging, you are probably not making any money at all and should get a real job.
      also, as in the case of firefox, banning a whole group of people based on the actions of some is the dumbest ***** ever (i use ABP on Fx).
    • nastajus, on 11/25/2007, -3/+3Well it makes sense not wanting your site to tank. I'd say, he's frustrated.
    • MikeCerm, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3I can't help but notice that the sites using Digg's logo and name. That certainly could be considered infringing, couldn't it? It's always laughable when the people who claim they're being wronged turn around and do the very thing that they say others shouldn't.
    • gettophilosophr, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1It just feels like junior high (for both the comments re: FF and ABP/Digg)..."I mean, seriously...you guys aren't even that popular. You're an insignificant group of people that doesn't matter and isn't important. I don't need you. :-P"

      You know what I mean?
  • Universal, on 11/25/2007, -6/+168"Digg users who don't click on these ads are stealing bandwidth without paying for it and website owners deserve a method to block this unauthorized bandwith theft."

    Bandwidth theft?! Seriously, *****, whether I block your ads or not, you can't justify that *****.

    Google Ads are not there because you HAVE to ***** click on them or else you are committing a crime. The real crime is telling people that they are "stealing" if they don't click on your ads. People have free will, and will click on an ad if they want. It's not up to you.
    And, if you do block people who don't click on your ads, isn't that the same as someone not clicking on one of your ads in the first place? What kind of ***** logic is that?!

    It's people like this who should never be allowed on the internet.
    • odyss3y, on 11/25/2007, -3/+15its actually the opposite of stealing. think of all the bandwidth (and money) ive saved by not downloading 6 ads per page of which i'd never click anyway.
      • AICkieran, on 11/25/2007, -9/+1You still download the ads, adblock just filters them out of the page so it is not rendered.
        • schroeder, on 11/25/2007, -1/+7I'm pretty sure adblock blocks any content from downloading from specific urls, hence the faster load times on normally ad laden pages.
        • CeeJayDK, on 11/25/2007, -0/+3You are wrong AlCkieran - That is how blocking ads with a custom usercontent.css stylesheet works - Adblock really does prevent you from having to download the ads.
    • pat25fire, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Tha' tubes is clogged! Dangnamit Digg theives.
    • mike81890, on 11/25/2007, -0/+4AND Google adsense blocks accounts if the owner tells people to click their ads. somebody email Google :P
    • Jason4000, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1It would drive advert companies crazy if there was an option in ad-block to quietly and automatically click every add on any page but you would have to be careful of scripts from this hehe
  • MasterThief117, on 11/25/2007, -7/+423"Digg Users 3 Times Less Likely to Click Ads Than Google Users"
    Most people on Digg usually have a higher intelligence than the average Google user, thus more unlikely to fall for the "You have won a free laptop" ***** type ads.
    • banmaster, on 11/25/2007, -3/+53You mean I didn't win a free laptop? Not even when I NEVER even entered into any competition to begin with?

      Thats unpossible!!
    • TerrorByteX, on 11/25/2007, -0/+8I think almost every Digg user also uses Google. Unless he means Diggers and non-Diggers, I don't think that distinction means anything.
    • GunnerMcGrath, on 11/25/2007, -1/+8That's exactly what I was thinking.. I read somewhere a study that essentially said there's a large group of stupid people who don't know the difference between search results and the ads placed next to them, and therefore click the ads. So by all means, block the smart users who know how to intelligently and efficiently surf the web, apparently your content is geared towards the morons and you only blog to make some pittance off your ad revenue.
    • niwaje, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2I don't think I have ever clicked on an ad, unless it was by accident because you can barely click on a page without hitting an ad.
    • danielsamuels, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Hear Hear!
  • EvanVolm, on 11/25/2007, -6/+68He's craving for attention. Everyone, just bury this and move on.
    • BlueSkyfish, on 11/25/2007, -2/+38Wouldn't it be better to crash his server
  • KnightMareInc, on 11/25/2007, -4/+27sounds like attention whoring to me
    • banmaster, on 11/25/2007, -2/+4Perhaps, but you'd think he'd at least stick some adsense ads on that page...
  • TRUEPATRIOT, on 11/25/2007, -4/+232i get his point but with or without adblock i have never clicked on an ad on ANY site.
    • latrosicarius, on 11/25/2007, -2/+27Me either. Only stupid people click on those links, and people who use digg, firefox, and ad-block are less stupid?
      • eliburford, on 11/25/2007, -3/+5Incorrect, I believe that most people click on AdSense only when their genuinely interested in what it says. But, more web-savvy users just don't even notice the ads, therefore not bothering to read/click them. For me though, the only time I ever click on ads is by accident.
    • arjung, on 11/25/2007, -2/+10except my own site's? kidding of course, i respect the adsense contract.
    • TridenTBoy, on 11/25/2007, -3/+6Dude those orbit golf games are so much fun though
    • snugglebear, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Either have I. Either has almost everyone I've asked (and I've asked enough people).

      And NOONE AT ALL that I've ever met or talked to has clicked an ad online and bought something.

      This is why I don't see how this ad based internet works.
      • ezcheezbandit, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1It's "Neither" not Either.
        /Grammer Nazi
  • VanD, on 11/25/2007, -10/+150***** your ads
    Just cause you can't find a real job.
    • adleym, on 11/25/2007, -24/+2There are many webmasters out there who make a lot more money than you do, dickwad. Don't be jealous.
      • roycifer, on 11/25/2007, -1/+9those other webmasters are smarter...they dont block traffic.
      • nastajus, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1How do you know VanD's salary? That's crazy unthink.
    • dgreichert, on 11/25/2007, -3/+14Welcome to 2007 where blogging is considered a real job.
    • skuk, on 11/25/2007, -3/+1"comments that add zero value dugg up because they agree with the prevailing opinion"
      Enough said.
  • BlueSkyfish, on 11/25/2007, -7/+23This is a joke, right?
  • rodbibeau, on 11/25/2007, -3/+61The is from the same wacked out ass-clown as whyfirefoxisblocked. He needs to learn how to generate traffic. Oh wait...
    • banmaster, on 11/25/2007, -3/+4Nah, he just hasn't figured a way to monetize his ***** little blog and so is blaming eeryone but himself!
      What a deluded tool!
    • mcduckov, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1It's a harmless joke. Can anyone even find a major website that redirects to this?

      link:www.whydiggisblocked.com turns up nothing.
  • ropers, on 11/25/2007, -3/+19I dont't think this is from Danny Carlton (the geezer who made whyfirefoxisblocked.com ; cf. http://dannycarlton.net/ ).

    I think it's a different guy (Drew McKinney; cf. drewmckinney.net ) who just ripped off Danny's design and concept.

    And yes, both are prolly ***** and attention whores.
    Next.
    • heartsblood, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4Hard research! I love it!
    • fightforyou, on 11/25/2007, -2/+4dannycarlton.net

      his kids look like little aliens.
    • zcat, on 11/25/2007, -2/+2Owww, my eyes! Perhaps the real reason Firefox users don't click on his links is because they can't read the white-on-photo text without getting a ***** migrane.. I was going to look for the whyfirefoxisblocked link in that page but seriously ... It's just unreadable.
    • echolyean, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1So Digg.com is on Drew McKinney's Blogroll cause he wants people to not use it? Well I suppose that could be true, given the logic in the "Why Digg is Blocked" page.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1If this is a site by Danny Carlton I suddenly lost all sense of anger toward his actions, I now just feel bad for him as he runs a site or two support George Bush. I know that 30% of the population still approves but I was nearly convinced those people were on feeding tubes or something...
    • digitalpencil, on 11/25/2007, -0/+2No point in DOSing that, it's wordpress, won't take the strain of regular traffic
  • hamobu, on 11/25/2007, -3/+19Apparently people are nothing more than the source of revenue.
  • StatiK69, on 11/25/2007, -4/+23Lets see, when I got on the front page, yea I had adwords on my site, but I was just happy people were looking at my site. The author of this site in the story sounds like he just wants to make money, perhaps believes in Front Page is the ultimate web design resource... and the other linked sites smack of AOL users that found the internetz.
    I use Ad Block, but before I did I still didn't click on any ads... boohoo. Go ahead and block Digg traffic, you're only hurting yourself buddy.
    • NSMike, on 11/25/2007, -2/+3Yeah, using AdBlock is more of a decision to avoid slow browsing than avoid clicking on ads. I don't need AdBlock because I'm a compulsive ad-clicker and need to break my habit. I'm sick of useless content slowing things down for me.
      • StatiK69, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Interesting you say that... I disabled my AdBlock on one of the linked sites above, took a full 10 seconds longer because of all of the ads. Some people A. just go so overboard just to make money or B. don't have a lot of content so they gotta fill up your screen with something. I agree with you though, same reason I have mine installed... and for some reason ads slow flash games :-(
  • Kronos6948, on 11/25/2007, -2/+34Whatever happened to blogging being about getting your information out? It's gone the way of the record companies. "Click my ads so I make money!! To hell with the content! Here's a pic of a guy getting hit in the nuts with a football! Click the ads! Make me money!"
  • strangedenial, on 11/25/2007, -7/+37Aww, now I feel bad for installing AdBlockPlus...

    I think I'll uninstall it.

    /sarcasm
  • Worldchrisis, on 11/25/2007, -4/+48Who clicks on those stupid flash ads for ***** anyway? I never click on them whether I have adblock running or not.
    • arbulus, on 11/25/2007, -1/+15But I need to find out the name of my crush!
    • nastajus, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3It's like a vortex black hole if you click those parts of the screen. Be prepared for an emergency window-closing before all hell spawns out.
  • b4cheung, on 11/25/2007, -6/+8Instead, wouldn't it be easier to detect and block anyone that isn't using internet explorer?
  • jerwong, on 11/25/2007, -6/+1Sounds like a troll to me.
  • bashar129, on 11/25/2007, -3/+53Are there people that actually purposely click on ads? wow....Even before I had ad block plus, back to my first computer I have never intentionally clicked on an ad before. Guess I am not "Quality traffic".
  • twolvesfan624, on 11/25/2007, -6/+9***** retarded argument.
  • sfacets, on 11/25/2007, -3/+27damn right I block ads.
  • m4sterofmurd3r, on 11/25/2007, -5/+12lol @ morons like this
    • chubbybunny, on 11/25/2007, -4/+2Took the words right out of my mouth.
  • amirman, on 11/25/2007, -2/+44people who block the ads would never click on them if they were unblocked anyway.
    this guy has a warped sense of economics.
    • soviet, on 11/25/2007, -2/+0Not all ads are PPC, some are based upon impressions.
  • morganm, on 11/25/2007, -3/+100I like his stupid blocking code, he stores the $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'] in a variable called $userAgent. Not a huge deal, just shows he's a tool. Then he goes on to block any URL with 'digg', 'reddit', 'stumbleupon', or 'netscape' ANYWHERE in it. So his own site would be blocked, an article with a URL like /why-digg-sucks.html would be blocked, etc. COMPLETE tool. Then he forgets Netscape's social stuff moved over to Propeller, and that StumbleUpon is nothing like Digg or Reddit. The guy is just so great on so many levels.
  • darkphan, on 11/25/2007, -3/+19I think this is yet another site that the Digg lawyers need to go after, to protect the trademark and all.
  • BigglesPiP, on 11/25/2007, -11/+10It's all fine by me.

    A website is designed with a specific audience in mind, and traffic from other audiences -especially if it is a company site - is a unnecessary cost. Block away.
  • Hartley1942, on 11/25/2007, -4/+14We dont click ads because were smarter than the average user. Its that simple.
    • jumisko, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1Yes, let's say more Web-Savvy, rather than "smarter'.
  • shad0w, on 11/25/2007, -4/+69If digg endorsed ad-blocking why do they run ads on their own website?
    • heartsblood, on 11/25/2007, -1/+16They do?
      • Typhoon2009, on 11/25/2007, -2/+2Yeah, that's why once in a while you see a guy saying "OMFG THE SNORG TEES GIRL IS SO HOT."
      • bungoman, on 11/25/2007, -1/+6you beat me to it. i was shocked when i found out facebook uses ads. i seriously had no clue till someone mentioned them.
  • Crath, on 11/25/2007, -4/+9Because non techy people click ads all the time and everything.
  • LoveWidescreen, on 11/25/2007, -3/+26Okay, let me get this straight -- putting a web site out where the public can see it is "stealing bandwidth" when the public actually (shock!) **does** visit it? Good frickin' Lord! This is like saying that kids who get candy for Halloween are stealing that candy from the houses of the people that they visit! The people voluntarily make the candy available, but if the kid takes it the kid is now a thief??? WTF?!

    This jackass is proof positive that the human gene pool is in *desperate* need of chlorine!
    • zcat, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3The funny thing is that just a few days ago, there was an article on digg about the long-term effects of being dugg. For 24 hours you get a huge rush of completely ***** traffic, people who probably only take a glance and don't click the ads, but you also get a handful that link to your site from their own blogs. This bumps up your google rank and can bring in a whole lot more 'quality' traffic (google-searching, add-clicking viewers) long-term. But hell, if you don't want that it doesn't bother me at all.
    • FJR1300, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1Except that the people making their candy available also have Brawndo ads all over their house.
  • phunlee, on 11/25/2007, -3/+31Isn't this like saying I can't use the MUTE button on my TV when commercials come on?? or change the channel when I'm watching a show??
    • snugglebear, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1Yes its exactly like saying that.

      And a lot of ad providers seriously rant about this. I've heard them go on and on and on in tirades on NPR. They think people should be strapped in front of the commercials for a TV show and absolutely forced to watch them. They think TIVO and recording shows to skip commercials is evil.

      Its seriously insane, but people actually do think like that.
    • Darkneuros, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1There was even talk of the fast forward button being omitted on new PVR DVR's as the advertisers were upset people could skip commercials, as if my Sat bill isn't enough.
  • darkphan, on 11/25/2007, -4/+39The Digg lawyers need to go after this site, to protect the Digg trademark and all.
    • darkphan, on 11/25/2007, -3/+1stupid comment system, my previous comment would not show up.
    • jryans, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3Yeah, this guy really shouldn't have used the Digg logo at the top.
    • QuickeningYak, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1*puts on skirt* *picks up pom-poms* RAH RAH DIGG! GO LAWYERS GO!

      .../sarcasm
  • GodIsntReal, on 11/25/2007, -5/+12Haha. Adblock rocks.
  • jjjjjamie, on 11/25/2007, -9/+6*****

    digg is the greatest thing to happen to the Internet

    I never clicked on their stupid ***** ads before digg came around anyways
  • elvisa, on 11/25/2007, -3/+45"Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers."

    This is hilarious. Nowhere is it written that anyone has "the right to advertise". How utterly ridiculous. Nor is any human on the planet expected or forced to read advertising. This madness belongs in the same bin as people who want to make ad-skipping technology for TV and DVDs "illegal", or akin to theft.

    When does this madness stop? What next - will be it "illegal" to scroll past advertising on websites soon? Will it be "illegal" to leave the room when ads appear on TV? Am I taking away the rights of publishers when I flick past advertising in magazines without even reading it? Perhaps the owner of the site would like to stand over my shoulder and make sure I read all and any advertising that enters my household, line by line? I wonder... do they do the same when they read print media?

    Advertising is disgusting and intrusive. I applaud anyone who takes electronic measures to remove it from media. And if that cuts into the revenue of the media publishers, then tough. Instead of complaining about how the market is regulating itself and how people are taking control of the media they take in, go and get a real job. You live in a capitalist society by choice. Don't complain that it doesn't work when people take their eyes and money elsewhere. That's truly their right as consumers, and not your right as a media publisher or advertiser to stop them.
    • IMA_Sellout, on 11/25/2007, -2/+3I would say the have the RIGHT to advertise wherever they want (that US first amendment thing) but click-through is a PRIVILEGE. I'm not denying this jackass a right by blocking his ***** ads, i'm denying the ad buyers the PRIVILEGE of me clicking through to their site because I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere.
    • ChimeraHero, on 11/25/2007, -5/+2...Technically blocking the ads can be an infringement based upon their EULA. If their EULA states that you cannot modify their site in any way, then by blocking the ads you are breaking the agreement you made to view their site. In order to view ebay, for example, you agree to their terms and conditions. If you either disagree with the terms, or break them, you are no longer allowed to view the site and access their content.

      Most ad agencies REQUIRE their host sites to include said terms into the EULA preventing users from blocking their ads. If you dig deep enough, you'll find this on any site, really. Just no one ever takes the time to read them. *shrug* Its a catch 22, really.
      • IMA_Sellout, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3So... how does the average person view the sites EULA from the home page? Are you going to have 140 lines of text before your content? I really don't think so.
      • 0biKwiet, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1Sadly, you can't be bound to an End User License Agreement unless you actually agree to it.
      • saejinn, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1So people with disabilities or troubles reading websites who utilize user-based CSS to override the site-default CSS (to, for example, make the font larger and easier to read) are violating an EULA? That's ***** and you know it.
    • crazyfist, on 11/25/2007, -1/+0Most of us live in a "capitalist society" by random circumstances of birth and not by choice, however I do agree that advertising has gotten out of hand in this country. Example: You pay for a movie ticket and after the alleged start time in the movie you will have to watch some ridiculous Pepsi ad. When it was just movie trailers everyone was okay with that because you are seeing a sneek peek of future entertainment instead of some nonsensical CGI soda container floating through space.
  • RollFizzlebeef, on 11/25/2007, -2/+76Dugg to raise this tool's bandwidth costs.
    • mptsxtps, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Exactly what I was thinking
    • IMA_Sellout, on 11/25/2007, -1/+6Let's fix the problem... everyone hit F5 in Firefox on three... 1, 2, 3!!
    • Acidictadpole, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2Good call. ctrl f5'd a few times.
    • potterboy, on 11/25/2007, -1/+2How about using an auto refreshing extension? Set it to do it once every 5 seconds.
    • digitalpencil, on 11/25/2007, -1/+3Screw that! DDOS away!!
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1LOL we are turning into 4chan. Every sight that becomes popular crashes from being unintentionally ddos'd by digg users.
    • mickstephenson, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1#!/bin/bash

      i="0"

      while [ $i -lt 4 ]
      do
      wget http://whydiggisblocked.com/
      rm index.html
      done

      thats my solution plan on running it all night
      • mickstephenson, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1lol. I have sshed into my linux account at uni, and have this running, I added a counter to see the number of times it has executed. downloading this page at about 2000 hits a minute!!
  • tehbored, on 11/25/2007, -8/+1What if they only blocked digg users who use Firefox? The ones that use IE (like there are any) or Opera don't have ABP. It's still very stupid though.
  • se1zure, on 11/25/2007, -11/+13while this guy is whiny, I don't use adblock anymore because the only sites I go to are ones I go to regularly, and I wan't them to make as much money as possible.

    How would digg stay alive without ads? merchandise? Hardly.
    • schroeder, on 11/25/2007, -2/+8Do you buy ***** from the ads you click? Otherwise, you're just wasting money from the advertisers. It's all *****. No point clicking an ad unless you want to buy something and I never buy through ads. I just research it and go directly to the merchant. The only way I see ads having any affect on me is brand awareness and annoyance.
      • frazw, on 11/25/2007, -0/+4Totally agree. I always research, find then buy. I NEVER click on opportunistic ads because I don't know if I can trust the company, I don't know if they are the cheapest, and I don't know if they have the make/model I want.
        This guy is clearly more interested in making money than providing quality content. His blanket bans are remarkably anti freedom. If he blocks Firefox he's lost my traffic anyway.
    • Petzke, on 11/25/2007, -2/+1You know how much Digg is supposedly worth, right? I don't know the exact number, but I don't need to say that I won't feel sorry for them for losing the tens of dollars they may make from ad clicks.
    • Chris4, on 11/25/2007, -1/+9Digg has ads?
    • ChimeraHero, on 11/25/2007, -2/+2You could just set up exclusion cases from within ABP. Or better yet, someone develop a plugin that 'hides' ads but still downloads them, so the revenue stream still continues but I, the end user, doesnt actually have to view the crap they're trying to haque at me.
      • s1mph0ny, on 11/25/2007, -1/+4that wouldn't exactly be fair to the advertisers.
      • onefix, on 11/25/2007, -1/+1There's already an option in the original Adblock plugin that does "passive" blocking. It downloads ads and even displays a blank space (or a standard image) in place of the ad. I'm sure the option could be easily added to ABP if sites ever started requiring their ads to load.
  • eliburford, on 11/25/2007, -2/+1Everyone: Please just bury this, we're giving this guy too much attention, it's not worth it.
  • Nyaos, on 11/25/2007, -3/+2I love how his "Digg Sucks" page has crashed from max bandwidth. Go Digg, go!
  • CrazedLeper, on 11/25/2007, -3/+1This has to be most asinine foolishness I have ever read. "Digg users who don't click on these ads are stealing bandwidth"? What the hell? Every time you go to a website and *don't* click on a banner, you're stealing? I don't recall agreeing to that when I signed up for internet service. Apparently, someone doesn't understand the concept of theft.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 333 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.