Now obviously the "2 seconds" would need to be tweaked to be slower. Throttling my internet to 'GPRS' in Chrome results in the site thinking I'm using an ad blocker (for this demonstration, I disabled it). It took 2.10s before my browser tried to download adv.css which resulted in me being flagged for using an ad blocker.
If AdBlockers hurt you so much that having a 3-5s delay to serve your website is a realistic alternative you're better off shutting up shop or dealing with the fact your site is simply not profitable.
START OF RANT
If you block ad-blockers (like forbes.com just did to me), I will only share your articles via archive.is .
Sure, your children may starve to death, your wife may leave you but don't blame me because in the end you did all this to yourself. I was happy to use your site when it had a couple of non-intrusive text ads to pay the bills but then you went to fill 60% of the screen with flashing images, autoplaying videos and malware installing flash ads.
END OF RANT
I don't block ads to prevent companies from getting ad revenue. I block ads for my own safety and malware prevention.
They aren't visiting the site if they read it via archive.is links. So "Don't like the ads on forbes? Pay them or don't visit them at all." is out of place there if not talking about ad blockers but actually talking about the practice of using archive.is links.
And giving people you know archive.is links, since you may not know if they run an ad blocker or not, also serves to protect them from malware. So my point stands - except I'm protecting my friends/family from malware instead of myself.
It's hard for me to imagine a legitimate defense of this that isn't a wholesale rejection of the concept of intellectual property.
Forbes serves up code, which the client should be able to parse, render and execute in any way they see fit, as it was served to their machine upon a simple GET request.
The client is under no obligation to behave well, in a programmatic sense, because it is just handed markup and source code, with an expectation of parsing and rendering it in a way fit for the client's user, otherwise you may as well ban screen reader's for doing things in unexpected ways.
> ... distribute it on his own
We both agree here that it would be bad ethics to do this.
Put another way, I don't believe the specifics of the way the web operates serve as a solid foundation for an ethical principle. Far better, I think, to look at the people involved and focus on treating them fairly and honestly, abstracting away the medium of communication as an implementation detail.
I use an adblocker only for malware protection, and pay many of the businesses I use online.
But I will always defend someone's right to use the content as they were given it. If you give away data, don't be confused if someone uses it in a different way.
Forbes appears to be finding a happy medium, or on their way. Such as disabling error logging caused by adblocking so that the user can have a decent experience.
Edit: And I must say, despite our differing opinions, this has been an extremely pleasant exchange
Then again, maybe your site being annoyingly slow for people who block ads is a feature rather than a bug.
The problem is: right now we are in a weird middle, in which media companies want the text to be fully available (so you can arrive to it via Google and/or social media) while, simultaneously, only visible to those who don't use an ad blocker.
This is of course impossible, but that's how we got stuck in this strange position of "I put it online for free, but I didn't mean free for you".
IMHO, a full all-or-nothing approach would be well received. Whether it would be economically successful, that's another story.
I work in marketing, and I think the issue is that advertising is a disaster. It's the tragedy of the commons. Highly annoying or misleading ads (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD) get way more clicks and impressions. Don't even get me started on autoplaying videos. The worst offenders are traditional media companies, who are both the reason why I'm using an ad blockers and also the most likely to block me for using an ad blocker.
I don't particularly feel bad about blocking ads, but I think ads are a good way to support websites. There are very few sites I trust enough to unblock ads on though, and it's because their ads are both unobtrusive and relevant to the content.
Just for example, the Chicago Tribune's print ads are fine. Their website ads are almost entirely link to fake news articles that make the National Enquirer look like the New York Times.