Genius.

I installed it and then went here

Great find!

Now Jax can ad banner adds.

I love the ambiance it creates and all, but isn`t this the death knell(?) for free internet?

Cool on you! Great find.

Personally I have a real problem with this add-on.

Forgetting the legal questions of not just blocking the ads, but replacing them, you are still replacing them in what is basically an ad.

Eventually they would like that a click on the picture will take you to the artists site where you can spend money (and a portion of the artists proceeds would be given as commission to the makers of this add-on) or to their site where you can donate money directly to them.

Basically this is just a way to get free advertising for the site and possibly the artists. They could easily manage to get hundreds of hundreds of thousands in dollars worth of free advertising.

The fact that they are selling access to art instead of viagra or gold coin investment opportunities doesn't change the fact that it is still an ad.

This is purely a business, one they hope will and very well could generate tremendous amount of money at the expense of other companies.

There are already sites that block the use of AdBlocker and there have been attempts to criminalize or bring civil suits against it - all to no avail. Replacing the paid-for ad with a free ad will make it worse.

If it was one that substituted random images of artwork without any request for donations, without the attempt to promote the artists and their work it wouldn't be as bad.

I have to hand it to the makers of this add-on. They have discovered an amazing business model. Get others to purchase advertising space for you which you can hijack. You then have a customer base who is actively looking for art, a user who is much more likely to purchase the art or make a donation than just random viewers.

Why wouldn't you want to credit the artist?

Credit the artist. I don't have a problem with that. I have no problem with artists trying to make some money for their work.

I have a problem with this being nothing but a money-making venture. A money making venture that tried to portray itself as just a means to promote Art with a capital 'a'. It is one that hijacks other advertisements. Let the artists purchase banner ads if they want to sell their art (as the site says they want to eventually do). Or let the company act as a central advertising house pooling the various artists' advertising dollars so that they can increase the amount of advertising any one artist could purchase.

Even now they are asking for donations as payment as part of their business plan. When they fix it so you can click on the artists' site that will generate more money for the add-on investors.

This is purely a commercial venture.
Even if the company will be a "non-profit" all that means is the company itself doesn't make a profit, the investors will (as will the deserving artists). A very nice profit probably at least for the add-on investors.

I'm the lead developer of the plugin. I appreciate the skepticism, but we're actually different than you'd expect.

We're not a company, we're a group of volunteers. We're not trying to make money. We are the well-meaning, creative, artists and technologists you can't imagine exist - but we do. We're operating with the support of non-profit art organizations like Eyebeam and Rhizome, a generous donor, and volunteer effort. We did this with little to no money. The rest will be used to pay stipends to artists and curators. When we run out of money, we'll keep going. We're givers.

It will never be a commercial venture. We would kill it before we let that happen.

Plus it's better than viewing the ads in the first place!

I sure didn't agree to anything that says I have to look at ads! I should be able to choose what shows up on MY computer. Period.

"We're not trying to make money" ??

You're not trying to make money? than don't. Don't ask for donations, don't try to write the add-on or use a greasemonkey script to allow people to link to your site or the artists' sites which will generate more income for someone.

Nothing wrong with making money. Just be upfront about it. Don't make it sound like a thing done for the love of art while asking for donations from the public as well as various other corporations and individuals. While professing a desire to be able to allow users to click to your site and to the artists' sites so they can purchase artwork.

The skepticism I express is well-placed. You are hijacking other people's paid for ads. You are doing so in an effort to make money - money for the artists, money for the "curators" and who knows who else the money generated will go to. Even if you aren't making money (assuming that is the case) others are. It may or may not be a commercial venture for Steve Lambert, but it sure is for others.


Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps no one will make money. Perhaps you don't plan on making a dime and have not already made any money for your time and services. Great. I hope that is the case, but you can certainly see how it sounds like you hope that money will be made for the artists if no one else. If the artists do well, it is only logical to think that you or your investors would earn some sort of return.

Even if it is only the artists who make money, it is still a commercial venture for them. It is still done at the expense of others ad dollars which will cause more grief than is already being caused by the blocking of the ads.

It may not be a commercial venture, but it is an advertising campaign. A brilliant one I might ad. Very little cost and with good possibility for a large return for people other than yourself of course. The idea is very impressive.

We haven't done that.


I'm not hiding, that is my only motivation.

Regarding your other point, I think what you're trying to say is that advertising and art are fundamentally the same - about making money. Which I think says more about our society and the state of arts education than anything else. And obviously, I don't agree.

Thanks for the comments.

First time I read the FAQs. I read that you'd like to be able to have the ability to link to your site or the artists' site. You changed that which makes things different.

If websites can't make money from adverts because you're blocking them, then they can't afford to pay their hosting bills and go offline. Period.

Think of all the amazing websites that exist today, and think how many of them are free, and all they ask is that you "put up with" a few adverts, is that such a bad deal for you?

A lot of advertising revenue is determined on a per-click basis. Since I'm never going to click on these ads, my not seeing them isn't harming the site.

Incorrect.

No... It's pretty true. I used to use google adwords. And they go by a per-click basis. I paid 2 cents per click. It's how it works.

Wow, crazy up there.

I just wanted to say thanks for posting this. We ended up installing it, and browsing has been much improved. Certainly a million times better than that flashy dancing stuff.