When you write a text devoted to the Firefox browser, we indicated that we were using an addon, a small application that serves to enhance the capabilities and uses software that allowed us to block advertising. This small application has the name Adblock Plus and it's so good at his task that has begun to worry the webmasters of the websites, on par with Firefox's popularity is growing throughout the Internet.

Advertising has always been one of the main sources of revenue in the media. Radio, Television and Press are compounded by her and today, we could not conceive of these media without the presence of it. But the abuse is made, causes the ads to be considered by users as something to avoid annoying and mostly on television. Television advertising is perhaps the most upset about the extent and duration of each trade, as well as be the most popular medium, and this despite the existence of a self-regulatory code that televisions in Spain should try to meet without much success so far. The television ad blockers exist and are traded, at least in Germany, though obviously not something they like to broadcasters.

The problem, or virtue as you look, unicanal systems such as these three means is that the user has no choice but to endure this kind of information for further consumption, which sparks your interest. The average consumer is a passive agent in the communicative act and does not have much room to maneuver when the channel feedback. On advertising, little can be done as these are not the avoidance or simply tune to another station. However, the Internet, the user has greater freedom and can choose and develop techniques to what they want to consume and, more importantly, how they want to consume.

The existence of this addon in Firefox is a mere evolution of blocking Pop-Ups, which were considered a blight on the Internet, and Google helped eradicate thanks in part to its toolbar for the browser and subsequently, both Internet Explorer and Firefox implemented shortly. Of course, the search advertising system developed its own while justifies its own business model. He chose the contextual advertising considering it a bit intrusive method as only showing relevant advertising content to conform to the page where you stood. This coupled with the fact that it opened the possibility of deployment to small publishers, with easy management, fostered the creation of an Internet economy in which many were the recipients.

However, the possibility of blocking this type of advertising or otherwise, does not lead to deception Firefox planet is not the only from which this feature is, we conjecture that the eradication of every ecosystem. The end of the vision of advertising content being the main asset of the pages you visit, undermines the business model that is based on the greater part of the network is indeed difficult, if not practically impossible , know what a website visitor is using an ad blocker, so a webmaster decided not to allow access to those files using Firefox, leading Internet users to a website created for this purpose. This involves the ability to restrict user's decision, not allowing viewing the contents of a site by using a particular browser. Obviously, this entails a risk:

1. For one thing, the sailor can understand what has happened and can use another browser if you really care about the content of the web.

2. The Internet user can decide not to consult the website that has blocked and not return.

3. You can publish and publicize the situation by generating a debate.

Fundamentally, the debate emerged since then revolves around whether it is legal or not blocking advertising (Retiario, Baquia or Sigte), but perhaps most serious is to creating the opposite effect, since the beginning Internet user community to see if Firefox addon should implement the standard. From the point of view webmaster, indiscriminate blocking Firefox users only creates a problem: You lose hearing. On the Internet, the supply of information is enormous and overwhelming, not enough with the name and prestige, the media themselves realized this when they jumped to the Network

At first, took cover under its Cabecera, considering that its brand would ensure a steady flow of audience and revenue through subscription models. Obviously they failed. Spanish newspapers El Mundo and El Pais decided to use different models, the country relies on subscriptions, not allowing non-subscribers to access their contents. The result was that users came to the newspaper El Mundo that do open content available, while the country only got 30,000 subscriptions, so they had to turn back by opening its contents. The latest news regarding the accessibility of the contents of the media, and very celebrated, is that The New York Times opened all its contents to pay, including its centennial fund to any surfer, taking advantage of the revenue that the long tail that could provide.

The ban on an Internet user from viewing content of a site because it has chosen to use a browser, it only causes deemed not to return, while others may encourage them not to. I believe that blocking users do not seem to be the most appropriate solution, we lose audience and popularity. Censorship of our visitors only may cause the opposite effect by using something called a thief of your choice is not too smart.

Can that unlike television, the viewing audience becomes a covenant of concord between the surfer and owner of the contents of a website.