8 ms·

I really don't get this moral argument at all. Websites don't have the right to use 5x my already severely limited mobile bandwidth on pure crap that I don't ne

by vlucas 11y ago

I really don't get this moral argument at all. Websites don't have the right to use 5x my already severely limited mobile bandwidth on pure crap that I don't need. They have the right to put trackers and crap ads on their page, sure - but I also have the right to block them. * TV channels have the right to put annoying ads in, but I have the right to mute them, look away, change the channel, skip them if previously recorded, etc. * Movies have the right to insert pre-roll ads and previews, but I have the right to skip them or come to a movie 15 minutes later than listed showtime to ensure I miss them. * Newspapers and magazines have the right to put ads in, but I have the right to cut them out or fold the page over so I don't have to look at them while reading the article. No amount of these shaky moral arguments are going to make me change my mind about intrusive advertising and tracking. There is no contract or promise between me and the website that I am visiting that I will be captive to their ads or behavior tracking, implied or otherwise - just like in any other other media format. People absolutely have the right to block them, and they absolutely have the right to install software that helps improve their privacy.

kllrnohj 11y ago
That's because you're talking about "rights" not "morals". I have the right to call you an asshole but it wouldn't be moral. Mods have the right to ban everyone with ideas they don't like but it wouldn't be moral. You do have the right to demand something from someone for free. You do have the right to go to every store in the city and empty every "take a penny leave a penny" tray. But having the right to do it and it being moral are very, very different things.
- vlucas 11y ago
  But I am not making any demands at all. Publishers are offering their content for free, and I sometimes take them up on their offer and read it. It's an offer that started with the publisher, not a demand that came from me. Are you saying it is moral for publishers to track my usage behavior, and to force me to watch any ad they want me to?
  - phpnode 11y ago
    > Publishers are offering their content for free No, they are offering their content in the expectation that they will be rewarded for producing it, via ads. It isn't free. Are you saying it's moral for you to read their content but circumvent their business model?
    - vlucas 11y ago
      > There is no contract or promise between me and the website that I am visiting that I will be captive to their ads or behavior tracking, implied or otherwise If you ask any website without a paywall, they will almost ALL tell you their content is free. Some even advertise and market that enthusiastically. A visit still helps them - it is still counted in server-side stats (which is used to sell ads), and I am exposed to their brand, which is a large part of what marketing is all about. There are also other forms of advertising which are not blocked - things like sponsored posts, guest posts, mailing list opt-in forms, referral links, etc. You also conveniently ignored my question on whether or not forcing me to watch an ad or forcing me to accept behavior tracking is moral on their part. This is not a one-sided equation.
      - phpnode 11y ago
        > A visit still helps them - it is still counted in server-side stats (which is used to sell ads This is totally nonsensical. If they have no prospect of recouping the expense they incurred from your visit then you are not helping them, you are worse than worthless to them, you simply cost them money. > Are you saying it is moral for publishers to track my usage behavior, and to force me to watch any ad they want me to? You aren't being forced to watch anything. You have the option of leaving their site and living without their content. Your attitude is the definition of entitlement.
        vlucas 11y ago
        > You aren't being forced to watch anything. You have the option of leaving their site and living without their content. > Your attitude is the definition of entitlement. I also have the option of completely ignoring the ads or covering them up, which is essentially the same thing as blocking with a plugin. This is not a binary equation. This is the essence of my very first comment here. There is nothing morally wrong about not paying attention to an ad, zooming in so you don't see it, covering it up, not watching a video, muting commercials, etc. No publisher or advertiser has the expectation that 100% of people will pay attention to their ad. The ratios are closer to 1%. Nobody has that expectation expect the people trying to make this into a moral argument.
zamalek 11y ago
The moral issue is that the websites need to pay their bills. However, I'm in agreement with you for a far simpler reason: If websites had cared about "ethical advertising" in the first place we probably wouldn't have had ad blockers. We've been dealing with "unethical advertising" since, what, 1995? I'll disable my ad blocker in 20 years.
hullo 11y ago
The moral argument isn't presented in the piece, so it's not really fair to ascribe it to the author. He's saying it doesn't matter. They're making a "poisoned well" argument that there will be no functional divide between "good" and "bad" ads.
- vlucas 11y ago
  The moral argument is indeed presented in this piece with the quote and inclusion of John Gruber's tweet.
  - hullo 11y ago
    The moral argument is presented in the piece, sure, but it's not agreed with, if you manage to read to what he's actually saying.
    - vlucas 11y ago
      The title of the article is "Ethical Adblocking", and you still think no moral argument is being made here?
      - hullo 11y ago
        I'm presenting arguments based on what the author says, and you're presenting arguments based on the title and embedded quotes. All one has to do is read the piece. It's really not that hard!

by vlucas 11y ago

kllrnohj 11y ago

That's because you're talking about "rights" not "morals". I have the right to call you an asshole but it wouldn't be moral. Mods have the right to ban everyone with ideas they don't like but it wouldn't be moral. You do have the right to demand something from someone for free. You do have the right to go to every store in the city and empty every "take a penny leave a penny" tray. But having the right to do it and it being moral are very, very different things.

vlucas 11y ago
But I am not making any demands at all. Publishers are offering their content for free, and I sometimes take them up on their offer and read it. It's an offer that started with the publisher, not a demand that came from me. Are you saying it is moral for publishers to track my usage behavior, and to force me to watch any ad they want me to?
- phpnode 11y ago
  > Publishers are offering their content for free No, they are offering their content in the expectation that they will be rewarded for producing it, via ads. It isn't free. Are you saying it's moral for you to read their content but circumvent their business model?
  - vlucas 11y ago
    > There is no contract or promise between me and the website that I am visiting that I will be captive to their ads or behavior tracking, implied or otherwise If you ask any website without a paywall, they will almost ALL tell you their content is free. Some even advertise and market that enthusiastically. A visit still helps them - it is still counted in server-side stats (which is used to sell ads), and I am exposed to their brand, which is a large part of what marketing is all about. There are also other forms of advertising which are not blocked - things like sponsored posts, guest posts, mailing list opt-in forms, referral links, etc. You also conveniently ignored my question on whether or not forcing me to watch an ad or forcing me to accept behavior tracking is moral on their part. This is not a one-sided equation.
    - phpnode 11y ago
      > A visit still helps them - it is still counted in server-side stats (which is used to sell ads This is totally nonsensical. If they have no prospect of recouping the expense they incurred from your visit then you are not helping them, you are worse than worthless to them, you simply cost them money. > Are you saying it is moral for publishers to track my usage behavior, and to force me to watch any ad they want me to? You aren't being forced to watch anything. You have the option of leaving their site and living without their content. Your attitude is the definition of entitlement.
      - vlucas 11y ago
        > You aren't being forced to watch anything. You have the option of leaving their site and living without their content. > Your attitude is the definition of entitlement. I also have the option of completely ignoring the ads or covering them up, which is essentially the same thing as blocking with a plugin. This is not a binary equation. This is the essence of my very first comment here. There is nothing morally wrong about not paying attention to an ad, zooming in so you don't see it, covering it up, not watching a video, muting commercials, etc. No publisher or advertiser has the expectation that 100% of people will pay attention to their ad. The ratios are closer to 1%. Nobody has that expectation expect the people trying to make this into a moral argument.

zamalek 11y ago

The moral issue is that the websites need to pay their bills. However, I'm in agreement with you for a far simpler reason: If websites had cared about "ethical advertising" in the first place we probably wouldn't have had ad blockers. We've been dealing with "unethical advertising" since, what, 1995? I'll disable my ad blocker in 20 years.

hullo 11y ago

The moral argument isn't presented in the piece, so it's not really fair to ascribe it to the author. He's saying it doesn't matter. They're making a "poisoned well" argument that there will be no functional divide between "good" and "bad" ads.

vlucas 11y ago
The moral argument is indeed presented in this piece with the quote and inclusion of John Gruber's tweet.
- hullo 11y ago
  The moral argument is presented in the piece, sure, but it's not agreed with, if you manage to read to what he's actually saying.
  - vlucas 11y ago
    The title of the article is "Ethical Adblocking", and you still think no moral argument is being made here?
    - hullo 11y ago
      I'm presenting arguments based on what the author says, and you're presenting arguments based on the title and embedded quotes. All one has to do is read the piece. It's really not that hard!