3 ms·

> "You're sticking it to the little guy." And I'll keep doing it so long the little guy thinks being the little guy entitles them to dick their users around.

> "You're sticking it to the little guy." And I'll keep doing it so long the little guy thinks being the little guy entitles them to dick their users around. Yeah, there's nuance to the debate around ad blocking, but this argument is just silly. If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down, just as we would a huge restaurant chain for doing the same. If small businesses are spreading malware by using ad networks that are regularly compromised, it's on them. If small businesses are feeding their user's private data (often via exploits) to extensive ad networks, it's on them. Being small doesn't exempt you from being a good citizen on the internet. Of course, the reality isn't that small businesses and publishers are somehow evil and cackling maniacally as they feed their user's private information to huge ad networks. The reality is that they needed revenue, they chose an ad vendor, and they followed some guide on throwing some JS into the page so the ads get loaded. The real shithead behavior is on the part of these adtech companies. But ultimately the misbehavior of adtech and ad networks is still held against the websites who choose to integrate them, and rightly so. This increases every single time an ad network is compromised to distribute malware, or is actively user-hostile, but the publisher chooses not to switch networks.

untog 11y ago
If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down But that's not what you're doing. You're going to the mom and pop diner, eating their food, then declaring that their hygiene standards mean you don't think you should have to pay for the food.
- potatolicious 11y ago
  Well, this is where the analogy breaks down right? You can easily avoid going to a diner with an infamous reputation, but you can't go to websites the same way. You figuratively have no way of knowing what ad networks they're integrated with until said ad networks are loaded and serving ads. Or worse, you have no idea what you're in for until the latest Flash 0-day has pwned your machine. Hell, it's impossible to even know if a website is integrated with any ad networks at all until you load them. This makes the ethics of blocking ads markedly different from say, dining and dashing. Hell, it makes it a closer neighbor to "if you're reading this you've already agreed to our TOS" than anything else. I think the biggest issue I have here is that internet journos are taking this out against users rather than ad networks. Effectively the entire defense so far has been: "yeah our ad networks are shitty, they are full of malware, they are full of user-hostile abusive shit, they exploit your browser, and they are horribly engineered and slow. We sympathize, but despite the fact that we they are still our preferred vendor should in no way reflect on us and you should continue allowing the abuse, and if you have any problems take it up with our ad vendors. In no way should we be held in any way responsible for the current sorry state of affairs" Which is a completely, absolutely, insanely bullshit stance. Publishers are the customers of ad networks, not us, and until they start pushing for better standards (like, say, The Deck) users will keep blocking them, ethically or otherwise.

untog 11y ago

If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down But that's not what you're doing. You're going to the mom and pop diner, eating their food, then declaring that their hygiene standards mean you don't think you should have to pay for the food.

potatolicious 11y ago
Well, this is where the analogy breaks down right? You can easily avoid going to a diner with an infamous reputation, but you can't go to websites the same way. You figuratively have no way of knowing what ad networks they're integrated with until said ad networks are loaded and serving ads. Or worse, you have no idea what you're in for until the latest Flash 0-day has pwned your machine. Hell, it's impossible to even know if a website is integrated with any ad networks at all until you load them. This makes the ethics of blocking ads markedly different from say, dining and dashing. Hell, it makes it a closer neighbor to "if you're reading this you've already agreed to our TOS" than anything else. I think the biggest issue I have here is that internet journos are taking this out against users rather than ad networks. Effectively the entire defense so far has been: "yeah our ad networks are shitty, they are full of malware, they are full of user-hostile abusive shit, they exploit your browser, and they are horribly engineered and slow. We sympathize, but despite the fact that we they are still our preferred vendor should in no way reflect on us and you should continue allowing the abuse, and if you have any problems take it up with our ad vendors. In no way should we be held in any way responsible for the current sorry state of affairs" Which is a completely, absolutely, insanely bullshit stance. Publishers are the customers of ad networks, not us, and until they start pushing for better standards (like, say, The Deck) users will keep blocking them, ethically or otherwise.