4 ms·

Unless the advertising landscape changes drastically from what it is today, I will never not use an ad-blocker, and I reject the notion that it is somehow uneth

by chias 11y ago

Unless the advertising landscape changes drastically from what it is today, I will never not use an ad-blocker, and I reject the notion that it is somehow unethical: for over a decade and a half the online advertising industry has been exploiting every technical loophole or shenanigan it has been able to find in order to degrade my experience, security, privacy for the sake of their bottom line; the comparatively recently the phenomenon of ad-blockers -- a technical measure on the other side of the fence -- has the industry up in arms with cries that they're unethical. Really? If your business model relies on technical tricks whose ethics are in a very dark-grey area, you do not get to play the ethics card when I use a technical trick to protect myself from you. Yes there are "nice" ads and content creators that need to monetize, and it's sad that they get caught in the crossfire. But I'm not willing to sacrifice my security and privacy for the benefit of those. It's like saying "yeah uncle Bob gets drunk and beats us but his buddy is a really nice guy just trying to get by". Sorry Bob, you're not welcome in my home.

kbenson 11y ago
The argument isn't that it's unethical to not watch ads, it's that it's unethical to not watch the ads but still take what they offer in exchange. Any industry would be up in arms with people walking away with their goods without paying. It's really not that different than the MPAA or RIAA, especially in that since we don't like them, we feel justified in behavior that normally we wouldn't take. Does the RIAA being a shitty organization mean that we should steal (music) from their constituents, or that we should boycott them? Does the MPAA doing shitty things mean we should steal movies from them, or that we should boycott them? How is viewing content without seeing ads any different? Two wrongs don't make a right. Now, to clarify, I'm not expecting anyone to stop using ad-blockers. That's stupid, there are very real reasons why they are useful, but acting like there's no ethical problem with the current situation, IMO, is ridiculous. The first step to fixing the problem in a sustainable way is acknowledging the problem in it's entirety, and that includes our part. Otherwise whichever side convinces enough politicians first gets a temporary advantage, until it sways the other way, or we finally get better legislation. Why not aim for a good compromise from the beginning, so everyone wins? > It's like saying "yeah uncle Bob gets drunk and beats us but his buddy is a really nice guy just trying to get by". Sorry Bob, you're not welcome in my home. Yet you keep using his summer home for vacation. Perhaps cutting off contact would send a clearer signal?
- joshontheweb 11y ago
  These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?
  - CJefferson 11y ago
    Unfortunately (for this situation) ad-blockers are starting to enter a war, where they try to remove adverts while keeping websites functional. It would be nice to have an agreed way for websites to say "No ads? Go away", but I imagine most sites would choose to activate it, so ad-blockers would ignore it anyway, similar to do-not-track.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      Sometimes I read webpages with /usr/bin/curl. Sorry, but you aren't going to convince anyone that I am somehow morally obligated to copy the <img> URLs to a computer with a graphical web browser to see some ads. Much like how the "first-sale doctrine" limits a publisher's rights over a work after a copy first changes hands, you do not get to dictate how the client renders your HTML or if they choose to run your javascript after you've voluntarily handed the files over to them in the HTTP request. If your business suffers because of this, well, that's what happens to business models based on magical thinking and a misunderstanding of copyright.
      - CJefferson 11y ago
        You are the one who introduced "moral obligation", and "dictating" to the conversation, please don't invent words I did not use. I simply said it would be nice for website owners to express their opinion on ad-blocking (some are pro, some are anti), and then users could choose to use that information. If this gets into a war, it won't be hard for website authors to start sending you webpages where you have to call the javascript for the content (with ads) to appear -- some websites already do. I would suspect however those who write ad blockers will be more motivated to block ads, than websites will be to write ad-blocker-blocers.
a3n 11y ago
> Unless the advertising landscape changes drastically from what it is today, I will never not use an ad-blocker, and I reject the notion that it is somehow unethical: I go to a site. That site hands me over to a completely different network. My target site's owner has no idea what's running on that other network. My target site exposed me to danger. No thank you.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Yet somehow you still keep going to the target site.
  - Menge 11y ago
    I'd agree if you are saying that's no coincidence? The profit from the ads on the target site are the fuel to push its content to the top of results over better or more relevant content with less financial motivation or efficiency. In other words, blocking ads on a large scale causes a readjustment that is not necessarily bad for the overall ecosystem since most of that money is actively winning a zero sum game against better content with less (desperate) backing.

by chias 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago

The argument isn't that it's unethical to not watch ads, it's that it's unethical to not watch the ads but still take what they offer in exchange. Any industry would be up in arms with people walking away with their goods without paying. It's really not that different than the MPAA or RIAA, especially in that since we don't like them, we feel justified in behavior that normally we wouldn't take. Does the RIAA being a shitty organization mean that we should steal (music) from their constituents, or that we should boycott them? Does the MPAA doing shitty things mean we should steal movies from them, or that we should boycott them? How is viewing content without seeing ads any different? Two wrongs don't make a right. Now, to clarify, I'm not expecting anyone to stop using ad-blockers. That's stupid, there are very real reasons why they are useful, but acting like there's no ethical problem with the current situation, IMO, is ridiculous. The first step to fixing the problem in a sustainable way is acknowledging the problem in it's entirety, and that includes our part. Otherwise whichever side convinces enough politicians first gets a temporary advantage, until it sways the other way, or we finally get better legislation. Why not aim for a good compromise from the beginning, so everyone wins? > It's like saying "yeah uncle Bob gets drunk and beats us but his buddy is a really nice guy just trying to get by". Sorry Bob, you're not welcome in my home. Yet you keep using his summer home for vacation. Perhaps cutting off contact would send a clearer signal?

joshontheweb 11y ago
These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?
- CJefferson 11y ago
  Unfortunately (for this situation) ad-blockers are starting to enter a war, where they try to remove adverts while keeping websites functional. It would be nice to have an agreed way for websites to say "No ads? Go away", but I imagine most sites would choose to activate it, so ad-blockers would ignore it anyway, similar to do-not-track.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    Sometimes I read webpages with /usr/bin/curl. Sorry, but you aren't going to convince anyone that I am somehow morally obligated to copy the <img> URLs to a computer with a graphical web browser to see some ads. Much like how the "first-sale doctrine" limits a publisher's rights over a work after a copy first changes hands, you do not get to dictate how the client renders your HTML or if they choose to run your javascript after you've voluntarily handed the files over to them in the HTTP request. If your business suffers because of this, well, that's what happens to business models based on magical thinking and a misunderstanding of copyright.
    - CJefferson 11y ago
      You are the one who introduced "moral obligation", and "dictating" to the conversation, please don't invent words I did not use. I simply said it would be nice for website owners to express their opinion on ad-blocking (some are pro, some are anti), and then users could choose to use that information. If this gets into a war, it won't be hard for website authors to start sending you webpages where you have to call the javascript for the content (with ads) to appear -- some websites already do. I would suspect however those who write ad blockers will be more motivated to block ads, than websites will be to write ad-blocker-blocers.

a3n 11y ago

> Unless the advertising landscape changes drastically from what it is today, I will never not use an ad-blocker, and I reject the notion that it is somehow unethical: I go to a site. That site hands me over to a completely different network. My target site's owner has no idea what's running on that other network. My target site exposed me to danger. No thank you.

x0x0 11y ago
Yet somehow you still keep going to the target site.
- Menge 11y ago
  I'd agree if you are saying that's no coincidence? The profit from the ads on the target site are the fuel to push its content to the top of results over better or more relevant content with less financial motivation or efficiency. In other words, blocking ads on a large scale causes a readjustment that is not necessarily bad for the overall ecosystem since most of that money is actively winning a zero sum game against better content with less (desperate) backing.