9 ms·

This is so common for the many anti-adblock texts you see these days - they all avoid to talk about the major issues here. (I say that with the background that

by hannob 11y ago

This is so common for the many anti-adblock texts you see these days - they all avoid to talk about the major issues here. (I say that with the background that a significant part of my income comes from ad-financed news pages.) That is: * Security risk through ads (malvertising, ad networks not supporting https etc.). * Ads killing performance (70% CPU for a flash ad is not uncommon). * Privacy (Ad vendors having mostly stated that they won't accept user wishes through DNT or similar technologies). Privacy is a tricky one, because data is in part where the income comes from. But the other two are fixable. I want to hear from everyone complaining about ad blockers what they intend to do to make ads less of a security risk and cpu cycle burner. That would be a good start of a proper conversation about the topic. Every text that ignores these issues is usually not worth recognizing.

teddyh 11y ago
Those are all valid reasons, but they are not the reason I first started to block ads: • They impose a surprisingly huge cognitive load. Even if you (like most people nowadays) are used to them and hence “do not notice them”, that very habit of ignoring them actually takes more brain power than you’d think.
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  I'd be okay with ads on the web if it looked like newspaper or magazine ads (and with the associated cognitive load). But not auto-play videos that pops up in the middle of the article or blinking GIFs on the side.
- xorcist 11y ago
  That's true! I stopped watching TV somewhere around the high school age, which means I react to it just like small children do: if I'm trying to have a meeting where there's a TV running I turn into almost a drooling idiot. My brain is simply not conditioned to flashing colors and quick cuts that aren't important. It requires practice to read a text bylined with blinking animations, and I simply don't have the cognitive power to do that. Most people that cope with it probably doesn't realize how much practice they've had.
- yomism 11y ago
  And everybody knows that if you deplete your brain power before going to sleep your brain explodes... On a serious note, your brain will be ok, it is a fine pattern matching machines with adaptative filters to discard uninteresting data (did you notice that sound of blood heartbeating in your ears?... that's filtering doing its work). And also visually our brain is very good at ignoring data, search for the gorilla suit experiment.
  - teddyh 11y ago
    Straw man. I did not say that using brain power is inherently bad. What I maybe should have said is that I prefer to use all my brain power on reading the article and pondering its implications rather than (unconsciously) wasting much of it on ignoring distracting ads.
  - enimodas 11y ago
    It doesn't explode, but it does get tired. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tough-choices-how-making/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tough-choices-how-...
- BogusIKnow 11y ago
  Not reading them is the same as blocking them. To gain moral high ground people who compare adblocking to theft are required to read every ad on every website they encounter. The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an illusion.
  - BogusIKnow 11y ago
    I wish people would vote down stuff that is not relevant instead of stuff they disagree with.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    This does not take into account the security aspect. With the modern world being what it is one should be careful the code running on one's systems is from trusted sources. Adverts on the modern web violate this principle.
  - cpeterso 11y ago
    > The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an illusion. Do not some ad networks pay content providers for "impressions", regardless of whether the ads are clicked? In that case, loading the ads without reading them is not the same as not loading them.
    - BogusIKnow 11y ago
      My prediction for the future: Ad blockers will load ads but not display them as more and more websites will block visitors who block them.
      - RUG3Y 11y ago
        Right. We need a blocker that loads the ads and "sandboxes" them from the user.
      - cpeterso 11y ago
        Loading the ads without displaying them doesn't help with page load time.
- jordanpg 11y ago
  I would take this a step further. I perceive the effects of advertising in most cases to be toxic and nefarious. Trying to convince me to buy or do something that I didn't already want or need is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism. I avoid ads because I absolutely do not want their influence looming over me. We -- the technologists behind it -- should be anxious to help humanity get past this embarrassing chapter in our development and find another way to make the economic wheels turn.
fauigerzigerk 11y ago
I hate ads for all the reasons you cite and because some are hugely distracting. But small websites are not in a position to change the state of affairs, and if nothing changes and people keep blocking their ads, they're going to be dying in large numbers. As a result, everything will be locked into app stores with even less privacy and with many restrictions on the type of content that is allowed. The sort of answers I am looking for are the ones that do not pit small websites against users.
- userbinator 11y ago
  Actually, there are many "small websites" which are completely adless and will continue to remain, because the group or individual (usually the latter) is paying for their hosting. Some are hosted on the ISPs of their owners. I've spent many hours on these sites and they also tend to have the most esoteric and interesting content. Unfortunately they do seem to be disappearing from Google's search results, which is a different but also potentially problematic issue.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Yes, there are (I run one), but how are they relevant to this discussion?
- lisivka 11y ago
  Small sites are not supported by ads — traffic is too low, so small sites will sustain.
- dminor 11y ago
  I suspect that rather than paywalls, we'll start to see a lot more "native" advertising, where some or all of the content itself is an ad.
Jweb_Guru 11y ago
This strikes me as pretty similar to the usual "record labels are evil" defense for pirating music, in that it's a rationalization for something people were going to do anyway. While your points are true ones, they're not the reasons most people are using ad blockers (for instance, I am quite confident that most people have no idea about the security risks involved in simply loading an advertisement).
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  No. The security argument would be more analogous to a hypothetical situation whereby listening to legally purchased CDs occasionally resulted in you house keys or credit card details being distributed to criminals.
  - 67726e 11y ago
    Or, you know, that time Sony installed a rootkit from music CDs.
    - bigbugbag 11y ago
      Funny thing those were not actuals CDs, Philips asked Sony to stop using the official CD logo on those infected discs or face a lawsuit.
      - 67726e 11y ago
        What do you mean they weren't CDs? They weren't "licensed" or they were something else entirely?
        throwaway049 11y ago
        They did not conform to the official specification for an audio CD and therefore were not allowed to carry the logo for Compact Disc Digital Audio.
- analog31 11y ago
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Additionally, visitors don't sign a contract to agree to view ads in exchange for content, content-makers don't own their visitors' eyes or attention and can't expect to just sell them off willy-nilly. I'm very sorry for content-makers who've hitched their financial wagons to ads, I wish things were easier for you, I really do, but I'm not going to view ads, nor am I going to feel bad about it. No more so than if you had made the poor choice of relying on spam for financial support. Look, a lot of this ad revenue was bullshit anyway. Online ads have not been very effective historically, but people were still willing to pay for them and that pumped a lot of money into any site with a lot of traffic, regardless of whether or not the ads on that site actually worked. It turns out that visitors have started blocking ads before people started figuring out how crappy the RoI on those ads actually were, but that money was likely to dry up one way or the other eventually. There are plenty of non-obnoxious ways to do product reviews and endorsements that can still bring in revenue (that's the laziest option) but there are also a ton of excellent options out there for content-creators to gain financial support without relying on ads. It's easier than it's ever been to earn a living without ads and it's only getting easier over time. If you're a web-focused content creator in 2015 and you don't have something for sale on your site (even just "brand" merch), don't have patreon set up, and don't have plans for crowd funded projects then you're making a huge mistake and leaving a crap-ton of money on the table.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > I'm very sorry for content-makers who've hitched their financial wagons to ads, I wish things were easier for you, I really do, but I'm not going to view ads, nor am I going to feel bad about. No more so than if you had made the poor choice of relying on spam for financial support. People who hated spam signed the Boulder Pledge. People who hate ads tend to say fuck you, I'm blocking the ads but taking the bandwidth anyway.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    You're living in a fantasy world. Nearly everyone universally hates spam, and nearly everyone uses a mail system that automatically filters it. They don't sign a pledge, they just use tools that help then avoid spam. They mark spam they get in their inbox to help others avoid it automatically. And they have no compunction about using a site that relies on spam, they merely find it annoying. And as I mentioned there's no formal system in place where users agree to see ads in exchange for access to content. Nor is there a moral obligation to do so.
wazoox 11y ago
And don't forget the bandwidth and capacity usage for those on capped mobile data. I only have a 512MB/month allowance, I don't want it spent on downloading ads.
- bad_user 11y ago
  That's bullshit. If you don't want those ads, then don't consume that content.
  - douche 11y ago
    Well, it's not as though every random link on the internet has a Surgeon's General Warning-esque disclaimer: "Clicking this link will download 23MB of Javascript frameworks, tracking coookies, advertising iframes and uncompressed, full-resolution images."
lazyjones 11y ago
These are all issues for the users, there are other problems with the current system: * some ad media companies scam their clients by publishing ads on sites where kickback payments are most attractive, rather than where the users are most suitable for the client * agencies who also design campaigns for their clients tend to use more obnoxious and more commonly blocked ad formats because they're more expensive for the client, hurting both client and publisher (more ad blockers, annoyed users) * I am also convinced that there's plenty of click fraud out there, but it's the only of these issues I don't know firsthand / as a fact
tomjen3 11y ago
We could have an ad API where browsers could make it impossible for ads to have certain things that users don't like (for me, anything animated or which interrupts the flow) and in return ad-block software could allow ads through the new API. It could be made to work with older browsers by having a tag that ad-api browsers recognized as render this ad in this element, rather than its content and which older browsers skipped. Make the API tight enough and it won't be a CPU issue, it won't be any more a security risk than browsing any old site that is able to serve you pictures. I doubt privacy is salvable, and I wouldn't want ads that didn't know what I was interested in to show up at all, since those universually suck.

by hannob 11y ago

teddyh 11y ago

Those are all valid reasons, but they are not the reason I first started to block ads: • They impose a surprisingly huge cognitive load. Even if you (like most people nowadays) are used to them and hence “do not notice them”, that very habit of ignoring them actually takes more brain power than you’d think.

johnchristopher 11y ago
I'd be okay with ads on the web if it looked like newspaper or magazine ads (and with the associated cognitive load). But not auto-play videos that pops up in the middle of the article or blinking GIFs on the side.
xorcist 11y ago
That's true! I stopped watching TV somewhere around the high school age, which means I react to it just like small children do: if I'm trying to have a meeting where there's a TV running I turn into almost a drooling idiot. My brain is simply not conditioned to flashing colors and quick cuts that aren't important. It requires practice to read a text bylined with blinking animations, and I simply don't have the cognitive power to do that. Most people that cope with it probably doesn't realize how much practice they've had.
yomism 11y ago
And everybody knows that if you deplete your brain power before going to sleep your brain explodes... On a serious note, your brain will be ok, it is a fine pattern matching machines with adaptative filters to discard uninteresting data (did you notice that sound of blood heartbeating in your ears?... that's filtering doing its work). And also visually our brain is very good at ignoring data, search for the gorilla suit experiment.
- teddyh 11y ago
  Straw man. I did not say that using brain power is inherently bad. What I maybe should have said is that I prefer to use all my brain power on reading the article and pondering its implications rather than (unconsciously) wasting much of it on ignoring distracting ads.
- enimodas 11y ago
  It doesn't explode, but it does get tired. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tough-choices-how-making/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tough-choices-how-...
BogusIKnow 11y ago
Not reading them is the same as blocking them. To gain moral high ground people who compare adblocking to theft are required to read every ad on every website they encounter. The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an illusion.
- BogusIKnow 11y ago
  I wish people would vote down stuff that is not relevant instead of stuff they disagree with.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  This does not take into account the security aspect. With the modern world being what it is one should be careful the code running on one's systems is from trusted sources. Adverts on the modern web violate this principle.
- cpeterso 11y ago
  > The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an illusion. Do not some ad networks pay content providers for "impressions", regardless of whether the ads are clicked? In that case, loading the ads without reading them is not the same as not loading them.
  - BogusIKnow 11y ago
    My prediction for the future: Ad blockers will load ads but not display them as more and more websites will block visitors who block them.
    - RUG3Y 11y ago
      Right. We need a blocker that loads the ads and "sandboxes" them from the user.
    - cpeterso 11y ago
      Loading the ads without displaying them doesn't help with page load time.
jordanpg 11y ago
I would take this a step further. I perceive the effects of advertising in most cases to be toxic and nefarious. Trying to convince me to buy or do something that I didn't already want or need is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism. I avoid ads because I absolutely do not want their influence looming over me. We -- the technologists behind it -- should be anxious to help humanity get past this embarrassing chapter in our development and find another way to make the economic wheels turn.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago

I hate ads for all the reasons you cite and because some are hugely distracting. But small websites are not in a position to change the state of affairs, and if nothing changes and people keep blocking their ads, they're going to be dying in large numbers. As a result, everything will be locked into app stores with even less privacy and with many restrictions on the type of content that is allowed. The sort of answers I am looking for are the ones that do not pit small websites against users.

userbinator 11y ago
Actually, there are many "small websites" which are completely adless and will continue to remain, because the group or individual (usually the latter) is paying for their hosting. Some are hosted on the ISPs of their owners. I've spent many hours on these sites and they also tend to have the most esoteric and interesting content. Unfortunately they do seem to be disappearing from Google's search results, which is a different but also potentially problematic issue.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Yes, there are (I run one), but how are they relevant to this discussion?
lisivka 11y ago
Small sites are not supported by ads — traffic is too low, so small sites will sustain.
dminor 11y ago
I suspect that rather than paywalls, we'll start to see a lot more "native" advertising, where some or all of the content itself is an ad.

Jweb_Guru 11y ago

This strikes me as pretty similar to the usual "record labels are evil" defense for pirating music, in that it's a rationalization for something people were going to do anyway. While your points are true ones, they're not the reasons most people are using ad blockers (for instance, I am quite confident that most people have no idea about the security risks involved in simply loading an advertisement).

JupiterMoon 11y ago
No. The security argument would be more analogous to a hypothetical situation whereby listening to legally purchased CDs occasionally resulted in you house keys or credit card details being distributed to criminals.
- 67726e 11y ago
  Or, you know, that time Sony installed a rootkit from music CDs.
  - bigbugbag 11y ago
    Funny thing those were not actuals CDs, Philips asked Sony to stop using the official CD logo on those infected discs or face a lawsuit.
    - 67726e 11y ago
      What do you mean they weren't CDs? They weren't "licensed" or they were something else entirely?
      - throwaway049 11y ago
        They did not conform to the official specification for an audio CD and therefore were not allowed to carry the logo for Compact Disc Digital Audio.
analog31 11y ago

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Additionally, visitors don't sign a contract to agree to view ads in exchange for content, content-makers don't own their visitors' eyes or attention and can't expect to just sell them off willy-nilly. I'm very sorry for content-makers who've hitched their financial wagons to ads, I wish things were easier for you, I really do, but I'm not going to view ads, nor am I going to feel bad about it. No more so than if you had made the poor choice of relying on spam for financial support. Look, a lot of this ad revenue was bullshit anyway. Online ads have not been very effective historically, but people were still willing to pay for them and that pumped a lot of money into any site with a lot of traffic, regardless of whether or not the ads on that site actually worked. It turns out that visitors have started blocking ads before people started figuring out how crappy the RoI on those ads actually were, but that money was likely to dry up one way or the other eventually. There are plenty of non-obnoxious ways to do product reviews and endorsements that can still bring in revenue (that's the laziest option) but there are also a ton of excellent options out there for content-creators to gain financial support without relying on ads. It's easier than it's ever been to earn a living without ads and it's only getting easier over time. If you're a web-focused content creator in 2015 and you don't have something for sale on your site (even just "brand" merch), don't have patreon set up, and don't have plans for crowd funded projects then you're making a huge mistake and leaving a crap-ton of money on the table.

DanBC 11y ago
> I'm very sorry for content-makers who've hitched their financial wagons to ads, I wish things were easier for you, I really do, but I'm not going to view ads, nor am I going to feel bad about. No more so than if you had made the poor choice of relying on spam for financial support. People who hated spam signed the Boulder Pledge. People who hate ads tend to say fuck you, I'm blocking the ads but taking the bandwidth anyway.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  You're living in a fantasy world. Nearly everyone universally hates spam, and nearly everyone uses a mail system that automatically filters it. They don't sign a pledge, they just use tools that help then avoid spam. They mark spam they get in their inbox to help others avoid it automatically. And they have no compunction about using a site that relies on spam, they merely find it annoying. And as I mentioned there's no formal system in place where users agree to see ads in exchange for access to content. Nor is there a moral obligation to do so.

wazoox 11y ago

And don't forget the bandwidth and capacity usage for those on capped mobile data. I only have a 512MB/month allowance, I don't want it spent on downloading ads.

bad_user 11y ago
That's bullshit. If you don't want those ads, then don't consume that content.
- douche 11y ago
  Well, it's not as though every random link on the internet has a Surgeon's General Warning-esque disclaimer: "Clicking this link will download 23MB of Javascript frameworks, tracking coookies, advertising iframes and uncompressed, full-resolution images."

lazyjones 11y ago

These are all issues for the users, there are other problems with the current system: * some ad media companies scam their clients by publishing ads on sites where kickback payments are most attractive, rather than where the users are most suitable for the client * agencies who also design campaigns for their clients tend to use more obnoxious and more commonly blocked ad formats because they're more expensive for the client, hurting both client and publisher (more ad blockers, annoyed users) * I am also convinced that there's plenty of click fraud out there, but it's the only of these issues I don't know firsthand / as a fact

tomjen3 11y ago

We could have an ad API where browsers could make it impossible for ads to have certain things that users don't like (for me, anything animated or which interrupts the flow) and in return ad-block software could allow ads through the new API. It could be made to work with older browsers by having a tag that ad-api browsers recognized as render this ad in this element, rather than its content and which older browsers skipped. Make the API tight enough and it won't be a CPU issue, it won't be any more a security risk than browsing any old site that is able to serve you pictures. I doubt privacy is salvable, and I wouldn't want ads that didn't know what I was interested in to show up at all, since those universually suck.