3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoI wish people would vote down stuff that is not relevant instead of stuff they disagree with.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoThis 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 agoMy prediction for the future: Ad blockers will load ads but not display them as more and more websites will block visitors who block them.
- threatofrain 11y agoMerely looking at ads aren't enough. Purchasing behavior must ultimately be effected somewhere down the line, to the extent that someone can determine changes in sales were due at least somewhat to ads. If someone can't find a causal or predictive relationship between ads and customer behavior, then they will lose cause to invest in some advertising venue. If a site is consistently staying alive only through ads, it means that money is somehow flowing from some people to the ad-supported content. We are all already paying for content through some convoluted pathway. We should just start paying with minimal middlemen, since ad companies bill our attention and build profiles about us from our behavioral data.