7 ms·

Why do you insist to consume content when the publisher tells you they don't want your visit if you don't want their ads?

ultramancool 11y ago
Because I wanted to see the content? Is that what you're really asking? Am I supposed to feel some kind of moral obligation to see the ads just because they want me to, even if my browser is perfectly capable of blocking them? Sorry, but it's _my_ computer. I control it. Publishers don't get to decide what it does or does not do. I do.
- kodablah 11y ago
  I think they mean: Why do you want to consume content from companies like that?
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    The quality of their publishing practice doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the content.
- manigandham 11y ago
  Moral obligation is the reason to not take/copy other things. This is the same as music/movie piracy. Basically you're doing it because you dont have the legal/physical repercussions of taking other things in life.
  - ultramancool 10y ago
    Not quite - with piracy you get a modified full copy of the content from a non-original source. This non-original source produces an unlicensed copy of the content. This is the illegal or "immoral" or what have you part of piracy. With ad blocking you go right to the original source, ask them for a copy of the content, they give it to you, then choose how you're going to render it. They gave you the content. They never made me accept a license agreement on it. I can choose to render it however I damn well please because that's up to my computer. Does IE produce an immoral rendering of the page because it doesn't support a CSS feature they use? What if I load the page in Lynx and don't see ads, is that immoral?
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      I kind of doubt it's even legally possible for a copyright license to only allow use if people also consume the ads linked with the content. Might depend on your country (or state). But it doesn't really seem like a legally enforceable condition to me. Not to mention all the practical snags of such a demand. For instance, these ads are generated real-time and are targeted towards the user. Would yielding to that be part of the same demand? If you block or shield against targeting, or even in a private tab, or clearing cookies on exit. You could make the same argument that, this too deprives publishers (part) of their income because tracking is less effective. What if the ads contain tooling for realtime monitoring how long you are "active" on the page, which parts your mouse hovers on, etc? Are we morally obliged that we run that code and (truthfully) submit that data as well? (Rhetorical question obviously)
    - manigandham 10y ago
      So if someone takes something without permission, it's ok to take it from them because they already did the original "taking"? Morality is tied to intention. If you can only access something with a screen reader and can't see ads, that's fine. If you're intentionally removing ads while full well knowing what they are for, that's immoral. Then again morality is subjective to the individual so perhaps this is better described as basic ethics.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  The publisher told you that if you want to see the content, you have to see ads too. They are very explicit about it. You are not entitled to see the content. If it was just an adblock issue, I can see the logic of clicking on links and blocking the ads. I do not condone it, but I can see that some people might find it logical. BUT the publisher intercepted you and said "you cannot continue with adblock turned on". Why do you think you have the right to see that content without seeing the ads when the publisher explicitly said you can't do that? When he wastes your bandwidth with ads, he is the devil, but when you waste his bandwidth, it's perfectly OK? Technical ability has nothing to do with it. You have the technical ability to stab someone with a knife. You have the technical ability to download a book, copy it and then distribute it. Is that OK too? Just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    > When he wastes your bandwidth with ads, he is the devil, but when you waste his bandwidth, it's perfectly OK? Yes. He can try to stop me, just as I try to stop him. This is the game. It's an antagonistic relationship. There's nothing inherently "wrong" about either side - it just is how it is. > You are not entitled to see the content. If their server gives me HTML containing the content, it's up to _my_ computer what to render, therefore I am entitled to see or not see whatever is in that response. I am very entitled to use of my own computer. They do not get to decide what happens once their content is on my end. If I were sending malicious code to their server in order to remove the adds or similar, you'd have an argument but since it's happening entirely on my computer, you don't. The entitlement to how my computer renders it rests entirely on me.
    - TheLogothete 10y ago
      This is not ad blocking. They told you they don't want your visit and you still go ahead and consume the content. This is not a game. You just like to freeload and when somebody calls your bull, you throw a tantrum.
      - deleted 10y ago
lagadu 11y ago
Because I want to. The publisher is free to put a paywall up; of course we know they won't because nobody will ever pay even $1 for the overwhelming majority of the content they have and no publisher in the world has control over my browser, running on my hardware, running on my power so they don't get to prevent me from going around their funny little anti-adblock scripts.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  You click on a link that you know has advertising 2) The site tells you, "hey, we see that you run adblock. If you want to consume our content you have to disable that. If you don't want to disable your adblock, bye." 3)You still go ahead to consume the content. In what universe this is OK?
  - ultramancool 10y ago
    In a universe where their server still gives you the content.
    - TheLogothete 10y ago
      If a door is open but has a sign "do not enter" above it, should you enter?
      - ultramancool 10y ago
        If what I want is inside, yes, always.
        TheLogothete 10y ago
        Self-entitlement. Google it.
        ultramancool 10y ago
        Yeah - I'm very entitled to my own computer and I'll use it as I damn well please. Would you expect me to have any other attitude towards my own hardware?
cmc31 11y ago
If they don't want the traffic they are more than welcome to put it behind a paywall.
- chc 11y ago
  How does only wanting visitors who are willing to view ads recommend the use of a pay wall? Those hardly seem related.
  - cgh 11y ago
    They are both trying to monetize the content. I thought that was obvious.
    - chc 11y ago
      That is obvious, but the person I was replying to said "if you don't want the traffic." It is not evident that they want to exclude 99% of web traffic, only the relatively small number who are unwilling to view ads. In short, for most people, a paywall is a much stronger negative than ads, so it's not an obvious why somebody who wants to use ads should just use a paywall.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- slowmovintarget 11y ago
  More to the point, they could go to the trouble of hosting and serving their own curated advertising, like newspapers used to do. They could forbid JavaScript, require simple URLs, and flow their content around well-defined and crafted ad locations. Their site would load quickly, the ads would still attend to the image they intend to project to the reader. Metrics on such ads wouldn't require third party JavaScript to monitor. None of their readers would be subject to malware. Reader and provider would not be an antagonistic relationship. They could do all of these things. They seem to have chosen another path, and made the choice for their readers--those they've kept--at the same time.
- 11y ago
kbenson 11y ago
This is one of those topics where people feel so strongly (because of the annoyance), that I strongly believe that quite a few people are subject to cognitive dissonance regarding it. That is, of course, a self-serving opinion, so I try not to rely on it. That said, there are good, defensible reasons to run an ad blocker. Namely, that it's a security risk not to. That's not a moral argument though, and my only issue is with people that think they are justified to consume the content no matter the desires of the producer, that once it's published it's fair game. I have no problem with people that run an ad blocker but acknowledge that it does cause some harm. I count myself in that group.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  > my only issue is with people that think they are justified to consume the content no matter the desires of the producer Oh, I missed the bit where these people were hacking or forging credentials to get the content. > that once it's published it's fair game. Of course it is. Once you give me a newspaper I can cut out the articles I want - format shifting if you will. I simply can't duplicate them. HTML is intended to be interpreted and rendered to the client's specifications. Don't expect this to change, it was designed this way for a reason. If that's not what you want, distribute PNGs.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Oh, I missed the bit where these people were hacking or forging credentials to get the content. That's okay, I seem to have missed that part where it's shown how that relates to my statement in any way. > Of course it is. Once you give me a newspaper I can cut out the articles I want - format shifting if you will. I simply can't duplicate them. That's after you've already gotten the material. You are addressing the method in which you consume, I am talking about your right (if not legally, morally) to consume. If you walk up to me and ask for my newspaper without offering compensation, and I say "sure, but you have to first look at this pamphlet I'll hand you with it", then I think in this example it is clear that throwing the pamphlet away prior to reading the paper is morally wrong. Where I think most people differ on this subject is how accurate that analogy is for consuming internet content. If you believe the implication is clear that in visiting a site and retrieving their content that they would like to grant permission to view it based on the either an implicit transaction or an explicit statement (such as here), then you probably fall on one side of this issue. If you believe that no such implicit understanding exists, or where made explicit it's invalid for some reason, you probably fall on the other side of this issue. For me, the arguments that fall along the lines of "once it's been sent I can do what I want" don't sit well because they feel anti-social in nature. We don't act that way with the people around us, why should be expect it to be entirely different just because we can't see their face? Unaccountability for poor behavior is a downside of anonymity, and something to to by mitigated, not accepted. > HTML is intended to be interpreted and rendered to the client's specifications. Don't expect this to change, it was designed this way for a reason. If that's not what you want, distribute PNGs. I don't think this really applies to my position in any way or the argument as I see it in any way.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Um, excuse me, ads don't really pay the bills, people buying stuff that's advertised actually pays the bills. Do you feel a moral obligation to buy advertised products? If not, how do you justify consuming content without doing so?
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  I am rendered speechless by your immaculate logic.
  - dang 10y ago
    Your comments break the HN guidelines on a regular basis. We ban accounts that do this, so please reread and follow the rules from now on: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html That means posting civilly and substantively or not at all.
tripzilch 10y ago
> the publisher tells you they don't want your visit if you don't want their ads Well if you say it like that, it almost sounds harmless! But that's not what they're doing. What they are doing, is encouraging/begging people to disable their adblocker--which functions as a security (and privacy) feature of the browser--instead of telling people to go away if they want to keep it on. Of course there's no way to nicely word an honest message that communicates "adblockers are not welcome". Especially not for a site that depends on advertising revenue, it would never get past the marketing/editors. That's a big part of the problem; the majority of advertising depends on skirting the line between honesty and dishonesty, and this attitude tends to seep into the businesses that are so dependent on advertising. This becomes an even bigger trap if their content-quality is on the low end to begin with. I'm not familiar enough with Forbes to say that is the case for them (IIRC it's not that bad, is it?), but consider all those really shitty clickbait sites with listicles and blogspam. That's what those advertising dollars buy us. Who is more likely to stop producing content if advertising revenue drops? High-volume low-effort clickbait writers, or the "quality content" writers that actually care about the topic they write about?

ultramancool 11y ago

Because I wanted to see the content? Is that what you're really asking? Am I supposed to feel some kind of moral obligation to see the ads just because they want me to, even if my browser is perfectly capable of blocking them? Sorry, but it's _my_ computer. I control it. Publishers don't get to decide what it does or does not do. I do.

kodablah 11y ago
I think they mean: Why do you want to consume content from companies like that?
- ultramancool 11y ago
  The quality of their publishing practice doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the content.
manigandham 11y ago
Moral obligation is the reason to not take/copy other things. This is the same as music/movie piracy. Basically you're doing it because you dont have the legal/physical repercussions of taking other things in life.
- ultramancool 10y ago
  Not quite - with piracy you get a modified full copy of the content from a non-original source. This non-original source produces an unlicensed copy of the content. This is the illegal or "immoral" or what have you part of piracy. With ad blocking you go right to the original source, ask them for a copy of the content, they give it to you, then choose how you're going to render it. They gave you the content. They never made me accept a license agreement on it. I can choose to render it however I damn well please because that's up to my computer. Does IE produce an immoral rendering of the page because it doesn't support a CSS feature they use? What if I load the page in Lynx and don't see ads, is that immoral?
  - tripzilch 10y ago
    I kind of doubt it's even legally possible for a copyright license to only allow use if people also consume the ads linked with the content. Might depend on your country (or state). But it doesn't really seem like a legally enforceable condition to me. Not to mention all the practical snags of such a demand. For instance, these ads are generated real-time and are targeted towards the user. Would yielding to that be part of the same demand? If you block or shield against targeting, or even in a private tab, or clearing cookies on exit. You could make the same argument that, this too deprives publishers (part) of their income because tracking is less effective. What if the ads contain tooling for realtime monitoring how long you are "active" on the page, which parts your mouse hovers on, etc? Are we morally obliged that we run that code and (truthfully) submit that data as well? (Rhetorical question obviously)
  - manigandham 10y ago
    So if someone takes something without permission, it's ok to take it from them because they already did the original "taking"? Morality is tied to intention. If you can only access something with a screen reader and can't see ads, that's fine. If you're intentionally removing ads while full well knowing what they are for, that's immoral. Then again morality is subjective to the individual so perhaps this is better described as basic ethics.
TheLogothete 11y ago
The publisher told you that if you want to see the content, you have to see ads too. They are very explicit about it. You are not entitled to see the content. If it was just an adblock issue, I can see the logic of clicking on links and blocking the ads. I do not condone it, but I can see that some people might find it logical. BUT the publisher intercepted you and said "you cannot continue with adblock turned on". Why do you think you have the right to see that content without seeing the ads when the publisher explicitly said you can't do that? When he wastes your bandwidth with ads, he is the devil, but when you waste his bandwidth, it's perfectly OK? Technical ability has nothing to do with it. You have the technical ability to stab someone with a knife. You have the technical ability to download a book, copy it and then distribute it. Is that OK too? Just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  > When he wastes your bandwidth with ads, he is the devil, but when you waste his bandwidth, it's perfectly OK? Yes. He can try to stop me, just as I try to stop him. This is the game. It's an antagonistic relationship. There's nothing inherently "wrong" about either side - it just is how it is. > You are not entitled to see the content. If their server gives me HTML containing the content, it's up to _my_ computer what to render, therefore I am entitled to see or not see whatever is in that response. I am very entitled to use of my own computer. They do not get to decide what happens once their content is on my end. If I were sending malicious code to their server in order to remove the adds or similar, you'd have an argument but since it's happening entirely on my computer, you don't. The entitlement to how my computer renders it rests entirely on me.
  - TheLogothete 10y ago
    This is not ad blocking. They told you they don't want your visit and you still go ahead and consume the content. This is not a game. You just like to freeload and when somebody calls your bull, you throw a tantrum.
    - deleted 10y ago

lagadu 11y ago

Because I want to. The publisher is free to put a paywall up; of course we know they won't because nobody will ever pay even $1 for the overwhelming majority of the content they have and no publisher in the world has control over my browser, running on my hardware, running on my power so they don't get to prevent me from going around their funny little anti-adblock scripts.

TheLogothete 11y ago
You click on a link that you know has advertising 2) The site tells you, "hey, we see that you run adblock. If you want to consume our content you have to disable that. If you don't want to disable your adblock, bye." 3)You still go ahead to consume the content. In what universe this is OK?
- ultramancool 10y ago
  In a universe where their server still gives you the content.
  - TheLogothete 10y ago
    If a door is open but has a sign "do not enter" above it, should you enter?
    - ultramancool 10y ago
      If what I want is inside, yes, always.
      - TheLogothete 10y ago
        Self-entitlement. Google it.
        ultramancool 10y ago
        Yeah - I'm very entitled to my own computer and I'll use it as I damn well please. Would you expect me to have any other attitude towards my own hardware?

cmc31 11y ago

If they don't want the traffic they are more than welcome to put it behind a paywall.

chc 11y ago
How does only wanting visitors who are willing to view ads recommend the use of a pay wall? Those hardly seem related.
- cgh 11y ago
  They are both trying to monetize the content. I thought that was obvious.
  - chc 11y ago
    That is obvious, but the person I was replying to said "if you don't want the traffic." It is not evident that they want to exclude 99% of web traffic, only the relatively small number who are unwilling to view ads. In short, for most people, a paywall is a much stronger negative than ads, so it's not an obvious why somebody who wants to use ads should just use a paywall.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 11y ago
More to the point, they could go to the trouble of hosting and serving their own curated advertising, like newspapers used to do. They could forbid JavaScript, require simple URLs, and flow their content around well-defined and crafted ad locations. Their site would load quickly, the ads would still attend to the image they intend to project to the reader. Metrics on such ads wouldn't require third party JavaScript to monitor. None of their readers would be subject to malware. Reader and provider would not be an antagonistic relationship. They could do all of these things. They seem to have chosen another path, and made the choice for their readers--those they've kept--at the same time.
11y ago

kbenson 11y ago

This is one of those topics where people feel so strongly (because of the annoyance), that I strongly believe that quite a few people are subject to cognitive dissonance regarding it. That is, of course, a self-serving opinion, so I try not to rely on it. That said, there are good, defensible reasons to run an ad blocker. Namely, that it's a security risk not to. That's not a moral argument though, and my only issue is with people that think they are justified to consume the content no matter the desires of the producer, that once it's published it's fair game. I have no problem with people that run an ad blocker but acknowledge that it does cause some harm. I count myself in that group.

EdHominem 11y ago
> my only issue is with people that think they are justified to consume the content no matter the desires of the producer Oh, I missed the bit where these people were hacking or forging credentials to get the content. > that once it's published it's fair game. Of course it is. Once you give me a newspaper I can cut out the articles I want - format shifting if you will. I simply can't duplicate them. HTML is intended to be interpreted and rendered to the client's specifications. Don't expect this to change, it was designed this way for a reason. If that's not what you want, distribute PNGs.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Oh, I missed the bit where these people were hacking or forging credentials to get the content. That's okay, I seem to have missed that part where it's shown how that relates to my statement in any way. > Of course it is. Once you give me a newspaper I can cut out the articles I want - format shifting if you will. I simply can't duplicate them. That's after you've already gotten the material. You are addressing the method in which you consume, I am talking about your right (if not legally, morally) to consume. If you walk up to me and ask for my newspaper without offering compensation, and I say "sure, but you have to first look at this pamphlet I'll hand you with it", then I think in this example it is clear that throwing the pamphlet away prior to reading the paper is morally wrong. Where I think most people differ on this subject is how accurate that analogy is for consuming internet content. If you believe the implication is clear that in visiting a site and retrieving their content that they would like to grant permission to view it based on the either an implicit transaction or an explicit statement (such as here), then you probably fall on one side of this issue. If you believe that no such implicit understanding exists, or where made explicit it's invalid for some reason, you probably fall on the other side of this issue. For me, the arguments that fall along the lines of "once it's been sent I can do what I want" don't sit well because they feel anti-social in nature. We don't act that way with the people around us, why should be expect it to be entirely different just because we can't see their face? Unaccountability for poor behavior is a downside of anonymity, and something to to by mitigated, not accepted. > HTML is intended to be interpreted and rendered to the client's specifications. Don't expect this to change, it was designed this way for a reason. If that's not what you want, distribute PNGs. I don't think this really applies to my position in any way or the argument as I see it in any way.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Um, excuse me, ads don't really pay the bills, people buying stuff that's advertised actually pays the bills. Do you feel a moral obligation to buy advertised products? If not, how do you justify consuming content without doing so?

TheLogothete 11y ago
I am rendered speechless by your immaculate logic.
- dang 10y ago
  Your comments break the HN guidelines on a regular basis. We ban accounts that do this, so please reread and follow the rules from now on: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html That means posting civilly and substantively or not at all.

tripzilch 10y ago

> the publisher tells you they don't want your visit if you don't want their ads Well if you say it like that, it almost sounds harmless! But that's not what they're doing. What they are doing, is encouraging/begging people to disable their adblocker--which functions as a security (and privacy) feature of the browser--instead of telling people to go away if they want to keep it on. Of course there's no way to nicely word an honest message that communicates "adblockers are not welcome". Especially not for a site that depends on advertising revenue, it would never get past the marketing/editors. That's a big part of the problem; the majority of advertising depends on skirting the line between honesty and dishonesty, and this attitude tends to seep into the businesses that are so dependent on advertising. This becomes an even bigger trap if their content-quality is on the low end to begin with. I'm not familiar enough with Forbes to say that is the case for them (IIRC it's not that bad, is it?), but consider all those really shitty clickbait sites with listicles and blogspam. That's what those advertising dollars buy us. Who is more likely to stop producing content if advertising revenue drops? High-volume low-effort clickbait writers, or the "quality content" writers that actually care about the topic they write about?