3 ms·

Blocking ads selectively is ethical. Blocking ads indiscriminately by using a provided block list isn't.

by natrius 17y ago

rythie 17y ago
Is there actually a practical way to that though?
- natrius 17y ago
  1) Install an ad blocker. 2) When an ad annoys you, enable your ad blocker for that site. 3) If you actually enjoy the content the site provides, you should let them know why you're blocking their ads so they can fix the problem. Otherwise, if everyone does what you do, the site will cease to exist.
  - rythie 17y ago
    2) I don't think AdBlockPlus lets you do that 3) You surely know that, that is a waste of time, 1. they already know, 2. they won't respond or do anything
    - notauser 17y ago
      2) Sure it does - just click on any add and blacklist the domain. Takes two seconds. (I'm actually surprised more sites haven't started responding by proxying ad content through their own servers to make it harder to block.)
      - irons 17y ago
        Doubleclick doesn't allow proxied ad distribution, and I'm not sure a similar effect could be achieved through DNS. The Ars thread touches on this, where Kurt mentions that Doubleclick's ad deployment isn't smart enough to detect flash-blockers and serve a static ad, and Ars isn't permitted to replace Doubleclick's deployment code.
      - rythie 17y ago
        Ok, thanks though you can't do it per site so you have to click on all the ads that offend you and they may change ad supplier. Also your effectively blocking a particular ad supplier not a domain that has a poor ad policy.
    - natrius 17y ago
      http://adblockplus.org/en/ http://adblockplus.org/en/ "Right-click on a banner and choose “Adblock” from the context menu — the banner won’t be downloaded again. Maybe even replace parts of the banner address with star symbols to block similar banners as well." The AdBlockPlus documentation explains how to limit specific rules to certain sites. (EDIT: http://adblockplus.org/en/filters#elemhide_domains http://adblockplus.org/en/filters#elemhide_domains) If you get filters from someone else, you're probably blocking ads that don't bother you on sites you enjoy, which sounds counterproductive to me.
_delirium 17y ago
That's what I do, but it's enough of a hassle that I'm not far from going to a full block list. The main problem is that, perhaps on purpose, ad networks use pretty random URLs that make it hard to block particular ads. If, say, Evony ads all included the string "evony" in the URL, it'd be a lot easier to selectively block them.
jamesbritt 17y ago
"Blocking ads indiscriminately by using a provided block list isn't." Can you explain why not? Unless there's some explicit prior agreement, I have no obligation to use my resources to render something in some specific manner, or at all. Online ads fall into the same technological mismatch as online music. It's the application of solid-to-the-touch thinking to a fluid digital medium. Web pages are not print. Don't base your business model on a different medium. (Ask the RIAA how well that works out.) My browser requests some HTML; what it does with it on my end is up to me. If I don't want to waste time and resources making additional requests for other content, that's my business. If I don't want to render everything specified in the HTML, that's my choice. If I want to skip elements, apply custom CSS, block scripts, all are my choices.
- natrius 17y ago
  If you enjoy something but you circumvent the methods by which the producer earns a living, you're making it less likely that the things you enjoy will continue to be produced. You may not see that as unethical, but at the very least, it's unreasonable.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    "You may not see that as unethical, but at the very least, it's unreasonable." OK, but the assertion was that it was unethical, not that it was unreasonable. I agree that there's a downside and I may end up spiting myself, but it's not unethical for me to do so.
- hartror 17y ago
  By that same logic Ars Technica are allowed to detect if you have blocked their ad and not deliver you the content you requested. And you better go tell Google their business model doesn't work before we're all left without a search engine!
  - 17y ago

Blocking ads selectively is ethical. Blocking ads indiscriminately by using a provided block list isn't.

by natrius 17y ago

Blocking ads selectively is ethical. Blocking ads indiscriminately by using a provided block list isn't.

rythie 17y ago

Is there actually a practical way to that though?

natrius 17y ago
1) Install an ad blocker. 2) When an ad annoys you, enable your ad blocker for that site. 3) If you actually enjoy the content the site provides, you should let them know why you're blocking their ads so they can fix the problem. Otherwise, if everyone does what you do, the site will cease to exist.
- rythie 17y ago
  2) I don't think AdBlockPlus lets you do that 3) You surely know that, that is a waste of time, 1. they already know, 2. they won't respond or do anything
  - notauser 17y ago
    2) Sure it does - just click on any add and blacklist the domain. Takes two seconds. (I'm actually surprised more sites haven't started responding by proxying ad content through their own servers to make it harder to block.)
    - irons 17y ago
      Doubleclick doesn't allow proxied ad distribution, and I'm not sure a similar effect could be achieved through DNS. The Ars thread touches on this, where Kurt mentions that Doubleclick's ad deployment isn't smart enough to detect flash-blockers and serve a static ad, and Ars isn't permitted to replace Doubleclick's deployment code.
    - rythie 17y ago
      Ok, thanks though you can't do it per site so you have to click on all the ads that offend you and they may change ad supplier. Also your effectively blocking a particular ad supplier not a domain that has a poor ad policy.
  - natrius 17y ago
    http://adblockplus.org/en/ http://adblockplus.org/en/ "Right-click on a banner and choose “Adblock” from the context menu — the banner won’t be downloaded again. Maybe even replace parts of the banner address with star symbols to block similar banners as well." The AdBlockPlus documentation explains how to limit specific rules to certain sites. (EDIT: http://adblockplus.org/en/filters#elemhide_domains http://adblockplus.org/en/filters#elemhide_domains) If you get filters from someone else, you're probably blocking ads that don't bother you on sites you enjoy, which sounds counterproductive to me.

_delirium 17y ago

That's what I do, but it's enough of a hassle that I'm not far from going to a full block list. The main problem is that, perhaps on purpose, ad networks use pretty random URLs that make it hard to block particular ads. If, say, Evony ads all included the string "evony" in the URL, it'd be a lot easier to selectively block them.

jamesbritt 17y ago

"Blocking ads indiscriminately by using a provided block list isn't." Can you explain why not? Unless there's some explicit prior agreement, I have no obligation to use my resources to render something in some specific manner, or at all. Online ads fall into the same technological mismatch as online music. It's the application of solid-to-the-touch thinking to a fluid digital medium. Web pages are not print. Don't base your business model on a different medium. (Ask the RIAA how well that works out.) My browser requests some HTML; what it does with it on my end is up to me. If I don't want to waste time and resources making additional requests for other content, that's my business. If I don't want to render everything specified in the HTML, that's my choice. If I want to skip elements, apply custom CSS, block scripts, all are my choices.

natrius 17y ago
If you enjoy something but you circumvent the methods by which the producer earns a living, you're making it less likely that the things you enjoy will continue to be produced. You may not see that as unethical, but at the very least, it's unreasonable.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "You may not see that as unethical, but at the very least, it's unreasonable." OK, but the assertion was that it was unethical, not that it was unreasonable. I agree that there's a downside and I may end up spiting myself, but it's not unethical for me to do so.
hartror 17y ago
By that same logic Ars Technica are allowed to detect if you have blocked their ad and not deliver you the content you requested. And you better go tell Google their business model doesn't work before we're all left without a search engine!
- 17y ago