9 ms·

Advertising is devastating to my well-being

135 points by bgray 17y ago

NZ_Matt 17y ago
"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down." Easier said than done.
kevinh 17y ago
As naive as this may make me sound, I think this attitude is hurting society. The idea that everyone is and should be trying to screw everyone else out of as much pleasure and profit as legal is, in my opinion, detrimental to society. When we stop doing things that don't negatively affect us much and help others, we've lost the benefits of altruism that helped our species evolve beyond the rest.
- lotharbot 17y ago
  Perhaps a better way to phrase it: you should expect your customers to act in accordance with their best interests (as they understand them.) They aren't trying to "screw" you so much as trying to get the best value they can. Not viewing annoying ads is of value to people, which is why they go to the trouble of running adblock or paying for ad-free premium pages. It's up to content providers to figure out how to get paid. Guilt-tripping readers into viewing ads is one approach; running skeezy ads is another; paywalls or premium content is another; merchandising yet another. Each of those affects the value your readers get from your site. Given that, how can content providers best align their interest (getting paid) with their readers' interests (getting good content cheap/free)? I submit that, if sites ran carefully-vetted ads that were of legitimate interest to their readers, were not annoying, and did not compromise user privacy, far fewer of us would use adblock.
  - rick888 17y ago
    "I submit that, if sites ran carefully-vetted ads that were of legitimate interest to their readers, were not annoying, and did not compromise user privacy, far fewer of us would use adblock." How do you know if the site has changed if you are using adblock? If they do decide to change ads, it won't really matter because they are already blocked. What about people that are using a computer with adblock already installed? They never saw the ads on the blocked site. Adblock doesn't just block one site's ads. It blocks entire networks of ads, which hurts innocent sites that may or may not have intrusive ads. This is why I can't support its usage.
    - doron 17y ago
      I consider ads that are served from many well known ad services intrusive to my experience, they dramatically slow the rendering of pages, often block content, or have such jarring graphics or color themes it is almost impossible to read the document. Ads are blocked for me by default, and i choose to unblock them in websites that generate repeated value for me. this includes the content of the website, but also the speed and how the ads complement the design of the website itself. I will consider paying website to get content completely ad free. I would like to also have the option to get a discount for just clicking on the Ad from the vendor, if you want my attention offer me an incentive.
      - ash 17y ago
        > I would like to also have the option to get a discount for just clicking on the Ad from the vendor, if you want my attention offer me an incentive. AdSense doesn't allow sites to do this. I don't know about other services.
    - lotharbot 17y ago
      I'm speaking more generally, and more long-term. If the average content model on the web was "carefully vetted ads, of legitimate interest, not annoying, not privacy-compromising" then far fewer people would opt to use adblock in the first place. For an individual site to get users who are already using adblock to stop, they may have to resort to the type of pleading or content-blocking Ars Technia did.
    - bd 17y ago
      How do you know if the site has changed if you are using adblock? What about people that are using a computer with adblock already installed? If, for example, your site has a community and ads are indeed "of legitimate interest", your community will discuss interesting ads. I have seen this happening on MetaFilter and Reddit.
      - DennisP 17y ago
        The trouble might be that if your advertising message really is all that interesting, you can just submit it like any other story and people will vote it up. Every now and then, an advertiser will make a mistake and pay for attention he could have gotten for free. But I don't think we can expect them to do that all the time. The only way to make money from advertising is to accept money from people who can't get attention otherwise.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Your argument, while emotional, leads nowhere. So not viewing ads hurts society; why should I care whether or not I hurt society? Now we are right back where we started.
  - kevinh 17y ago
    If people don't view the ads, the site shuts down. Maybe you don't like that site all that much, so it's fine. However, more and more sites would shut down due to lack of funding. Or, perhaps, they find different manners of obtaining money. Maybe they enforce pay walls, maybe they have product placement in their articles. The fact is, most advertising is not obtrusive. Despite the problems that Google Ads has, it is not visually obtrusive. Hell, half of the time I don't even notice them. Does it hurt me? No. Does it help the site sustain itself? Yes. Would I notice a pay wall or product placement? Yes. Would it obstruct my enjoyment of the website? Yes. To directly answer your question: you should care if you hurt society. If people stop being altruistic altogether, politeness and civility go out the window. An Ayn Rand style system pops up, with people being concerned how to give themselves the most power and goods while screwing others over the most. Maybe you're fine with that; I'm not.
    - el_dot 17y ago
      While I am in agreement with the sentiment, these "its good for society" arguments don't really move anybody. Just look at the music industry and it's pleas against piracy. Most people don't view their actions at such a global level; they do what's best for them and those close to them. If ads disturb them, then guess what? Ars technica will be releasing a few more staff. And most people won't care either, they'll just move on to the next thing. Thats just nature my friend. A taste of natural selection: adapt or die. It would be much more practical to create things that boost advertising's strengths, but mute the weaknesses, rather than trying to convince people that current ads are good/tolerable. Like you pointed out, Google Ads are a step in the right direction, but obviously still lacking. The market always points you in the right direction, better to listen than to fight it.
- scott_s 17y ago
  My reaction, which I think has similar meaning to what you said but doesn't contain the same subtly of your comment, is: This is not sustainable.
  - kscaldef 17y ago
    My feeling is exactly the opposite. Sustainable is coming up with business models where you provide something of value that people are willing to pay for. OTOH, steadily cranking up the quantity of advertising (already at the point where many newspapers and magazines are over 50% ads, TV is 1/3 ads, and many movies are little more than a continuous string of product placements) is _not_ sustainable.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      I suppose "this" is ambiguous, but I was thinking about the whole situation.
- justinph 17y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment, that's a whole heck of a love of evolution to work against. Nature (think of life on the Serengeti) is all about screwing over one creature for the benefit of another.
  - fexl 17y ago
    Human survival and wealth depend on voluntary production and trade. That is already baked into the evolutionary cake. If human behavior ever became "all about screwing over" other people, initiating force, and taking property without consent, then the human race would die out. Of course, a small portion of humans can and do live that way, but that is an aberration. If it ever becomes the norm, misery, illness, poverty, and death will prevail. [Ed. note: As expected, "red in tooth and claw" is voted up, and "people need to cooperate" is voted down. If that's karma then I'll have no part of it.]
    - zaphar 17y ago
      While cooperation makes logical sense. The statistics and study of human behaviour indicate that far from being an aberration "red in tooth and claw" is far more the norm. Don't mistake culture and societal norms for the norms of natrual human behavior.
      - fexl 17y ago
        What statistics? Why do you differentiate between "cultural and societal norms" and "natural human behavior?" Cultural and societal norms are natural human behaviors.
      - skmurphy 17y ago
        One good book length counter-argument to "red in tooth and claw" is Robin Wright's "NonZero" (see summary site at http://www.nonzero.org/ http://www.nonzero.org/ for excerpts) that argues life's arrow is toward more complexity based on cooperation and that it's not a "zero sum game" where every gain is someone else's loss. Wright's thesis for humanity is that people cooperate far more in the context of society than they did even 20,000 years ago, allowing for much larger populations. This larger population enables more diversity and further complexity.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- njharman 17y ago
  Realize that that idea is capitalism* or at least the inevitable side-effect of capitalism. And that the altrusim idea is socialism. * as practiced in real life not some wanker's theoretical definition. PS it was probably selfishness and greed (combined with tribal "us vs them" so that (generally) you'll steal from the fuckers in next valley over but not your children) that helped our species destroy and/or exceed our competition.
  - jwhite 17y ago
    I highly recommend "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley for a really interesting look at what might have caused our species to develop this way. It is not as simple as one might think.
- Tichy 17y ago
  This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody? How about by watching ads I screw the people who paid for the ads, as there is no way those ads would affect me in a positive way? I don't see how one is worse than the other. If a web site asks people who hate ads to watch ads, they are screwing the people who pay for the ads. They should be thankful for ad blockers, because at least they prevent me from getting negative emotions towards the advertised stuff. If I block ads, the site should have a higher conversion rate, so they should be able to ask for more money for the ad impressions.
  - dandelany 17y ago
    > This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody? Yes. As Ars said explicitly in their post, every time you choose to block the rendering of an ad on their page, their ad provider does not count the impression, and they do not get paid anything. So yes, you're directly screwing Ars by costing them money, denying them revenue, and nullifying their business model. > If a web site asks people who hate ads to watch ads, they are screwing the people who pay for the ads. In the first instance, "screwing" means "putting out of business". In the second, it means "mildly inconveniencing". > If I block ads, the site should have a higher conversion rate Again, if you'd read Ars' post, you would know that they are paid on impressions, not conversion rate.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      "Again, if you'd read Ars' post, you would know that they are paid on impressions, not conversion rate." I read that, but as I said, if they have a higher conversion rate, they should be able to negotiate a higher fee for the ads anyway. On the other aspects, I guess we just disagree (why is it worse to screw advertisers than ad pushing people)?
      - doron 17y ago
        revenue from impressions is a speculative hogwash remnant of the print medium and needs to go The idea one makes money from ads simply by having it displayed is copying a highly speculative advertising model of print (where the effect can hardly be measured) to the web (where you can measure it be by actual clicks) put simply its vaporware of the worst kind, and a business that hedges its revenue on this model is hedging its existence on speculation alone. The premise of advertising on the web is highly informed by age old print models that have failed that industry and put into doubt the efficacy of anything that is uttered in them. users have a choice. You want effective Ads on the web, offer the users something,so they wont block you. or go away. effective Ads on the web are to be about incentive. I own the delivery device, i can manipulate it as i will. This is not a newspaper, i control it, not the vendor. i will do what i want with it. the business owner need to give me a an incentive.
- barrkel 17y ago
  As many people love to point out, it's companies' fiduciary duty to screw people, impersonally, as much as possible. The distance and amenability to machine automation that technology adds makes it easier for customers to treat companies in a similar way. What if the technology wasn't visible, wasn't in browsers, but instead was in our heads? What if we had a perfect ability to selectively filter out what we see and not let it affect us consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously? What if our awarenesses were so under our control that advertising could be scientifically proven to be useless? Would this ability to focus our minds, free ourselves from distractions and pay deliberate attention only to what we willed, be morally or ethically wrong?
- philk 17y ago
  I'm not sure it's a particularly new development. People have been acting in their own self-interest for time immemorial. (And indeed economic models which work on the basis of enlightened self interest have been the most successful and delivered the most good to their adherents).
SilianRail 17y ago
Advertising = Jobs
- scrod 17y ago
  Imprisoning people for nonviolent crimes = Jobs
  - Willie_Dynamite 17y ago
    Wait, are you arguing that violent crimes are the only ones people should go to prison for? What about say, Bernie Madoff?
    - rick888 17y ago
      "Imprisoning people for nonviolent crimes = Jobs" No. He is saying that pot should be legalized. It's funny because I have heard so many pro-pot legalization people that our prisons shouldn't be filled with people that do drugs. I have not heard of one person that is in prison for personal consumption of drugs. Most cops won't even bother. The people in prison are the dealers.
- gvb 17y ago
  y'know, the fast talking one. http://gizmodo.com/5105045/the-first-apple-tech-support-call-ever http://gizmodo.com/5105045/the-first-apple-tech-support-call...
- Deestan 17y ago
  Legalizing armed robbery = Jobs
zb 17y ago
Ars Technica: "I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical..." This guy (first sentence, no less): "There's an interesting article on Ars Technica about how blocking ads is somehow unethical..." Give me a break.
- briancarper 17y ago
  The article starts off saying that ad-blocking is not unethical, but then goes on to strongly imply that it is. e.g. I think in some ways the Internet and its vast anonymity feeds into a culture where many people do not think about the people, the families, the careers that go into producing a website. And: And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads. These sound like ethical statements to me. I may be reading more into the language of the article than is warranted, but that's how I read it: "Don't block ads because it hurts people, hurts businesses, and is therefore wrong to do."
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    I think they can say they feel it borders on unethical (which is the impression I got from it). Along the lines of: "ok so you can block our ads, but that's a bit sucky guys :(" On the topic of your article (I assume it's yours?): I pay for a book, and then I read the book start-to-finish with no ads, no distractions. A few pages at the back maybe, but I can ignore those. Books are nice. I assume you can see the difference here? In terms of forcing you too look at the ads. I dont think the ars article tries to imply that either. They are saying they would appreciate it if you looked at their ads. Please. I dont know if you have seen the ars site with ads but they are one I personally unblock: they aren't particularly in your face, are generally aesthetically pleasing and I also like their content (some of the best on the web). Encouraging that approach is a plus IMO. If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down. Seems a "shoot yourself in the foot" scenario. Chances are people wouldn't actually pay monetary cost for your content - people hate doing that generally. Adverts are "zero cost" to a consumer :) most are happy to swap free content for a few adverts. Why is it unethical, as your seemingly suggesting, to do that? :)
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- swombat 17y ago
  Ok, let's take a simple example here. Google published loads of Chrome adverts to raise awareness of their new browser. The result of those adverts is that a lot of people switched to Chrome, making it a valid browser choice and, hopefully, hastening IE's demise. A number of people who read about Chrome in adverts would only have heard of it a year later if it wasn't for the ads. I think those ads were perfectly well justified - they raised awareness for a product which most people didn't even know existed. There's many more examples like this. I think your point is incorrect. PS: I don't actually support Ars in this anti-ad-blocker thing. I think ad blockers are absolutely fair game, much like ads themselves are. Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. They shouldn't come whining about ad blockers, they should just upgrade their business models to something that works in a world of ad blockers. That said, declaring that ads are completely useless is equally wrong.
  - dandelany 17y ago
    > Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. Ars isn't demanding that you pay attention to the ads, they're asking you to simply render them, so that their ad provider counts the impression and pays them the tenth of a cent that covers the bandwidth you just used to load the page. That doesn't seem like much to ask.
    - swombat 17y ago
      First, if that's the case, then Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. In any case, fuck'em. It's a wild world out there. If you don't wanna deal with it, don't. There'll be plenty of other publications willing to step in to fill the gap.
isleyaardvark 17y ago
"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down." He makes it sound easy. As though there weren't a multitude of websites facing the same problem with covering their operating costs. TV before cable faced a similar dilemma. Anyone could access it, but how do you pay for it? Ads did. Cable TV came along with commercial-free channels, but the consumer would pay for those directly. That solution has been discussed with some websites, and it's generally ill-received (e.g. NYT, Hulu). I think ads can work, I wish they were done better in many cases. What I won't do is criticize them for their business model without offering a suggestion of my own.
- petercooper 17y ago
  A key here is that Ars is trying to find another way - their $50/year subscriptions. See http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/ http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/ Clearly not enough people value what they do enough to warrant paying $50 a year (I don't, but I only go on their site a few times a year and am totally cool with seeing the ads so I consider it great value).
blhack 17y ago
I really don't understand this sentiment. If you don't like the ads, stop using the site. There is a coffee shop in Tempe, AZ that I very very rarely go to. Why? Because the wifi there is horrible. It's slow; there are too many people there using pandora and not enough bandwidth to go around. Would it be appropriate for me to whine about this while continuing to go there? When using a website (or any service) you are basically choosing to endure a bit of inconvenience (spending money, or viewing ads) in exchange for something you want (coffee, content). I get that people want to skip the first part, but I don't get how they think that could ever work.
natrius 17y ago
It's painful to see so many intelligent people unable or unwilling to analyze the effects their actions cause. If you block ads on sites you enjoy without communicating with the producers of that site, you are lowering the probability that sites you enjoy will continue to be produced. There are several ways to mitigate this effect if you don't like ads: 1) Pay for a subscription. 2) If no subscription is offered, ask for one to be offered. 3) If you'd simply like less offensive ads, ask for less offensive ads. Taking actions that in sum lower the probability of things you like being produced in the future is incredibly stupid. "The internet is also a wonderful thing. FIRST a person or company puts a lot of information somewhere that everyone can read it effortlessly for free, and THEN they sometimes expect me to look at their ads. And I can simply choose not to." Ars Technica doesn't expect you to look at their ads. They expect you to render their ads or pay for a subscription. If you choose to do neither of those, you are a parasite.
- metamemetics 17y ago
  3rd party javascript ads hosted on ad servers should be blocked. The majority of them disrespect web site viewers, so it is a rational decision for web site viewers to block them. If a site is running ads that they don't mind being associated with and are worthy of reader's attention, they shouldnt mind hosting them directly from their webserver as content.
  - natrius 17y ago
    Inform sites which you enjoy of this opinion. If you don't, you're just reducing the probability of sites you like existing in the future, which is stupid.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      This would all be very well, if I cared enough about the majority of sites. For example if HN would start popup ads, I might communicate. Most other sites first have to make me like them enough, and they don't do that by pushing obnoxious ads. For what it's worth, I wish all those people complaining would indeed just block their entire site for people with ad blockers. I don't even want to see their sites anymore. Or at least they should have a warning splash page: "warning, if you proceed to this site, you are stealing from us - OK/Cancel".
bjelkeman-again 17y ago
I rather like Ars. The content is a bit varied in quality, but I do have a look at it most days. The best content makes me reminisce about Byte Magazine. The ads are annoying. The alternative is $50/year. It just feels like quite a big sum of money when the extra benefits are not that interesting. $50/year that also gives me a good daily iPad edition, with articles I can save, without ads and full archive access may start being in the right realm for me. Maybe I should just pony up the $50 to experiment, I did save it on my dropped newspaper subscription recently. :)
- gizmo 17y ago
  $50 a year is the price of 2 books (or one more expensive technical book). Every year I buy at least a dozen books I don't read. So I wouldn't say that $50 is an unreasonable amount if they content is good.
thinkbohemian 17y ago
What if someone made a browser plugin where every time an you visited a website it gave that website 1/1000th of a cent (and took 1/1000th of a cent out of your paypal/google-checkout/etc. account), and in exchange that website saw the plugin and served you a version with no ads. How many people would choose to use this plugin?
- gizmo 17y ago
  I would. Of course, every website in the world would have to support it and micropayments don't work, so... it's not realistic.
  - thinkbohemian 17y ago
    You don't have to get every website to support it, just the big name advertisers. If the money went straight to adwords... that covers 80% of web real estate.
Malcx 17y ago
By contrast, books (for example) are awesome. I pay for a book, and then I read the book start-to-finish with no ads Thats the issue, you paid money for the book, it's the business model the author used to make writing the book worthwhile. Historically the Internet doesn't seem to support content producers this way.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Then remind me again, why don't the advertising sites just block people with ad blockers?
  - jimmyjim 17y ago
    You know, amidst the ad-block debate today, I actually see an opportunity ripe for a start-up. A system that lets willing participants opt out of ad-viewship for direct micropayments. Wait a second, I think what I'm describing is close to the new 'Flattr' -- but still not quite it. Let the users choose between micropayments or ad-viewership.
    - Groxx 17y ago
      I'd love micropayments. The problem currently is that there's no good way to do them, as there are no microtransactions that aren't just paying into the transaction-manager's pockets. * looks at flattr * will have to poke into that. edit: why not a combination? Micro-pay at a minimum value (say a couple cents) to get no ads. Click more than once to add more payment % to that site.
    - huhtenberg 17y ago
      Contenture tried just that and they couldn't pull it off. http://searchyc.com/contenture http://searchyc.com/contenture
  - vl 17y ago
    Some of the sites already do that.
petercooper 17y ago
Stop making the world a garish and hideous place to live by flooding it with ads. There are people so soft that they consider the world a "hideous place to live" because of some advertising? There are people who can barely eat each day without getting so offended by a few commercials. It so happens that advertisements are devastating to my well-being. This is crazy talk. Is it even possible to argue against someone who resorts to saying they get "very emotional" when seeing any sort of advertising or that advertising "devastates" their well being? Is he scared of animal crackers as well?
- briancarper 17y ago
  I use hyperbole to emphasize a point. I don't cry myself to sleep when I see an ad, no. Sometimes I become mildly annoyed. Life is generally OK. Likewise, ad-blocking isn't really "devastating" the internet, is it?
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    Speaking for myself, it's very difficult to take you seriously when you use hyperbole to this extreme. Let's be completely honest here: you wrote it this way because you knew it would get more of a reaction and people wouldn't just ignore it, like they would have if you had written "It mildly annoys me." In other words, you changed your messaging to fit the market and get the results you wanted from people through emotional manipulation. Sound familiar?
    - briancarper 17y ago
      No, I wrote it this way because I do feel strongly about it. I used the word "devastated" as a play on the title of the other article. I'm not "devastated", but I do feel strongly enough about this issue to alter my lifestyle, for example (e.g. avoiding TV and radio, which I very much wish I was able to enjoy). I expect some people will agree and some disagree with what I wrote. I enjoy the discussion, but I don't get anything else out of it. I didn't have any notion that I'd convince anyone of anything. It was not an attempt to manipulate anyone. Not a conscious attempt anyways. Certainly not an attempt to manipulate people into giving me money, so I think the analogy doesn't hold. However I may be wrong about this, it may be that my language is overboard in the way you say. Thanks for some food for thought.
detcader 17y ago
The real culprit isn't people blocking ads; it's the free-market nature of internet economy that allows companies/websites to rely solely on advertisement, causing internet ads to be so populated.
rogermugs 17y ago
if ads make wonderful software free (twitterrific 4 iphone), then sign me up.
- zacharypinter 17y ago
  I think twitterrific is a great example of (relatively) unobtrusive advertising. They've pulled it off well.
moron4hire 17y ago
Profit is not wrong. Profit is not screwing someone. Any freely contracted trade results in a net benefit for both parties. It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered. When someone says ads are "screwing them over", I have to laugh and wonder what kind of life that person leads that annoying ads are considered an atrocity. If you want to see being "screwed over", look no further than our tax code. Our tax code is a system where one does not own 40% of their life, where there is an explicit understanding that anyone above a certain income level is not going to get out of it what they pay into it, where there has become a rational expectation that the money will largely -- to the order of 90% -- be wasted on bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption. In all of the battlefields of life, you choose online advertisements to rail against? Hell, give Sally Struthers a dollar a day already.
- JabavuAdams 17y ago
  > It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered. This is Econ 101 dogma. I'm surprised you can write this without examining it further. People are not rational actors. That's why advertising works. What's particularly interesting about your using this argument is that advertising exists precisely to manipulate the non-rational decision making of consumers. Once we realize that humans in general are wired such that they make certain cognitive mistakes again, and again, we have to modify our understanding of a "freely contracted trade". A trade where I take advantage of your human nature to encourage you to make a decision that is in my interest is not truly freely-entered. With respect to your tax rant ... you should know that people respond more to what is annoying or vivid than to longer term considerations. Ads are a low-grade but constant irritation, whereas I make enough money that taxes are just some numbers on paper.
  - moron4hire 17y ago
    Wow, I had no idea that human beings were such simple creatures that they could be compelled to purchase goods and services against their best interests by a simple flashing picture. While advertising is primarily persuasive (there is still a significant informative portion of advertising), there's nothing wrong with being persuasive. You're attempting to be persuasive with your replies in this thread. If being persuasive is being unethically manipulative, then we had better stop all debate right now.
zackattack 17y ago
I think that advertising is indeed devastating to our collective well being, but not for the miserly reasons you enumerated. I think that advertising conditions us to associate happiness with things or circumstances external, rather than from a place inside ourselves. Which is fundamentally fucked. To the author: I think that if you cut the paranoia, you would actually be wealthier in spirit as well as material "net worth".
Tichy 17y ago
OK, a thought experiment: what about an ad blocker that downloads the ad, but doesn't display it? Because the argument seems to be that it is not necessary to look at the ad, only to download it, so that the site get's paid. I am pretty sure such an downloading ad blocker would be considered a kind of click fraud.
- Groxx 17y ago
  Well, any CSS `display: none` trick does this. I've been using it for years in my own minor-tweaks, because hiding via CSS with a user stylesheet is easy compared to hacking something like AdBlock.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    Not so sure, I guess browsers have become smarter. I don't think they generally load images that are invisible. At least I seem to remember having experienced that, don't remember the exact circumstances, though.
    - Groxx 17y ago
      Looking at webkit's inspector, at least, they are still downloaded. At least with my use, but I've only ever hidden entire divs.
adammichaelc 17y ago
"The idea that I have a moral obligation to stare at an advertisment, the thought I have an ethical obligation to voluntarily annoy myself for the sake of a company's profits... it would be hilarious if it wasn't so repugnant." The author seems to be saying that he is entitled to take from the creator of content without having any obligation to give something in return. I believe that this misses one of the most basic principles of our economy - namely the idea of a value-exchange. You get, you give. I believe it's morally wrong to get, get, get, and not be willing to give. No, he has no obligation to stare at an advertisement, but if he's not willing to stare at the ad he should look at other ways to compensate the creator of content or else not feel entitled to view the content. Not that it matters, but the author's post is obviously link-bait also.
- zacharypinter 17y ago
  I think the author is trying to say ask if people should treat the cat-and-mouse game between businesses and consumers with the same respect as exchanges between individuals. I agree it's morally questionable to "get, get, get, and not be willing to give", however, how many companies do you expect to think that way when dealing with consumers?
ShardPhoenix 17y ago
This discussion reminds me that the only site where I haven't minded the ads so much (and I think I might have even bought something from an ad there once), is Penny Arcade. The reason is that they carefully choose ad campaigns to be tasteful and only advertise stuff that they themselves consider worthy of purchase. I still don't like them enough to turn off adblock specifically for that site though, so I guess that counts as collateral damage.
colah 17y ago
You know, I'd like to not block adds. I really don't want to. But some sites make me. I didn't block them until a few months a go. But there were some adds that were just so obnoxious. The worst were these ones that played really loud sounds -- they made me keep my speakers mute, because I didn't want my computer to spontaneously start playing music and wake people up. One day I was just utterly fed up. I went to Mozilla's site, downloaded an add-blocker, set it to the default settings, and voila! Everything was much nicer. I'm going to reinstall my OS soon -- I find using apt-get to upgrade break things -- and I'll use the Internet without an add-blocker for a few days. If things are as bad as they were, I'll use one again. Maybe try and find a list that only blocks obnoxious adds, though.
betageek 17y ago
Wish I had time to build an AdFundedSiteBlocker - extension for Firefox that doesn't allow you to read the content on a site if it has ads on it.
ig1 17y ago
Ars article was about how when they blocked the ad-blockers people complained. If you have the views espoused in this article you should have no problem using an ad blocker which tells the web-server that it's blocking ads and leaves it's up to the website whether it chooses to return you content sans-advertising. If you're using an ad blocker that specifically misleads the website into thinking ads are being viewed when they're not, then that's clearly unethical. Imagine if you asked someone for a favour and they asked you for a favour in return. And then they did what you wanted but you only pretended to do what they wanted. That's exactly the same situation as this.
mbrubeck 17y ago
While the arguments about ethics and morality are relevant, I prefer to focus on the implicit challenge: Can more publishers find ways to make money from ad-free content? Adblock is like Napster. People want the content; the vast majority of publishers only have one business model; a lot of consumers doesn't like the price they're being asked for the benefit they're getting, and many of them are willing to take the content without paying. There are always people who won't pay no matter what - in the music world, filesharing is still around. But a lot of people started paying for music again when Amazon and Apple and eMusic changed the price structure to something they were willing to pay. There are a few sites like LiveJournal and MetaFilter that have ad-free options for paid users. Maybe this is a small niche and will never be big business. But maybe there are a lot more user who would pay to support ad-free content - if the price is right.
DennisP 17y ago
The solution seems obvious. Run adblock, and also run a background script that reads your browser history and hits the same sites, ads included, without displaying anything. You get your clean Internet and as far as the advertisers can tell, they're getting their "impressions."

135 points by bgray 17y ago

"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down." Easier said than done.

kevinh 17y ago

As naive as this may make me sound, I think this attitude is hurting society. The idea that everyone is and should be trying to screw everyone else out of as much pleasure and profit as legal is, in my opinion, detrimental to society. When we stop doing things that don't negatively affect us much and help others, we've lost the benefits of altruism that helped our species evolve beyond the rest.

lotharbot 17y ago
Perhaps a better way to phrase it: you should expect your customers to act in accordance with their best interests (as they understand them.) They aren't trying to "screw" you so much as trying to get the best value they can. Not viewing annoying ads is of value to people, which is why they go to the trouble of running adblock or paying for ad-free premium pages. It's up to content providers to figure out how to get paid. Guilt-tripping readers into viewing ads is one approach; running skeezy ads is another; paywalls or premium content is another; merchandising yet another. Each of those affects the value your readers get from your site. Given that, how can content providers best align their interest (getting paid) with their readers' interests (getting good content cheap/free)? I submit that, if sites ran carefully-vetted ads that were of legitimate interest to their readers, were not annoying, and did not compromise user privacy, far fewer of us would use adblock.
- rick888 17y ago
  "I submit that, if sites ran carefully-vetted ads that were of legitimate interest to their readers, were not annoying, and did not compromise user privacy, far fewer of us would use adblock." How do you know if the site has changed if you are using adblock? If they do decide to change ads, it won't really matter because they are already blocked. What about people that are using a computer with adblock already installed? They never saw the ads on the blocked site. Adblock doesn't just block one site's ads. It blocks entire networks of ads, which hurts innocent sites that may or may not have intrusive ads. This is why I can't support its usage.
  - doron 17y ago
    I consider ads that are served from many well known ad services intrusive to my experience, they dramatically slow the rendering of pages, often block content, or have such jarring graphics or color themes it is almost impossible to read the document. Ads are blocked for me by default, and i choose to unblock them in websites that generate repeated value for me. this includes the content of the website, but also the speed and how the ads complement the design of the website itself. I will consider paying website to get content completely ad free. I would like to also have the option to get a discount for just clicking on the Ad from the vendor, if you want my attention offer me an incentive.
    - ash 17y ago
      > I would like to also have the option to get a discount for just clicking on the Ad from the vendor, if you want my attention offer me an incentive. AdSense doesn't allow sites to do this. I don't know about other services.
  - lotharbot 17y ago
    I'm speaking more generally, and more long-term. If the average content model on the web was "carefully vetted ads, of legitimate interest, not annoying, not privacy-compromising" then far fewer people would opt to use adblock in the first place. For an individual site to get users who are already using adblock to stop, they may have to resort to the type of pleading or content-blocking Ars Technia did.
  - bd 17y ago
    How do you know if the site has changed if you are using adblock? What about people that are using a computer with adblock already installed? If, for example, your site has a community and ads are indeed "of legitimate interest", your community will discuss interesting ads. I have seen this happening on MetaFilter and Reddit.
    - DennisP 17y ago
      The trouble might be that if your advertising message really is all that interesting, you can just submit it like any other story and people will vote it up. Every now and then, an advertiser will make a mistake and pay for attention he could have gotten for free. But I don't think we can expect them to do that all the time. The only way to make money from advertising is to accept money from people who can't get attention otherwise.
jrockway 17y ago
Your argument, while emotional, leads nowhere. So not viewing ads hurts society; why should I care whether or not I hurt society? Now we are right back where we started.
- kevinh 17y ago
  If people don't view the ads, the site shuts down. Maybe you don't like that site all that much, so it's fine. However, more and more sites would shut down due to lack of funding. Or, perhaps, they find different manners of obtaining money. Maybe they enforce pay walls, maybe they have product placement in their articles. The fact is, most advertising is not obtrusive. Despite the problems that Google Ads has, it is not visually obtrusive. Hell, half of the time I don't even notice them. Does it hurt me? No. Does it help the site sustain itself? Yes. Would I notice a pay wall or product placement? Yes. Would it obstruct my enjoyment of the website? Yes. To directly answer your question: you should care if you hurt society. If people stop being altruistic altogether, politeness and civility go out the window. An Ayn Rand style system pops up, with people being concerned how to give themselves the most power and goods while screwing others over the most. Maybe you're fine with that; I'm not.
  - el_dot 17y ago
    While I am in agreement with the sentiment, these "its good for society" arguments don't really move anybody. Just look at the music industry and it's pleas against piracy. Most people don't view their actions at such a global level; they do what's best for them and those close to them. If ads disturb them, then guess what? Ars technica will be releasing a few more staff. And most people won't care either, they'll just move on to the next thing. Thats just nature my friend. A taste of natural selection: adapt or die. It would be much more practical to create things that boost advertising's strengths, but mute the weaknesses, rather than trying to convince people that current ads are good/tolerable. Like you pointed out, Google Ads are a step in the right direction, but obviously still lacking. The market always points you in the right direction, better to listen than to fight it.
scott_s 17y ago
My reaction, which I think has similar meaning to what you said but doesn't contain the same subtly of your comment, is: This is not sustainable.
- kscaldef 17y ago
  My feeling is exactly the opposite. Sustainable is coming up with business models where you provide something of value that people are willing to pay for. OTOH, steadily cranking up the quantity of advertising (already at the point where many newspapers and magazines are over 50% ads, TV is 1/3 ads, and many movies are little more than a continuous string of product placements) is _not_ sustainable.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I suppose "this" is ambiguous, but I was thinking about the whole situation.
justinph 17y ago
While I agree with the sentiment, that's a whole heck of a love of evolution to work against. Nature (think of life on the Serengeti) is all about screwing over one creature for the benefit of another.
- fexl 17y ago
  Human survival and wealth depend on voluntary production and trade. That is already baked into the evolutionary cake. If human behavior ever became "all about screwing over" other people, initiating force, and taking property without consent, then the human race would die out. Of course, a small portion of humans can and do live that way, but that is an aberration. If it ever becomes the norm, misery, illness, poverty, and death will prevail. [Ed. note: As expected, "red in tooth and claw" is voted up, and "people need to cooperate" is voted down. If that's karma then I'll have no part of it.]
  - zaphar 17y ago
    While cooperation makes logical sense. The statistics and study of human behaviour indicate that far from being an aberration "red in tooth and claw" is far more the norm. Don't mistake culture and societal norms for the norms of natrual human behavior.
    - fexl 17y ago
      What statistics? Why do you differentiate between "cultural and societal norms" and "natural human behavior?" Cultural and societal norms are natural human behaviors.
    - skmurphy 17y ago
      One good book length counter-argument to "red in tooth and claw" is Robin Wright's "NonZero" (see summary site at http://www.nonzero.org/ http://www.nonzero.org/ for excerpts) that argues life's arrow is toward more complexity based on cooperation and that it's not a "zero sum game" where every gain is someone else's loss. Wright's thesis for humanity is that people cooperate far more in the context of society than they did even 20,000 years ago, allowing for much larger populations. This larger population enables more diversity and further complexity.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
njharman 17y ago
Realize that that idea is capitalism* or at least the inevitable side-effect of capitalism. And that the altrusim idea is socialism. * as practiced in real life not some wanker's theoretical definition. PS it was probably selfishness and greed (combined with tribal "us vs them" so that (generally) you'll steal from the fuckers in next valley over but not your children) that helped our species destroy and/or exceed our competition.
- jwhite 17y ago
  I highly recommend "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley for a really interesting look at what might have caused our species to develop this way. It is not as simple as one might think.
Tichy 17y ago
This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody? How about by watching ads I screw the people who paid for the ads, as there is no way those ads would affect me in a positive way? I don't see how one is worse than the other. If a web site asks people who hate ads to watch ads, they are screwing the people who pay for the ads. They should be thankful for ad blockers, because at least they prevent me from getting negative emotions towards the advertised stuff. If I block ads, the site should have a higher conversion rate, so they should be able to ask for more money for the ad impressions.
- dandelany 17y ago
  > This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody? Yes. As Ars said explicitly in their post, every time you choose to block the rendering of an ad on their page, their ad provider does not count the impression, and they do not get paid anything. So yes, you're directly screwing Ars by costing them money, denying them revenue, and nullifying their business model. > If a web site asks people who hate ads to watch ads, they are screwing the people who pay for the ads. In the first instance, "screwing" means "putting out of business". In the second, it means "mildly inconveniencing". > If I block ads, the site should have a higher conversion rate Again, if you'd read Ars' post, you would know that they are paid on impressions, not conversion rate.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    "Again, if you'd read Ars' post, you would know that they are paid on impressions, not conversion rate." I read that, but as I said, if they have a higher conversion rate, they should be able to negotiate a higher fee for the ads anyway. On the other aspects, I guess we just disagree (why is it worse to screw advertisers than ad pushing people)?
    - doron 17y ago
      revenue from impressions is a speculative hogwash remnant of the print medium and needs to go The idea one makes money from ads simply by having it displayed is copying a highly speculative advertising model of print (where the effect can hardly be measured) to the web (where you can measure it be by actual clicks) put simply its vaporware of the worst kind, and a business that hedges its revenue on this model is hedging its existence on speculation alone. The premise of advertising on the web is highly informed by age old print models that have failed that industry and put into doubt the efficacy of anything that is uttered in them. users have a choice. You want effective Ads on the web, offer the users something,so they wont block you. or go away. effective Ads on the web are to be about incentive. I own the delivery device, i can manipulate it as i will. This is not a newspaper, i control it, not the vendor. i will do what i want with it. the business owner need to give me a an incentive.
barrkel 17y ago
As many people love to point out, it's companies' fiduciary duty to screw people, impersonally, as much as possible. The distance and amenability to machine automation that technology adds makes it easier for customers to treat companies in a similar way. What if the technology wasn't visible, wasn't in browsers, but instead was in our heads? What if we had a perfect ability to selectively filter out what we see and not let it affect us consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously? What if our awarenesses were so under our control that advertising could be scientifically proven to be useless? Would this ability to focus our minds, free ourselves from distractions and pay deliberate attention only to what we willed, be morally or ethically wrong?
philk 17y ago
I'm not sure it's a particularly new development. People have been acting in their own self-interest for time immemorial. (And indeed economic models which work on the basis of enlightened self interest have been the most successful and delivered the most good to their adherents).

SilianRail 17y ago

Advertising = Jobs

scrod 17y ago
Imprisoning people for nonviolent crimes = Jobs
- Willie_Dynamite 17y ago
  Wait, are you arguing that violent crimes are the only ones people should go to prison for? What about say, Bernie Madoff?
  - rick888 17y ago
    "Imprisoning people for nonviolent crimes = Jobs" No. He is saying that pot should be legalized. It's funny because I have heard so many pro-pot legalization people that our prisons shouldn't be filled with people that do drugs. I have not heard of one person that is in prison for personal consumption of drugs. Most cops won't even bother. The people in prison are the dealers.
gvb 17y ago
y'know, the fast talking one. http://gizmodo.com/5105045/the-first-apple-tech-support-call-ever http://gizmodo.com/5105045/the-first-apple-tech-support-call...
Deestan 17y ago
Legalizing armed robbery = Jobs

zb 17y ago

Ars Technica: "I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical..." This guy (first sentence, no less): "There's an interesting article on Ars Technica about how blocking ads is somehow unethical..." Give me a break.

briancarper 17y ago
The article starts off saying that ad-blocking is not unethical, but then goes on to strongly imply that it is. e.g. I think in some ways the Internet and its vast anonymity feeds into a culture where many people do not think about the people, the families, the careers that go into producing a website. And: And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads. These sound like ethical statements to me. I may be reading more into the language of the article than is warranted, but that's how I read it: "Don't block ads because it hurts people, hurts businesses, and is therefore wrong to do."
- ErrantX 17y ago
  I think they can say they feel it borders on unethical (which is the impression I got from it). Along the lines of: "ok so you can block our ads, but that's a bit sucky guys :(" On the topic of your article (I assume it's yours?): I pay for a book, and then I read the book start-to-finish with no ads, no distractions. A few pages at the back maybe, but I can ignore those. Books are nice. I assume you can see the difference here? In terms of forcing you too look at the ads. I dont think the ars article tries to imply that either. They are saying they would appreciate it if you looked at their ads. Please. I dont know if you have seen the ars site with ads but they are one I personally unblock: they aren't particularly in your face, are generally aesthetically pleasing and I also like their content (some of the best on the web). Encouraging that approach is a plus IMO. If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down. Seems a "shoot yourself in the foot" scenario. Chances are people wouldn't actually pay monetary cost for your content - people hate doing that generally. Adverts are "zero cost" to a consumer :) most are happy to swap free content for a few adverts. Why is it unethical, as your seemingly suggesting, to do that? :)

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

swombat 17y ago
Ok, let's take a simple example here. Google published loads of Chrome adverts to raise awareness of their new browser. The result of those adverts is that a lot of people switched to Chrome, making it a valid browser choice and, hopefully, hastening IE's demise. A number of people who read about Chrome in adverts would only have heard of it a year later if it wasn't for the ads. I think those ads were perfectly well justified - they raised awareness for a product which most people didn't even know existed. There's many more examples like this. I think your point is incorrect. PS: I don't actually support Ars in this anti-ad-blocker thing. I think ad blockers are absolutely fair game, much like ads themselves are. Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. They shouldn't come whining about ad blockers, they should just upgrade their business models to something that works in a world of ad blockers. That said, declaring that ads are completely useless is equally wrong.
- dandelany 17y ago
  > Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. Ars isn't demanding that you pay attention to the ads, they're asking you to simply render them, so that their ad provider counts the impression and pays them the tenth of a cent that covers the bandwidth you just used to load the page. That doesn't seem like much to ask.
  - swombat 17y ago
    First, if that's the case, then Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. In any case, fuck'em. It's a wild world out there. If you don't wanna deal with it, don't. There'll be plenty of other publications willing to step in to fill the gap.

isleyaardvark 17y ago

"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down." He makes it sound easy. As though there weren't a multitude of websites facing the same problem with covering their operating costs. TV before cable faced a similar dilemma. Anyone could access it, but how do you pay for it? Ads did. Cable TV came along with commercial-free channels, but the consumer would pay for those directly. That solution has been discussed with some websites, and it's generally ill-received (e.g. NYT, Hulu). I think ads can work, I wish they were done better in many cases. What I won't do is criticize them for their business model without offering a suggestion of my own.

petercooper 17y ago
A key here is that Ars is trying to find another way - their $50/year subscriptions. See http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/ http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/ Clearly not enough people value what they do enough to warrant paying $50 a year (I don't, but I only go on their site a few times a year and am totally cool with seeing the ads so I consider it great value).

blhack 17y ago

I really don't understand this sentiment. If you don't like the ads, stop using the site. There is a coffee shop in Tempe, AZ that I very very rarely go to. Why? Because the wifi there is horrible. It's slow; there are too many people there using pandora and not enough bandwidth to go around. Would it be appropriate for me to whine about this while continuing to go there? When using a website (or any service) you are basically choosing to endure a bit of inconvenience (spending money, or viewing ads) in exchange for something you want (coffee, content). I get that people want to skip the first part, but I don't get how they think that could ever work.

natrius 17y ago

It's painful to see so many intelligent people unable or unwilling to analyze the effects their actions cause. If you block ads on sites you enjoy without communicating with the producers of that site, you are lowering the probability that sites you enjoy will continue to be produced. There are several ways to mitigate this effect if you don't like ads: 1) Pay for a subscription. 2) If no subscription is offered, ask for one to be offered. 3) If you'd simply like less offensive ads, ask for less offensive ads. Taking actions that in sum lower the probability of things you like being produced in the future is incredibly stupid. "The internet is also a wonderful thing. FIRST a person or company puts a lot of information somewhere that everyone can read it effortlessly for free, and THEN they sometimes expect me to look at their ads. And I can simply choose not to." Ars Technica doesn't expect you to look at their ads. They expect you to render their ads or pay for a subscription. If you choose to do neither of those, you are a parasite.

metamemetics 17y ago
3rd party javascript ads hosted on ad servers should be blocked. The majority of them disrespect web site viewers, so it is a rational decision for web site viewers to block them. If a site is running ads that they don't mind being associated with and are worthy of reader's attention, they shouldnt mind hosting them directly from their webserver as content.
- natrius 17y ago
  Inform sites which you enjoy of this opinion. If you don't, you're just reducing the probability of sites you like existing in the future, which is stupid.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    This would all be very well, if I cared enough about the majority of sites. For example if HN would start popup ads, I might communicate. Most other sites first have to make me like them enough, and they don't do that by pushing obnoxious ads. For what it's worth, I wish all those people complaining would indeed just block their entire site for people with ad blockers. I don't even want to see their sites anymore. Or at least they should have a warning splash page: "warning, if you proceed to this site, you are stealing from us - OK/Cancel".

bjelkeman-again 17y ago

I rather like Ars. The content is a bit varied in quality, but I do have a look at it most days. The best content makes me reminisce about Byte Magazine. The ads are annoying. The alternative is $50/year. It just feels like quite a big sum of money when the extra benefits are not that interesting. $50/year that also gives me a good daily iPad edition, with articles I can save, without ads and full archive access may start being in the right realm for me. Maybe I should just pony up the $50 to experiment, I did save it on my dropped newspaper subscription recently. :)

gizmo 17y ago
$50 a year is the price of 2 books (or one more expensive technical book). Every year I buy at least a dozen books I don't read. So I wouldn't say that $50 is an unreasonable amount if they content is good.

thinkbohemian 17y ago

What if someone made a browser plugin where every time an you visited a website it gave that website 1/1000th of a cent (and took 1/1000th of a cent out of your paypal/google-checkout/etc. account), and in exchange that website saw the plugin and served you a version with no ads. How many people would choose to use this plugin?

gizmo 17y ago
I would. Of course, every website in the world would have to support it and micropayments don't work, so... it's not realistic.
- thinkbohemian 17y ago
  You don't have to get every website to support it, just the big name advertisers. If the money went straight to adwords... that covers 80% of web real estate.

Malcx 17y ago

By contrast, books (for example) are awesome. I pay for a book, and then I read the book start-to-finish with no ads Thats the issue, you paid money for the book, it's the business model the author used to make writing the book worthwhile. Historically the Internet doesn't seem to support content producers this way.

Tichy 17y ago
Then remind me again, why don't the advertising sites just block people with ad blockers?
- jimmyjim 17y ago
  You know, amidst the ad-block debate today, I actually see an opportunity ripe for a start-up. A system that lets willing participants opt out of ad-viewship for direct micropayments. Wait a second, I think what I'm describing is close to the new 'Flattr' -- but still not quite it. Let the users choose between micropayments or ad-viewership.
  - Groxx 17y ago
    I'd love micropayments. The problem currently is that there's no good way to do them, as there are no microtransactions that aren't just paying into the transaction-manager's pockets. * looks at flattr * will have to poke into that. edit: why not a combination? Micro-pay at a minimum value (say a couple cents) to get no ads. Click more than once to add more payment % to that site.
  - huhtenberg 17y ago
    Contenture tried just that and they couldn't pull it off. http://searchyc.com/contenture http://searchyc.com/contenture
- vl 17y ago
  Some of the sites already do that.

petercooper 17y ago

Stop making the world a garish and hideous place to live by flooding it with ads. There are people so soft that they consider the world a "hideous place to live" because of some advertising? There are people who can barely eat each day without getting so offended by a few commercials. It so happens that advertisements are devastating to my well-being. This is crazy talk. Is it even possible to argue against someone who resorts to saying they get "very emotional" when seeing any sort of advertising or that advertising "devastates" their well being? Is he scared of animal crackers as well?

briancarper 17y ago
I use hyperbole to emphasize a point. I don't cry myself to sleep when I see an ad, no. Sometimes I become mildly annoyed. Life is generally OK. Likewise, ad-blocking isn't really "devastating" the internet, is it?
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  Speaking for myself, it's very difficult to take you seriously when you use hyperbole to this extreme. Let's be completely honest here: you wrote it this way because you knew it would get more of a reaction and people wouldn't just ignore it, like they would have if you had written "It mildly annoys me." In other words, you changed your messaging to fit the market and get the results you wanted from people through emotional manipulation. Sound familiar?
  - briancarper 17y ago
    No, I wrote it this way because I do feel strongly about it. I used the word "devastated" as a play on the title of the other article. I'm not "devastated", but I do feel strongly enough about this issue to alter my lifestyle, for example (e.g. avoiding TV and radio, which I very much wish I was able to enjoy). I expect some people will agree and some disagree with what I wrote. I enjoy the discussion, but I don't get anything else out of it. I didn't have any notion that I'd convince anyone of anything. It was not an attempt to manipulate anyone. Not a conscious attempt anyways. Certainly not an attempt to manipulate people into giving me money, so I think the analogy doesn't hold. However I may be wrong about this, it may be that my language is overboard in the way you say. Thanks for some food for thought.

detcader 17y ago

The real culprit isn't people blocking ads; it's the free-market nature of internet economy that allows companies/websites to rely solely on advertisement, causing internet ads to be so populated.

rogermugs 17y ago

if ads make wonderful software free (twitterrific 4 iphone), then sign me up.

zacharypinter 17y ago
I think twitterrific is a great example of (relatively) unobtrusive advertising. They've pulled it off well.

moron4hire 17y ago

Profit is not wrong. Profit is not screwing someone. Any freely contracted trade results in a net benefit for both parties. It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered. When someone says ads are "screwing them over", I have to laugh and wonder what kind of life that person leads that annoying ads are considered an atrocity. If you want to see being "screwed over", look no further than our tax code. Our tax code is a system where one does not own 40% of their life, where there is an explicit understanding that anyone above a certain income level is not going to get out of it what they pay into it, where there has become a rational expectation that the money will largely -- to the order of 90% -- be wasted on bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption. In all of the battlefields of life, you choose online advertisements to rail against? Hell, give Sally Struthers a dollar a day already.

JabavuAdams 17y ago
> It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered. This is Econ 101 dogma. I'm surprised you can write this without examining it further. People are not rational actors. That's why advertising works. What's particularly interesting about your using this argument is that advertising exists precisely to manipulate the non-rational decision making of consumers. Once we realize that humans in general are wired such that they make certain cognitive mistakes again, and again, we have to modify our understanding of a "freely contracted trade". A trade where I take advantage of your human nature to encourage you to make a decision that is in my interest is not truly freely-entered. With respect to your tax rant ... you should know that people respond more to what is annoying or vivid than to longer term considerations. Ads are a low-grade but constant irritation, whereas I make enough money that taxes are just some numbers on paper.
- moron4hire 17y ago
  Wow, I had no idea that human beings were such simple creatures that they could be compelled to purchase goods and services against their best interests by a simple flashing picture. While advertising is primarily persuasive (there is still a significant informative portion of advertising), there's nothing wrong with being persuasive. You're attempting to be persuasive with your replies in this thread. If being persuasive is being unethically manipulative, then we had better stop all debate right now.

zackattack 17y ago

I think that advertising is indeed devastating to our collective well being, but not for the miserly reasons you enumerated. I think that advertising conditions us to associate happiness with things or circumstances external, rather than from a place inside ourselves. Which is fundamentally fucked. To the author: I think that if you cut the paranoia, you would actually be wealthier in spirit as well as material "net worth".

Tichy 17y ago

OK, a thought experiment: what about an ad blocker that downloads the ad, but doesn't display it? Because the argument seems to be that it is not necessary to look at the ad, only to download it, so that the site get's paid. I am pretty sure such an downloading ad blocker would be considered a kind of click fraud.

Groxx 17y ago
Well, any CSS `display: none` trick does this. I've been using it for years in my own minor-tweaks, because hiding via CSS with a user stylesheet is easy compared to hacking something like AdBlock.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Not so sure, I guess browsers have become smarter. I don't think they generally load images that are invisible. At least I seem to remember having experienced that, don't remember the exact circumstances, though.
  - Groxx 17y ago
    Looking at webkit's inspector, at least, they are still downloaded. At least with my use, but I've only ever hidden entire divs.

adammichaelc 17y ago

"The idea that I have a moral obligation to stare at an advertisment, the thought I have an ethical obligation to voluntarily annoy myself for the sake of a company's profits... it would be hilarious if it wasn't so repugnant." The author seems to be saying that he is entitled to take from the creator of content without having any obligation to give something in return. I believe that this misses one of the most basic principles of our economy - namely the idea of a value-exchange. You get, you give. I believe it's morally wrong to get, get, get, and not be willing to give. No, he has no obligation to stare at an advertisement, but if he's not willing to stare at the ad he should look at other ways to compensate the creator of content or else not feel entitled to view the content. Not that it matters, but the author's post is obviously link-bait also.

zacharypinter 17y ago
I think the author is trying to say ask if people should treat the cat-and-mouse game between businesses and consumers with the same respect as exchanges between individuals. I agree it's morally questionable to "get, get, get, and not be willing to give", however, how many companies do you expect to think that way when dealing with consumers?

ShardPhoenix 17y ago

This discussion reminds me that the only site where I haven't minded the ads so much (and I think I might have even bought something from an ad there once), is Penny Arcade. The reason is that they carefully choose ad campaigns to be tasteful and only advertise stuff that they themselves consider worthy of purchase. I still don't like them enough to turn off adblock specifically for that site though, so I guess that counts as collateral damage.

colah 17y ago

You know, I'd like to not block adds. I really don't want to. But some sites make me. I didn't block them until a few months a go. But there were some adds that were just so obnoxious. The worst were these ones that played really loud sounds -- they made me keep my speakers mute, because I didn't want my computer to spontaneously start playing music and wake people up. One day I was just utterly fed up. I went to Mozilla's site, downloaded an add-blocker, set it to the default settings, and voila! Everything was much nicer. I'm going to reinstall my OS soon -- I find using apt-get to upgrade break things -- and I'll use the Internet without an add-blocker for a few days. If things are as bad as they were, I'll use one again. Maybe try and find a list that only blocks obnoxious adds, though.

betageek 17y ago

Wish I had time to build an AdFundedSiteBlocker - extension for Firefox that doesn't allow you to read the content on a site if it has ads on it.

ig1 17y ago

Ars article was about how when they blocked the ad-blockers people complained. If you have the views espoused in this article you should have no problem using an ad blocker which tells the web-server that it's blocking ads and leaves it's up to the website whether it chooses to return you content sans-advertising. If you're using an ad blocker that specifically misleads the website into thinking ads are being viewed when they're not, then that's clearly unethical. Imagine if you asked someone for a favour and they asked you for a favour in return. And then they did what you wanted but you only pretended to do what they wanted. That's exactly the same situation as this.

mbrubeck 17y ago

While the arguments about ethics and morality are relevant, I prefer to focus on the implicit challenge: Can more publishers find ways to make money from ad-free content? Adblock is like Napster. People want the content; the vast majority of publishers only have one business model; a lot of consumers doesn't like the price they're being asked for the benefit they're getting, and many of them are willing to take the content without paying. There are always people who won't pay no matter what - in the music world, filesharing is still around. But a lot of people started paying for music again when Amazon and Apple and eMusic changed the price structure to something they were willing to pay. There are a few sites like LiveJournal and MetaFilter that have ad-free options for paid users. Maybe this is a small niche and will never be big business. But maybe there are a lot more user who would pay to support ad-free content - if the price is right.

DennisP 17y ago

The solution seems obvious. Run adblock, and also run a background script that reads your browser history and hits the same sites, ads included, without displaying anything. You get your clean Internet and as far as the advertisers can tell, they're getting their "impressions."