6 ms·

> There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with an ad-blocker. Haha, that is a huge, unbacked assertion in this article. Maybe under some ethical systems i

> There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with an ad-blocker. Haha, that is a huge, unbacked assertion in this article. Maybe under some ethical systems it's not wrong. However, some of us recognize the concept of a social contract where there is an implicit agreement that if you want to use someone else's resources and they ask payment for it, you are obligated to either 1. Pay them the way they ask (including by viewing the ads they ask you to). or 2. Not use their resources. Option three, which is to circumvent paying them by some means, does not become ethical merely because it's easy. You could also look at this through the lens of the categorical imperative. We haven't yet devised a means through which people can pay for things efficiently over the internet. Ads are the only current viable way to conduct business in situations that call for many small payments for small pieces of content. If everyone blocks ads, this business model becomes impossible, creating a detrimental reality. Thus, according to the categorical imperative, ad blocking is immoral. > It is no different than using any other technology to filter language or explicit content. This is incorrect. On typical webpages the author of the content is not being compensated for your hearing curse words or the possibility of your hearing them. > No one is being harmed. Not in a direct sense, but in a statistical and economic sense they are. Basically, this entire article-let is a big instance of begging the question. It reduces to "nothing is wrong with blocking ads because there's nothing unethical about blocking ads," with no correct support. Or, to put it even more ridiculously (but, I think, still being fair to the actual logical content of the article): "nothing is wrong with blocking ads because nothing is wrong with blocking ads."

rue 17y ago
> 1. Pay them the way they ask. Perhaps you are overlooking the actual problem: they are asking to be paid $0. There is no price for using the service. They hope to make their buck from a commission on third-party auxiliary content. If they ask to be paid something, i.e. institute a micropayment- or subscription system, circumventing that is unethical, I agree.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  The price is downloading and displaying the ads. I'm sorry if that was unclear -- I'll edit my previous post to make it more obvious.
  - rue 17y ago
    Mind, also, that if we are talking about ethics: is downloading and displaying the ads enough? Am I ethically obligated to actually view or read the ads? If not, is the website acting ethically accepting money for something it cannot guarantee to the advertiser its users will do? What if you are paying for a subscription of some kind? Is it ethical to block ads then? Or is it even ethical for the site to try to show ads if you are already paying them?
    - houseabsolute 17y ago
      If the advertiser told you you had to read them thoroughly, then you might be obligated. However, when content owners put up ads normally all they ask you (/your browser) to do is display them. > What if you are paying for a subscription of some kind? Is it ethical to block ads then? Or is it even ethical for the site to try to show ads if you are already paying them? I am not sure. If the advertiser says in your agreement that your subscription fee is the sole payment you need to give them, then blocking ads would surely be fine if they display them. If not, probably still not ethical, though I'm a little more gray on it. It is certainly ethical for content providers to ask payment in composite form from you, but they should be straightforward with you about whether or not you will be expected to display ads even after you pay for their service.
ehsanul 17y ago
For those who ignore all ads anyways though, using an ad-block simply takes away some distractions and let's both you and the ad-server use less bandwidth. For people who are immune to advertising anyways, I see no harm to the content producers and advertisers.
- rewind 17y ago
  If content producers are being paid by views, then you're decreasing their revenue.
  - ehsanul 17y ago
    However, by selling views to a person like me who doesn't help advertisers at all, CPM eventually goes down. So that argument doesn't really hold water. You want views to go to people who are influenced by the ads, otherwise it's just a waste.
    - houseabsolute 17y ago
      Except for advertisers that are doing brand advertising, or any number of other edge cases.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  You don't actually know yourself to be immune to advertising, though, nor can you. If it were possible for someone to know themselves to be perfectly immune to advertising, you might be right. But that, like knowledge of your courage in the face of death or your absolute quality as a lover, is beyond your ken. Your argument is like the defense of a man who steals an unpopular toy from the shelf, reasoning from his knowledge of the sales of previous unpopular toys that some will surely be returned to the manufacturer and eventually discarded. Yet his action is still unethical because he doesn't truly know to the degree of certainty the moral test demands.
  - krainboltgreene 17y ago
    Bwahahaha. adblock = stealing That's awesome. Wow. Alright, from now on I'm not going to install an adblock, you've convinced me. ... Except I haven't clicked on an ad in 9 years anyways. Shit, I guess I'm just a perpetual thief.
krainboltgreene 17y ago
If I have the mind and knowledge to install an Ad blocker, I was never going to click on your ads anyways.
- axod 17y ago
  How many times..... Many adverts are paid by the impression, not the click.
  - ehsanul 17y ago
    And the more impressions served that have no real value, the lower CPM falls.
- scott_s 17y ago
  From the piece that (I think) started this meta-discussion on HN, http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking... There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue.
  - gills 17y ago
    That quote seems to amount to "download the damn ads anyway, even though it'll be a cold day in hell that you find one useful, so we can get paid." Am I the only person to whom that seems arbitrarily close to coercing users into participating in a scheme to intentionally mis-price advertising rates? Also, "hurt a site financially" seems a bit hyperbolic; ad-blocking users are priced in to CPM. If a content site's audience intersects largely with adblock users, and they don't like the revenue picture, they are more likely to succeed by exploring alternate revenue models or move to serving different audiences, than by convincing their users to change. [edit] I'm not trying to make a judgment on adblockers being right or wrong, just pointing out what I see as inconsistencies in the argument against them.
gills 17y ago
"Circumventing payment" really is not in this case. It's the other half of the price-finding mechanism in the marketplace for content, which is suspiciously missing from option 1 above. Every price is negotiable, and in this case some small segment of the target audience is offering $0 for the content. By your logic, it's immoral to mute the TV, go to the kitchen, and make a sandwich during the commercial break. In reality, some percentage of the population makes sandwiches instead of watching ads, and this behavior is priced into the advertising contracts.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  > and in this case some small segment of the target audience is offering $0 for the content. There is a segment like this in every market. It doesn't follow that that segment may ethically consume the content at the price they find acceptable. To be morally right, they must negotiate to a price that the provider also finds agreeable. If they cannot reach agreement on a price, the only morally correct thing is to refrain from consuming the content, _not_ to just consume it anyway.
Tichy 17y ago
It's the internet, though. Am I not free to maybe even switch off JavaScript as a whole, or use a browser that can only display text? I thought the general understanding is that you may watch internet sites with whatever browser you like. Unless the site specifically implements restrictions (IE only, for example). But in general, sorry, but it can't be unethical to switch off JavaScript. And the ethics of pushing ads into people's faces are also debatable.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  +1 to you and the parent that you replied to. Good points in both.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  If your browser lacks a certain capability for reasons other than avoiding paying content providers for their content you consume, it's their responsibility to work around that weakness, or else forbid you from using the site. If they do neither, then it's a tacit agreement that in your special case they are willing to provide the content for free.
naner 17y ago
Ok, so lets assume that there is an implied agreement upon visiting a website and ad-blocking is therefore closer to "bad" than "good" on the ethical spectrum. Now lets consider that all advertising is intentionally manipulative and deceptive. Where does advertising fall on the ethical spectrum? My point isn't that you shouldn't use advertisements to fund your site. I'm just saying that this 'ethical' argument doesn't matter. You see, even if you believe that advertising is perfectly ethical and that filtering is unquestionably unethical, I'm still OK with that situation. And I would still block ads. Because in terms of ethics, adblocking is so insignificant it doesn't even register. To further illustrate: taking more than a living wage while people are starving all over the world and directly causing pollution are both unethical (to me) and I do both every day. I do my best to minimize the damage but I'm not willing to completely give up my lifestyle. And in my mind, these are things that matter way more than implied agreements concerning filtering on websites. So concerning advertising, I'm not willing to experience everyones obnoxious ads if I can help it. The ethical concerns are a joke. I'd consider becoming a vegan before turning off my adblocker. That is more important to me yet still not important enough that I've changed my behavior. (Steak is too yummy. Sorry Mr. Cow.) I also use readability and a text summarizer tool, too. Computers and the net are convenient that way: I can take what I want, mix it how I want, and leave the rest. P.S. Companies like Vibrant Media have ruined the internet.

rue 17y ago

> 1. Pay them the way they ask. Perhaps you are overlooking the actual problem: they are asking to be paid $0. There is no price for using the service. They hope to make their buck from a commission on third-party auxiliary content. If they ask to be paid something, i.e. institute a micropayment- or subscription system, circumventing that is unethical, I agree.

houseabsolute 17y ago
The price is downloading and displaying the ads. I'm sorry if that was unclear -- I'll edit my previous post to make it more obvious.
- rue 17y ago
  Mind, also, that if we are talking about ethics: is downloading and displaying the ads enough? Am I ethically obligated to actually view or read the ads? If not, is the website acting ethically accepting money for something it cannot guarantee to the advertiser its users will do? What if you are paying for a subscription of some kind? Is it ethical to block ads then? Or is it even ethical for the site to try to show ads if you are already paying them?
  - houseabsolute 17y ago
    If the advertiser told you you had to read them thoroughly, then you might be obligated. However, when content owners put up ads normally all they ask you (/your browser) to do is display them. > What if you are paying for a subscription of some kind? Is it ethical to block ads then? Or is it even ethical for the site to try to show ads if you are already paying them? I am not sure. If the advertiser says in your agreement that your subscription fee is the sole payment you need to give them, then blocking ads would surely be fine if they display them. If not, probably still not ethical, though I'm a little more gray on it. It is certainly ethical for content providers to ask payment in composite form from you, but they should be straightforward with you about whether or not you will be expected to display ads even after you pay for their service.

ehsanul 17y ago

For those who ignore all ads anyways though, using an ad-block simply takes away some distractions and let's both you and the ad-server use less bandwidth. For people who are immune to advertising anyways, I see no harm to the content producers and advertisers.

rewind 17y ago
If content producers are being paid by views, then you're decreasing their revenue.
- ehsanul 17y ago
  However, by selling views to a person like me who doesn't help advertisers at all, CPM eventually goes down. So that argument doesn't really hold water. You want views to go to people who are influenced by the ads, otherwise it's just a waste.
  - houseabsolute 17y ago
    Except for advertisers that are doing brand advertising, or any number of other edge cases.
houseabsolute 17y ago
You don't actually know yourself to be immune to advertising, though, nor can you. If it were possible for someone to know themselves to be perfectly immune to advertising, you might be right. But that, like knowledge of your courage in the face of death or your absolute quality as a lover, is beyond your ken. Your argument is like the defense of a man who steals an unpopular toy from the shelf, reasoning from his knowledge of the sales of previous unpopular toys that some will surely be returned to the manufacturer and eventually discarded. Yet his action is still unethical because he doesn't truly know to the degree of certainty the moral test demands.
- krainboltgreene 17y ago
  Bwahahaha. adblock = stealing That's awesome. Wow. Alright, from now on I'm not going to install an adblock, you've convinced me. ... Except I haven't clicked on an ad in 9 years anyways. Shit, I guess I'm just a perpetual thief.

krainboltgreene 17y ago

If I have the mind and knowledge to install an Ad blocker, I was never going to click on your ads anyways.

axod 17y ago
How many times..... Many adverts are paid by the impression, not the click.
- ehsanul 17y ago
  And the more impressions served that have no real value, the lower CPM falls.
scott_s 17y ago
From the piece that (I think) started this meta-discussion on HN, http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking... There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue.
- gills 17y ago
  That quote seems to amount to "download the damn ads anyway, even though it'll be a cold day in hell that you find one useful, so we can get paid." Am I the only person to whom that seems arbitrarily close to coercing users into participating in a scheme to intentionally mis-price advertising rates? Also, "hurt a site financially" seems a bit hyperbolic; ad-blocking users are priced in to CPM. If a content site's audience intersects largely with adblock users, and they don't like the revenue picture, they are more likely to succeed by exploring alternate revenue models or move to serving different audiences, than by convincing their users to change. [edit] I'm not trying to make a judgment on adblockers being right or wrong, just pointing out what I see as inconsistencies in the argument against them.

gills 17y ago

"Circumventing payment" really is not in this case. It's the other half of the price-finding mechanism in the marketplace for content, which is suspiciously missing from option 1 above. Every price is negotiable, and in this case some small segment of the target audience is offering $0 for the content. By your logic, it's immoral to mute the TV, go to the kitchen, and make a sandwich during the commercial break. In reality, some percentage of the population makes sandwiches instead of watching ads, and this behavior is priced into the advertising contracts.

houseabsolute 17y ago
> and in this case some small segment of the target audience is offering $0 for the content. There is a segment like this in every market. It doesn't follow that that segment may ethically consume the content at the price they find acceptable. To be morally right, they must negotiate to a price that the provider also finds agreeable. If they cannot reach agreement on a price, the only morally correct thing is to refrain from consuming the content, _not_ to just consume it anyway.

Tichy 17y ago

It's the internet, though. Am I not free to maybe even switch off JavaScript as a whole, or use a browser that can only display text? I thought the general understanding is that you may watch internet sites with whatever browser you like. Unless the site specifically implements restrictions (IE only, for example). But in general, sorry, but it can't be unethical to switch off JavaScript. And the ethics of pushing ads into people's faces are also debatable.

nfnaaron 17y ago
+1 to you and the parent that you replied to. Good points in both.
houseabsolute 17y ago
If your browser lacks a certain capability for reasons other than avoiding paying content providers for their content you consume, it's their responsibility to work around that weakness, or else forbid you from using the site. If they do neither, then it's a tacit agreement that in your special case they are willing to provide the content for free.

naner 17y ago

Ok, so lets assume that there is an implied agreement upon visiting a website and ad-blocking is therefore closer to "bad" than "good" on the ethical spectrum. Now lets consider that all advertising is intentionally manipulative and deceptive. Where does advertising fall on the ethical spectrum? My point isn't that you shouldn't use advertisements to fund your site. I'm just saying that this 'ethical' argument doesn't matter. You see, even if you believe that advertising is perfectly ethical and that filtering is unquestionably unethical, I'm still OK with that situation. And I would still block ads. Because in terms of ethics, adblocking is so insignificant it doesn't even register. To further illustrate: taking more than a living wage while people are starving all over the world and directly causing pollution are both unethical (to me) and I do both every day. I do my best to minimize the damage but I'm not willing to completely give up my lifestyle. And in my mind, these are things that matter way more than implied agreements concerning filtering on websites. So concerning advertising, I'm not willing to experience everyones obnoxious ads if I can help it. The ethical concerns are a joke. I'd consider becoming a vegan before turning off my adblocker. That is more important to me yet still not important enough that I've changed my behavior. (Steak is too yummy. Sorry Mr. Cow.) I also use readability and a text summarizer tool, too. Computers and the net are convenient that way: I can take what I want, mix it how I want, and leave the rest. P.S. Companies like Vibrant Media have ruined the internet.