6 ms·

Why is it unethical? What ethical principle is being violated? (These are not rhetorical questions.)

by pythia__ 10y ago

paulcole 10y ago
On the Internet, unethical = I don't like it
- RobAley 10y ago
  Well that's all ethics are anywhere. There's no concrete list of universally agreed ethics, by definition people pick and choose what they deem ethical for whatever reasons they want.
- GunlogAlm 10y ago
  In real life, unethical = I don't like it Do you think there is some ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't "ethical"?
Karunamon 10y ago
Misleading to the user - any person who downloads a thing called "adblock" expects it to block ads. (A less charitable person may point out that a program that claims to do one thing and actually does another is known as a "trojan horse") The same way a person who downloads an antivirus expects it to block viruses.
endemic 10y ago
I wouldn't call it "unethical;" perhaps "unexpected?" Seems like an appropriate adjective for an ad blocker which displays ads.
jackhack 10y ago
Trust. Performing the exact opposite of the stated and expected purpose of the application, for money, is a violation of trust. There is an implied belief that a product should do what it claims (and its name clearly states a purpose -- ad BLOCK), and the plain English reading of the title makes that pretty clear. Imagine a virus scanner that only blocked those viruses that didn't pay up.
- frandroid 10y ago
  Well, huh, they do state the purpose clear on their homepage: Surf the web without annoying ads! Can block tracking, malware domains, banners, pop-ups and video ads - even on Facebook and YouTube Unobtrusive ads aren't being blocked in order to support websites (configurable) It's free! (GPLv3)
- avn2109 10y ago
  I have never trusted the ABP people. But this is not the "opposite of the expected purpose of the application." In fact ABP is working exactly as designed, by blocking other people's ads, and allowing ads that ABP profits from. From day one, the business model was shakedowns of large advertisers. This is just a slight evolution in technique.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  This is a conflict of values between users and the devs. - Users want ads to just go away, period, the end. - The devs want ads to be nice. So they swat down the nasty ones and permit the nice ones. Ransomware was probably the wrong way to do that, but I can see why it was superficially appealing. "We check your ads for niceness, and then permit them. We won't give our effort away for free", being the idea behind it.
  - gcb0 10y ago
    except by nice ads they mean anyone willing to pay to get whitelisted
    - JulianMorrison 10y ago
      Is this actually true? Can you give an example of a dumb or distracting or obnoxiously obtrusive ad that got whitelisted for pay?
      - gcb0 10y ago
        sadly no. i know NDA are void in california, but california also has employment at will.
cptskippy 10y ago
Blocking Ad is itself unethical. Ads are placed on pages to pay for the content. By blocking ads you are depriving the content creators of compensation for their work. Replacing Ads with other ads is worse because you're not only depriving a content creator of revenue but then profiting off of their work. You could argue that it amounts to theft.
- dsr_ 10y ago
  Do you also think that leaving the room or changing the channel when the TV or radio plays an ad is unethical? Is using fast-forward on your DVR unethical? Is skimming past the ads in a newspaper or magazine unethical? Is it ethical to let your eyes glide past the ads shown in a browser? Is it ethical to read books from a free library rather than buying the right to read a copy from a store?
  - cptskippy 10y ago
    Suppose someone offered you a free TV to sit through a 2 hour presentation about a timeshare. Does that entitle you to just take the TV and leave without sitting through the presentation?
    - dsr_ 10y ago
      You chose a particularly interesting example: as far as I can tell, to a first approximation, all timeshares are scams designed to separate a fool from their money. So if I had the free time, I would consider attending in order to ask pointed questions and warn other people away.
      - cptskippy 10y ago
        You could also make the argument that ads or ad networks are potentially dangerous. That doesn't make Ad Blocking ethical, just justified. The ethical thing to do would be to either not use an Ad Blocker or not visit sites that are ad supported, neither of which is realistic if I'm being honest. I think we're at a very Napster moment for content websites.
Spooky23 10y ago
There's a significant difference between providing a tool to allow an end user to take an action and leveraging your position as a middleman to inject content. This is no different than the egregious behavior displayed by Verizon and others. What gives Ad Block Plus the right or qualification to determine that my ad is a "bad" ad? Why should ABP have the ability to suppress editorial or advertising content on my website, replace it with it's own advertising content and not share revenue with me? Ad blocking itself may be considered a ethical issue as well, but it's a different ethical issue. With blocking, the decision is ultimately made by the end user. With ad injection, ABP is making itself a third party stakeholder.
sathio 10y ago
it is a man in the middle changing your DOM with stuff that profits them. how can you tolerate this?
- randomnerdiness 10y ago
  That's precisely my argument against it.
IncRnd 10y ago
The application does the opposite of what users believe it's purpose to be. Ad revenue is stolen from ads it blocks.

Why is it unethical? What ethical principle is being violated? (These are not rhetorical questions.)

paulcole 10y ago

On the Internet, unethical = I don't like it

RobAley 10y ago
Well that's all ethics are anywhere. There's no concrete list of universally agreed ethics, by definition people pick and choose what they deem ethical for whatever reasons they want.
GunlogAlm 10y ago
In real life, unethical = I don't like it Do you think there is some ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't "ethical"?

Karunamon 10y ago

Misleading to the user - any person who downloads a thing called "adblock" expects it to block ads. (A less charitable person may point out that a program that claims to do one thing and actually does another is known as a "trojan horse") The same way a person who downloads an antivirus expects it to block viruses.

endemic 10y ago

I wouldn't call it "unethical;" perhaps "unexpected?" Seems like an appropriate adjective for an ad blocker which displays ads.

jackhack 10y ago

Trust. Performing the exact opposite of the stated and expected purpose of the application, for money, is a violation of trust. There is an implied belief that a product should do what it claims (and its name clearly states a purpose -- ad BLOCK), and the plain English reading of the title makes that pretty clear. Imagine a virus scanner that only blocked those viruses that didn't pay up.

frandroid 10y ago
Well, huh, they do state the purpose clear on their homepage: Surf the web without annoying ads! Can block tracking, malware domains, banners, pop-ups and video ads - even on Facebook and YouTube Unobtrusive ads aren't being blocked in order to support websites (configurable) It's free! (GPLv3)
avn2109 10y ago
I have never trusted the ABP people. But this is not the "opposite of the expected purpose of the application." In fact ABP is working exactly as designed, by blocking other people's ads, and allowing ads that ABP profits from. From day one, the business model was shakedowns of large advertisers. This is just a slight evolution in technique.
JulianMorrison 10y ago
This is a conflict of values between users and the devs. - Users want ads to just go away, period, the end. - The devs want ads to be nice. So they swat down the nasty ones and permit the nice ones. Ransomware was probably the wrong way to do that, but I can see why it was superficially appealing. "We check your ads for niceness, and then permit them. We won't give our effort away for free", being the idea behind it.
- gcb0 10y ago
  except by nice ads they mean anyone willing to pay to get whitelisted
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    Is this actually true? Can you give an example of a dumb or distracting or obnoxiously obtrusive ad that got whitelisted for pay?
    - gcb0 10y ago
      sadly no. i know NDA are void in california, but california also has employment at will.

cptskippy 10y ago

Blocking Ad is itself unethical. Ads are placed on pages to pay for the content. By blocking ads you are depriving the content creators of compensation for their work. Replacing Ads with other ads is worse because you're not only depriving a content creator of revenue but then profiting off of their work. You could argue that it amounts to theft.

dsr_ 10y ago
Do you also think that leaving the room or changing the channel when the TV or radio plays an ad is unethical? Is using fast-forward on your DVR unethical? Is skimming past the ads in a newspaper or magazine unethical? Is it ethical to let your eyes glide past the ads shown in a browser? Is it ethical to read books from a free library rather than buying the right to read a copy from a store?
- cptskippy 10y ago
  Suppose someone offered you a free TV to sit through a 2 hour presentation about a timeshare. Does that entitle you to just take the TV and leave without sitting through the presentation?
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    You chose a particularly interesting example: as far as I can tell, to a first approximation, all timeshares are scams designed to separate a fool from their money. So if I had the free time, I would consider attending in order to ask pointed questions and warn other people away.
    - cptskippy 10y ago
      You could also make the argument that ads or ad networks are potentially dangerous. That doesn't make Ad Blocking ethical, just justified. The ethical thing to do would be to either not use an Ad Blocker or not visit sites that are ad supported, neither of which is realistic if I'm being honest. I think we're at a very Napster moment for content websites.

Spooky23 10y ago

There's a significant difference between providing a tool to allow an end user to take an action and leveraging your position as a middleman to inject content. This is no different than the egregious behavior displayed by Verizon and others. What gives Ad Block Plus the right or qualification to determine that my ad is a "bad" ad? Why should ABP have the ability to suppress editorial or advertising content on my website, replace it with it's own advertising content and not share revenue with me? Ad blocking itself may be considered a ethical issue as well, but it's a different ethical issue. With blocking, the decision is ultimately made by the end user. With ad injection, ABP is making itself a third party stakeholder.

sathio 10y ago

it is a man in the middle changing your DOM with stuff that profits them. how can you tolerate this?

randomnerdiness 10y ago
That's precisely my argument against it.

IncRnd 10y ago

The application does the opposite of what users believe it's purpose to be. Ad revenue is stolen from ads it blocks.