6 ms·

Because I really enjoy not getting malware installed on my computer. As long as ads are one of the major vectors for malware installations, and ad networks bare

Because I really enjoy not getting malware installed on my computer. As long as ads are one of the major vectors for malware installations, and ad networks barely vet the ads they publish, I will be doing everything I can do to block them.

Klathmon 10y ago
If that were really the case, wouldn't paying the price for their premium package that has a 0% chance of having advertisements be better than using an adblocker which clearly has a greater than 0% chance at seeing ads?
- bahjoite 10y ago
  Of course not. Using an ad blocker means that ads are blocked at all sites. Paying for content at one site clearly doesn't affect the ads delivered by other sites.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. You can have an adblocker, and still pay for content...
    - bahjoite 10y ago
      Correct. People using ad blockers want to block ads. They don't necessarily want to pay to avoid seeing ads. They may still wish to pay for content they like. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
      - Klathmon 10y ago
        But in this case, it's pretty black and white. If you wanted to block ads, paying for the subscription is not only the ethical thing to do, but also much safer as it brings the possibility of being served ads to 0% If you are okay with viewing ads instead of paying, this is a non-issue, as you will be served the ads just like before.
        bahjoite 10y ago
        I disagree that paying for the subscription is the ethical thing to do. The publisher expressly allows the content to be consumed for free - they don't require payment for the content. Therefore it is not unethical to consume that content for free. That they desire us to view ads is beside the point: we're not obliged to view them, nor is it unethical to choose not to view them.
        Klathmon 10y ago
        They aren't expressly allowing the content to be consumed for free any more than a store-front that shows off products is allowing them to be taken for free. There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue. It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best.
        bahjoite 10y ago
        > They aren't expressly allowing the content to be consumed for free any more than a store-front that shows off products is allowing them to be taken for free. False equivalence. Further, they certainly are allowing the content to be consumed for free. > There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue. We violate nothing by choosing not to abide by the wish that we view ads. There is no obligation to do so. It has nothing to do with ethics. > It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best. I think you mean "ignorant at worst". At best, we are ideologically opposed. :)
        Klathmon 10y ago
        > We violate nothing by choosing not to abide by the wish that we view ads. There is no obligation to do so. It has nothing to do with ethics. Similar to how choosing to not abide by the wish that you pay for products. >I think you mean "ignorant at worst". At best, we are ideologically opposed. :) I mean ignorant at best. Pretending that there isn't even a discussion to be had about ethics in this area is just shoving your head into the sand.
- function_seven 10y ago
  Paying someone to not install malware on my machine makes it closer to protection money. Ad blockers do a pretty decent job of preventing ad-network malware, without me having to buy subscriptions to every website I visit.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    You can't just distill the argument down to that any more than I can say "going to the doctor is paying someone to not kill you"...
    - Spivak 10y ago
      I'm going to add content to my website that, if asked, nearly all of my users would prefer to be absent, and then charge those users to remove that content. The pattern is, intentionally make a service worse, and then charge to 'make it better'. The doctor analogy would be, "for an extra $1000 fee, your surgeon will wash his hands before the operation".
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - JadeNB 10y ago
        > The pattern is, intentionally make a service worse, and then charge to 'make it better'. Agreed; in the tech world, I'd call this the difference between buying a faster processor—the analogue of going to a doctor—and paying to avoid intentionally slowing down a processor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486SX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486SX).
- discreditable 10y ago
  I'd wager that even with a paid subscription they utilize JS-based tracking that ad-blockers block.
  - jhasse 10y ago
    They need a cookie to know that you paid, don't they? So they can track you anyway.
    - discreditable 10y ago
      JavaScript analytics are a completely different animal compared to session cookies.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  Actually, it is the other way around, paying for content has a high chance of being exposed to ads. Think of how candy crush adapts its difficulty the instant you pay for it. http://zen.lk/2015/07/19/Why-you-will-never-escape-ads-by-paying-for-content/ http://zen.lk/2015/07/19/Why-you-will-never-escape-ads-by-pa...

Klathmon 10y ago

If that were really the case, wouldn't paying the price for their premium package that has a 0% chance of having advertisements be better than using an adblocker which clearly has a greater than 0% chance at seeing ads?

bahjoite 10y ago
Of course not. Using an ad blocker means that ads are blocked at all sites. Paying for content at one site clearly doesn't affect the ads delivered by other sites.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. You can have an adblocker, and still pay for content...
  - bahjoite 10y ago
    Correct. People using ad blockers want to block ads. They don't necessarily want to pay to avoid seeing ads. They may still wish to pay for content they like. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      But in this case, it's pretty black and white. If you wanted to block ads, paying for the subscription is not only the ethical thing to do, but also much safer as it brings the possibility of being served ads to 0% If you are okay with viewing ads instead of paying, this is a non-issue, as you will be served the ads just like before.
      - bahjoite 10y ago
        I disagree that paying for the subscription is the ethical thing to do. The publisher expressly allows the content to be consumed for free - they don't require payment for the content. Therefore it is not unethical to consume that content for free. That they desire us to view ads is beside the point: we're not obliged to view them, nor is it unethical to choose not to view them.
        Klathmon 10y ago
        They aren't expressly allowing the content to be consumed for free any more than a store-front that shows off products is allowing them to be taken for free. There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue. It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best.
        bahjoite 10y ago
        > They aren't expressly allowing the content to be consumed for free any more than a store-front that shows off products is allowing them to be taken for free. False equivalence. Further, they certainly are allowing the content to be consumed for free. > There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue. We violate nothing by choosing not to abide by the wish that we view ads. There is no obligation to do so. It has nothing to do with ethics. > It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best. I think you mean "ignorant at worst". At best, we are ideologically opposed. :)
        Klathmon 10y ago
        > We violate nothing by choosing not to abide by the wish that we view ads. There is no obligation to do so. It has nothing to do with ethics. Similar to how choosing to not abide by the wish that you pay for products. >I think you mean "ignorant at worst". At best, we are ideologically opposed. :) I mean ignorant at best. Pretending that there isn't even a discussion to be had about ethics in this area is just shoving your head into the sand.
function_seven 10y ago
Paying someone to not install malware on my machine makes it closer to protection money. Ad blockers do a pretty decent job of preventing ad-network malware, without me having to buy subscriptions to every website I visit.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  You can't just distill the argument down to that any more than I can say "going to the doctor is paying someone to not kill you"...
  - Spivak 10y ago
    I'm going to add content to my website that, if asked, nearly all of my users would prefer to be absent, and then charge those users to remove that content. The pattern is, intentionally make a service worse, and then charge to 'make it better'. The doctor analogy would be, "for an extra $1000 fee, your surgeon will wash his hands before the operation".
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - JadeNB 10y ago
      > The pattern is, intentionally make a service worse, and then charge to 'make it better'. Agreed; in the tech world, I'd call this the difference between buying a faster processor—the analogue of going to a doctor—and paying to avoid intentionally slowing down a processor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486SX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486SX).
discreditable 10y ago
I'd wager that even with a paid subscription they utilize JS-based tracking that ad-blockers block.
- jhasse 10y ago
  They need a cookie to know that you paid, don't they? So they can track you anyway.
  - discreditable 10y ago
    JavaScript analytics are a completely different animal compared to session cookies.
bigbugbag 10y ago
Actually, it is the other way around, paying for content has a high chance of being exposed to ads. Think of how candy crush adapts its difficulty the instant you pay for it. http://zen.lk/2015/07/19/Why-you-will-never-escape-ads-by-paying-for-content/ http://zen.lk/2015/07/19/Why-you-will-never-escape-ads-by-pa...