6 ms·

What if you allow ads but dont click on them and dont buy their products ? Then you're doubly cheating, because the poor advertiser paid for those ads when you

What if you allow ads but dont click on them and dont buy their products ? Then you're doubly cheating, because the poor advertiser paid for those ads when you know very well you will not give any business in return. At least with the ads blocked, the advertiser can pay less for the service (ads), which more accurately reflect their true value.

Klathmon 10y ago
But advertising isn't just about clicks, hell it hasn't been about clicks except recently in history. It's about getting your product out there. And to be completely honest, I don't really have an answer why it's okay to do something like look away from ads, but it's not okay to block them. That's just how I feel, and I know that might be hypocritical, but it is what it is.
- m3rc 10y ago
  That's an incredibly strange viewpoint. Would you get mad at me if we were watching TV and I muted it when a commercial break came on? Would you demand that I watch closely?
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    No, I wouldn't demand anything, and there is nothing wrong with any of that in the slightest to me. But if you setup a program to explicitly skip every commercial break without any interaction from your part, then it would be a problem to me.
    - m3rc 10y ago
      So it's the automation itself that bothers you? If I kept uBlock origin installed but told it to block nothing by default and then went through and manually clicked block on every ad on a new page you'd be okay?
    - kbutler 10y ago
      So as long as you either see the ads, or are inconvenienced by them, it's OK? How about if my friend hits the mute button for me? How about if my friend is an android?
      - digler999 10y ago
        a while back I had an idea for an "auto-muter", which would look up audio fingerprints for commercials like shazam does for music. When it identifies a commercial, it emits the MUTE button from an IR transmitter for the prescribed duration of the commercial. Like a poor-mans TIVO. I never built it but all the pieces are already out there.
    - kelnos 10y ago
      That's the thing I don't get. Automating an action does not in any way take a previously moral action and make it immoral. That's not how ethics and morals work. I get that you _feel_ differently about it, and that's totally ok, but the idea that you feel the need to suggest that those feelings are "right" for others baffles me.
  - ahartman00 10y ago
    I dont think anyone is saying you need to watch closely or even look at the ads?? Somehow a lot of people have come to attack a straw man regarding control of your eyeballs/behavior. Dont look at the ads if you dont want. The issue here is payment to the content creators. If you mute your tv, the actors/writers/producers/camerapersons/tv station employees/etc get paid. If you block ads on the internet, then the writers/journalists/photographers/sysadmins/etc dont get paid, even though they made you happy, or provided something you obviously valued. I mean, you spent your valuable time consuming it, it must be worth something.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  I'm under no obligation to allow network traffic someone wants me to allow, even if that's how they choose to make money.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    You are obligated to if you want to access their content, per the copyright on the website. You are not obligated to their content, copyright free.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      No, they strongly desire that I make the requests, because that's as much as they can do. The legal fiction they attempt to impose is trivial to ignore, and so the obligation is also fictional.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        >obligation is also fictional. You're the one who introduced obligation as a premise. Copyright law is not fictional. Websites are copyrighted works of art, and you are not obligated to use them copyright free. If the copyright holder intends for their content to be consumed with ads, that means you are obligated to consume it with ads.
        oldmanjay 10y ago
        I'm not sure if "obligated" means what you think it means. It certainly doesn't have definitions that cover the way you're using it.
        fl0wenol 10y ago
        >If the copyright holder intends for their content to be consumed with ads, that means you are obligated to consume it with ads. Citation needed, because I think the caselaw disagrees with you. See the ruling in Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. or ClearPlay's exemption in the summary judgement in Huntsman v. Soderbergh. In short, so long as you're not making a permanent derivative work out of the material, but instead changing the way by which you view it, then it's not copyright infringement.
- antimatter 10y ago
  > It's about getting your product out there. This is admittedly an extremist view point on my part but If I even detect a hint of advertising, I am extremely unlikely to ever consider a product. I detest advertising in any form. So in cases like mine, the advertiser is better off not showing me any ads.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    That's what everyone who's super susceptible to advertising likes to claim.
- abraae 10y ago
  I think maybe it is the automation. Looking away from ads, or hitting mute, or fast forwarding through them all require effort and time on the viewer's part. A small effort, but effort nonetheless. As an advertiser, I can grudgingly accept my ad being skipped, because I know its costing the viewer to skip them. Since its not free to them, I can assume that one day, or every so often, they'll end up watching my ad because they can't be bothered to skip it. I experience this myself. Much of what we watch is free to air recorded on the tivo. Sometimes (not often), if the couch is comfortable and the kids have moved the remote out of arm's reach, I just can't be bothered skipping ads. But ad blockers remove the small effort I must make to skip the ads. The automation they provide makes it effectively free, so there's no reason why I would ever watch an ad again. I feel that's one aspect of why looking away or muting feels OK but ad blockers are not.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Nah, the problem is elsewhere. Not looking at an ad on tv doesn't result in anyone not getting paid, because that stuff isn't tracked. It's all based on incidental measurements after the fact, and selective sampling. Now on websites EVERYTHING is tracked, and advertisers are seeing it in their face every single day how many people skip their stuff, so they get upset. Besides, automation for TV exists as well.
    - codedokode 10y ago
      They just could take the payment to view an article. Getting upset is not a valid reason to restrict consumers' rights.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 10y ago
    > As an advertiser, I can grudgingly accept my ad being skipped, because I know its costing the viewer to skip them. Nope, I don't buy it. The publisher doesn't get anything by causing you to do work to avoid the ad (as in, you doing work vs. not doing work to avoid the ad is exactly the same from the publisher's standpoint, financially). Ethics and morality are not about whether or not you "paid" with inconvenience or effort. This is just you feeling like you should be watching every ad put in front of you and assuaging your guilt in different ways depending on the medium.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  "I don't really have an answer why it's okay to do something like look away from ads, but it's not okay to block them" Payment for services provided. If you dont look at the ads, everyone still gets paid. If you block them, then the people making something you like dont get paid.
bduerst 10y ago
>What if you allow ads but dont click on them and dont buy their products ? Irrelevant. That's like saying you can't click on a billboard so what's the point? Not all ads are direct response. Many display and programmatic ads are awareness plays, which pay publishers by the impression or thousands of impressions.
serge2k 10y ago
That's the nature of advertising. They bombard everyone with their shit and some people buy it.
serge2k 10y ago
That's the nature of advertising. They bombard everyone with their shit and some people buy it.

Klathmon 10y ago

But advertising isn't just about clicks, hell it hasn't been about clicks except recently in history. It's about getting your product out there. And to be completely honest, I don't really have an answer why it's okay to do something like look away from ads, but it's not okay to block them. That's just how I feel, and I know that might be hypocritical, but it is what it is.

m3rc 10y ago
That's an incredibly strange viewpoint. Would you get mad at me if we were watching TV and I muted it when a commercial break came on? Would you demand that I watch closely?
- Klathmon 10y ago
  No, I wouldn't demand anything, and there is nothing wrong with any of that in the slightest to me. But if you setup a program to explicitly skip every commercial break without any interaction from your part, then it would be a problem to me.
  - m3rc 10y ago
    So it's the automation itself that bothers you? If I kept uBlock origin installed but told it to block nothing by default and then went through and manually clicked block on every ad on a new page you'd be okay?
  - kbutler 10y ago
    So as long as you either see the ads, or are inconvenienced by them, it's OK? How about if my friend hits the mute button for me? How about if my friend is an android?
    - digler999 10y ago
      a while back I had an idea for an "auto-muter", which would look up audio fingerprints for commercials like shazam does for music. When it identifies a commercial, it emits the MUTE button from an IR transmitter for the prescribed duration of the commercial. Like a poor-mans TIVO. I never built it but all the pieces are already out there.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    That's the thing I don't get. Automating an action does not in any way take a previously moral action and make it immoral. That's not how ethics and morals work. I get that you _feel_ differently about it, and that's totally ok, but the idea that you feel the need to suggest that those feelings are "right" for others baffles me.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  I dont think anyone is saying you need to watch closely or even look at the ads?? Somehow a lot of people have come to attack a straw man regarding control of your eyeballs/behavior. Dont look at the ads if you dont want. The issue here is payment to the content creators. If you mute your tv, the actors/writers/producers/camerapersons/tv station employees/etc get paid. If you block ads on the internet, then the writers/journalists/photographers/sysadmins/etc dont get paid, even though they made you happy, or provided something you obviously valued. I mean, you spent your valuable time consuming it, it must be worth something.
oldmanjay 10y ago
I'm under no obligation to allow network traffic someone wants me to allow, even if that's how they choose to make money.
- bduerst 10y ago
  You are obligated to if you want to access their content, per the copyright on the website. You are not obligated to their content, copyright free.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    No, they strongly desire that I make the requests, because that's as much as they can do. The legal fiction they attempt to impose is trivial to ignore, and so the obligation is also fictional.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      >obligation is also fictional. You're the one who introduced obligation as a premise. Copyright law is not fictional. Websites are copyrighted works of art, and you are not obligated to use them copyright free. If the copyright holder intends for their content to be consumed with ads, that means you are obligated to consume it with ads.
      - oldmanjay 10y ago
        I'm not sure if "obligated" means what you think it means. It certainly doesn't have definitions that cover the way you're using it.
      - fl0wenol 10y ago
        >If the copyright holder intends for their content to be consumed with ads, that means you are obligated to consume it with ads. Citation needed, because I think the caselaw disagrees with you. See the ruling in Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. or ClearPlay's exemption in the summary judgement in Huntsman v. Soderbergh. In short, so long as you're not making a permanent derivative work out of the material, but instead changing the way by which you view it, then it's not copyright infringement.
antimatter 10y ago
> It's about getting your product out there. This is admittedly an extremist view point on my part but If I even detect a hint of advertising, I am extremely unlikely to ever consider a product. I detest advertising in any form. So in cases like mine, the advertiser is better off not showing me any ads.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  That's what everyone who's super susceptible to advertising likes to claim.
abraae 10y ago
I think maybe it is the automation. Looking away from ads, or hitting mute, or fast forwarding through them all require effort and time on the viewer's part. A small effort, but effort nonetheless. As an advertiser, I can grudgingly accept my ad being skipped, because I know its costing the viewer to skip them. Since its not free to them, I can assume that one day, or every so often, they'll end up watching my ad because they can't be bothered to skip it. I experience this myself. Much of what we watch is free to air recorded on the tivo. Sometimes (not often), if the couch is comfortable and the kids have moved the remote out of arm's reach, I just can't be bothered skipping ads. But ad blockers remove the small effort I must make to skip the ads. The automation they provide makes it effectively free, so there's no reason why I would ever watch an ad again. I feel that's one aspect of why looking away or muting feels OK but ad blockers are not.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Nah, the problem is elsewhere. Not looking at an ad on tv doesn't result in anyone not getting paid, because that stuff isn't tracked. It's all based on incidental measurements after the fact, and selective sampling. Now on websites EVERYTHING is tracked, and advertisers are seeing it in their face every single day how many people skip their stuff, so they get upset. Besides, automation for TV exists as well.
  - codedokode 10y ago
    They just could take the payment to view an article. Getting upset is not a valid reason to restrict consumers' rights.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 10y ago
  > As an advertiser, I can grudgingly accept my ad being skipped, because I know its costing the viewer to skip them. Nope, I don't buy it. The publisher doesn't get anything by causing you to do work to avoid the ad (as in, you doing work vs. not doing work to avoid the ad is exactly the same from the publisher's standpoint, financially). Ethics and morality are not about whether or not you "paid" with inconvenience or effort. This is just you feeling like you should be watching every ad put in front of you and assuaging your guilt in different ways depending on the medium.
ahartman00 10y ago
"I don't really have an answer why it's okay to do something like look away from ads, but it's not okay to block them" Payment for services provided. If you dont look at the ads, everyone still gets paid. If you block them, then the people making something you like dont get paid.

bduerst 10y ago

>What if you allow ads but dont click on them and dont buy their products ? Irrelevant. That's like saying you can't click on a billboard so what's the point? Not all ads are direct response. Many display and programmatic ads are awareness plays, which pay publishers by the impression or thousands of impressions.

serge2k 10y ago

That's the nature of advertising. They bombard everyone with their shit and some people buy it.

serge2k 10y ago

That's the nature of advertising. They bombard everyone with their shit and some people buy it.