3 ms·

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

by 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.

by abraae 10y ago

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.