3 ms·

To use your analogy then I should just install a gym-membership blocker, stroll in every morning, and use their workout machines without paying. That's absurd.

by Denzel 9y ago

To use your analogy then I should just install a gym-membership blocker, stroll in every morning, and use their workout machines without paying. That's absurd. My argument has always been: if you want to use an ad-blocker, be my guest, then block the damn content too. Ad-blockers seem to have this entitlement complex where they deserve the content how they want it -- others' rights be damned. No one's forcing anyone to consume this content just like no one's forcing anyone to get a gym membership. And somehow you don't see how your own analogy proved the absurdity of the situation?

syrrim 9y ago
The argument made was against the statement that ads were valuable in and of themselves. If they aren't, than the whole system becomes a zero sum game: advertisers pay content creators, who show you ads, you pay money for products, and the product seller gives a portion of the money to the advertiser. Unless value is being introduced somewhere, the whole system serves only to misdirect where your money is going. You might as well give the money directly to the content creator, and skip the advertising middleman. Only if being given the opportunity to watch ads is valuable to you can you say that the advertisers contribute to the system rather than introducing inefficiency. Someone who has chosen to block ads is clearly making the statement that the ads provide them no value. Such a person might decide to contribute in other more efficient ways, or perhaps might decide to become a leech. Note that there is an easier way to leech from the content creator than to block the ads: view the ads, and then don't buy the product. In this way, you are decreasing the overall value of ad impressions, and thereby decreasing the money funneled to the content creator. This option is ignored by ad-blocking opponents because you so clearly have a right to ignore the advice of ads. How, though, is it so different from blocking ads? Furthermore, by analysing this option, we see the core advantage - or problem, depending on your viewpoint - of an ad based model: some people (those who are more frugal) can contribute less money than others. If you consider this a problem, than you will find a clear solution: charge all viewers the same price upfront, rather than hiding it behind the advertising machine. In this way, you become more honest, while forcing the poor to contribute the same as the rich.
- Denzel 9y ago
  > If they aren't, than the whole system becomes a zero sum game Careful. You need to be more specific. The ad industry itself is a zero-sum market for the market participants (i.e. advertising mediums), correct. However, the ad industry has caused the PPF (production possibility frontier) of the economy to move outwards by introducing allocation efficiency, thus having a non-zero-sum impact on the economy as a whole. > Unless value is being introduced somewhere, the whole system serves only to misdirect [...] skip the advertising middleman. I'm sure you understand the value of interfaces. You use them everyday. I go to a supermarket instead of dealing with thousands of individual grocery suppliers. I go to a clothing store instead of dealing with thousands of individual clothing suppliers. Just like people use advertising networks so that they don't have to deal with millions of content creators. So it's been with newspapers, magazines, radio, television... and so it is with the web. > In this way, you are decreasing the overall value of ad impressions, [...] How, though, is it so different from blocking ads? Because a decrease in the value of ad impressions doesn't necessarily decrease the total amount of money earned by the content creator. You're dealing with the price elasticity of the market here. If you want to make that argument, then show some hard figures that back up your claim that content creators would make less if ad-blockers chose to view and ignore ads instead. > charge all viewers the same price upfront Yeah, that price is $830/year ($69/month) for 100M American citizens to replace the digital advertising spend in the U.S. I hope we can get there with a communal revenue sharing network one day. That'd be truly amazing.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    > the ad industry has caused the PPF (production possibility frontier) of the economy to move outwards by introducing allocation efficiency Can you explain? That's a lot of jargon for a non-economist. > > skip the advertising middleman. > Just like people use advertising networks so that they don't have to deal with millions of content creators. So it's been with newspapers, magazines, radio, television... and so it is with the web. You're missing grandparent's point. "Skipping the advertising middleman" in his argument refers not to advertising networks, but to advertising altogether. He refers to content creators taking money directly from their consumers, rather than going through the indirection of advertisers (whom take money from their clients, whom get their money from the consumers, thus completing the indirection chain). (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either side here, just attempting to clarify.)
skewart 9y ago
It sounds like you're saying that once you give something to someone then you have an ethical right to dictate how they use that thing. For example, if I buy a pillow for my sofa and the pillow-maker intended that I rest my head on that pillow every day, then it's unethical of me to keep the pillow in the closet because I don't really need it all the time? Websites give people HTML, CSS, and JavaScript files for free. Once I take these files home (download them into my browser) then I'm free to do what I want with them. If that means only interacting with part of the content then I don't see anything wrong with that. I understand the practical situation that many content providers find themselves in. They have become dependent on display ads for revenue. So I get the argument for unblocking ads on some favorite publisher's site to help them out. But I don't see anything unethical in blocking ads in general. And, if it disincentives content providers from relying on aggressive ads that create horrific user experiences then good!
- Denzel 9y ago
  You're misunderstanding what it means to own vs. to license... the latter being dictated by a contract known as ToS (terms of service) which you implicitly agree to when using a website.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Some of us remember when the very idea of commercial operations on the Internet was controversial. That debate is, obviously, long dead. But still, the concept of ToS for websites is bizarre.
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    I defeat this mechanism by offering my own ToS for interactions with any website. They implicitly agree by granting access to my browser to their content.
    - lazylizard 9y ago
      is there a browser extension or plugin that can do this for everyone?

by Denzel 9y ago

syrrim 9y ago

The argument made was against the statement that ads were valuable in and of themselves. If they aren't, than the whole system becomes a zero sum game: advertisers pay content creators, who show you ads, you pay money for products, and the product seller gives a portion of the money to the advertiser. Unless value is being introduced somewhere, the whole system serves only to misdirect where your money is going. You might as well give the money directly to the content creator, and skip the advertising middleman. Only if being given the opportunity to watch ads is valuable to you can you say that the advertisers contribute to the system rather than introducing inefficiency. Someone who has chosen to block ads is clearly making the statement that the ads provide them no value. Such a person might decide to contribute in other more efficient ways, or perhaps might decide to become a leech. Note that there is an easier way to leech from the content creator than to block the ads: view the ads, and then don't buy the product. In this way, you are decreasing the overall value of ad impressions, and thereby decreasing the money funneled to the content creator. This option is ignored by ad-blocking opponents because you so clearly have a right to ignore the advice of ads. How, though, is it so different from blocking ads? Furthermore, by analysing this option, we see the core advantage - or problem, depending on your viewpoint - of an ad based model: some people (those who are more frugal) can contribute less money than others. If you consider this a problem, than you will find a clear solution: charge all viewers the same price upfront, rather than hiding it behind the advertising machine. In this way, you become more honest, while forcing the poor to contribute the same as the rich.

Denzel 9y ago
> If they aren't, than the whole system becomes a zero sum game Careful. You need to be more specific. The ad industry itself is a zero-sum market for the market participants (i.e. advertising mediums), correct. However, the ad industry has caused the PPF (production possibility frontier) of the economy to move outwards by introducing allocation efficiency, thus having a non-zero-sum impact on the economy as a whole. > Unless value is being introduced somewhere, the whole system serves only to misdirect [...] skip the advertising middleman. I'm sure you understand the value of interfaces. You use them everyday. I go to a supermarket instead of dealing with thousands of individual grocery suppliers. I go to a clothing store instead of dealing with thousands of individual clothing suppliers. Just like people use advertising networks so that they don't have to deal with millions of content creators. So it's been with newspapers, magazines, radio, television... and so it is with the web. > In this way, you are decreasing the overall value of ad impressions, [...] How, though, is it so different from blocking ads? Because a decrease in the value of ad impressions doesn't necessarily decrease the total amount of money earned by the content creator. You're dealing with the price elasticity of the market here. If you want to make that argument, then show some hard figures that back up your claim that content creators would make less if ad-blockers chose to view and ignore ads instead. > charge all viewers the same price upfront Yeah, that price is $830/year ($69/month) for 100M American citizens to replace the digital advertising spend in the U.S. I hope we can get there with a communal revenue sharing network one day. That'd be truly amazing.
- majewsky 9y ago
  > the ad industry has caused the PPF (production possibility frontier) of the economy to move outwards by introducing allocation efficiency Can you explain? That's a lot of jargon for a non-economist. > > skip the advertising middleman. > Just like people use advertising networks so that they don't have to deal with millions of content creators. So it's been with newspapers, magazines, radio, television... and so it is with the web. You're missing grandparent's point. "Skipping the advertising middleman" in his argument refers not to advertising networks, but to advertising altogether. He refers to content creators taking money directly from their consumers, rather than going through the indirection of advertisers (whom take money from their clients, whom get their money from the consumers, thus completing the indirection chain). (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either side here, just attempting to clarify.)

skewart 9y ago

It sounds like you're saying that once you give something to someone then you have an ethical right to dictate how they use that thing. For example, if I buy a pillow for my sofa and the pillow-maker intended that I rest my head on that pillow every day, then it's unethical of me to keep the pillow in the closet because I don't really need it all the time? Websites give people HTML, CSS, and JavaScript files for free. Once I take these files home (download them into my browser) then I'm free to do what I want with them. If that means only interacting with part of the content then I don't see anything wrong with that. I understand the practical situation that many content providers find themselves in. They have become dependent on display ads for revenue. So I get the argument for unblocking ads on some favorite publisher's site to help them out. But I don't see anything unethical in blocking ads in general. And, if it disincentives content providers from relying on aggressive ads that create horrific user experiences then good!

Denzel 9y ago
You're misunderstanding what it means to own vs. to license... the latter being dictated by a contract known as ToS (terms of service) which you implicitly agree to when using a website.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Some of us remember when the very idea of commercial operations on the Internet was controversial. That debate is, obviously, long dead. But still, the concept of ToS for websites is bizarre.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  I defeat this mechanism by offering my own ToS for interactions with any website. They implicitly agree by granting access to my browser to their content.
  - lazylizard 9y ago
    is there a browser extension or plugin that can do this for everyone?