3 ms·

> Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads. I don't get this point at all. Why is it more ethical for a user to choose to hide ads indisc

> Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads. I don't get this point at all. Why is it more ethical for a user to choose to hide ads indiscriminately than hiding ads on certain sites? Would it resolve your ethical concerns if our software blocked all ads everywhere, like Adblock does, but continued to only add value to Gmail? (The latter is functionally identical to installing both Rapportive and Adblock.)

jacquesm 16y ago
I'm not sure if what I've written so far didn't get the point across how I will be able to do so with more words, but I'll give it a try. Targeting a large website to launch your product off is a fine strategy, you benefit from the existing userbase. That should be 'profit' enough for anybody, there is no need to kick them in the teeth by affecting their bottom line in a negative way, especially if you don't absolutely have to. Those users that did not want to see those ads already had the option to install adblock, so by doing this you are not adding anything that wasn't on the table before, only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads. It's either rapportive, or ads, but never both and that should have been the default. Clearer now? I think this whole ad-replacement gig is a blemish on an otherwise very nicely conceived and executed product.
- amirmc 16y ago
  "only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads" Actually the user does make the decision to block those ads. I don't care much for the ads in Gmail but never overcame my inertia to even think of installing an adblocker. Along comes Rapportive, which promises to offer me something useful and hey presto, my inertia is overcome. In the end the user makes the choice and that is as it should be. It shouldn't be up to the user to worry about how Gmail does (or does not) make money.

jacquesm 16y ago

I'm not sure if what I've written so far didn't get the point across how I will be able to do so with more words, but I'll give it a try. Targeting a large website to launch your product off is a fine strategy, you benefit from the existing userbase. That should be 'profit' enough for anybody, there is no need to kick them in the teeth by affecting their bottom line in a negative way, especially if you don't absolutely have to. Those users that did not want to see those ads already had the option to install adblock, so by doing this you are not adding anything that wasn't on the table before, only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads. It's either rapportive, or ads, but never both and that should have been the default. Clearer now? I think this whole ad-replacement gig is a blemish on an otherwise very nicely conceived and executed product.

amirmc 16y ago
"only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads" Actually the user does make the decision to block those ads. I don't care much for the ads in Gmail but never overcame my inertia to even think of installing an adblocker. Along comes Rapportive, which promises to offer me something useful and hey presto, my inertia is overcome. In the end the user makes the choice and that is as it should be. It shouldn't be up to the user to worry about how Gmail does (or does not) make money.