5 ms·

Are you against ad blockers too?

BjoernKW 7y ago
Ads are a different topic. Anyway, ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content, which in itself is completely legitimate. The reason why I'm not against using ad blockers is that the way ads often are used today poses security and privacy risks as well as performance problems.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  > ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content I’ve seen plenty of ads that are creative, funny, and engaging in their own right. A lot of talented people lend their creativity to make these, and your statement feels reminiscent of people that say genres they don’t like aren’t actually music. It’s incredibly condescending to dismiss their work as “not content”.
  - BjoernKW 7y ago
    Then let me define it more precisely: Ads usually are not the content a user requested or wanted to see when accessing a particular media outlet. In a way, well-designed ads are similar to a well-designed checkout process in that respect: I can admire its beauty or simplicity but I wouldn’t visit a website solely because of it.
    - kd5bjo 7y ago
      This whole conversation is about the situation where the artist/author includes something that the viewer/user doesn’t want to see. Whether or not to include ads is as much an artistic choice as whether or not to include profanity— they’re both parts of the aggregate experience, and editing them out means you’re no longer experiencing the work as its creator intended. This is evident in that works sometimes include fictional advertisements with the same presentation as you would expect from real ones. As such, I struggle to see a meaningful distinction between these cases. As a corollary, I also believe online publications have a responsibility to exercise editorial control over the ads that appear on their sites.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        Ironically it's not usually the artists' choice, it's not unusual for the actual creators to be under contracts to the publisher which give them very little veto over the context in which a work is shown and what ads are included in it. Especially with works produced by a large number of people like films.
        kd5bjo 7y ago
        But it was their choice to enter into the contract in the first place. When someone delegates part of their job to someone else (in this case distribution to the publisher), that doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for the end result— choose your partners wisely, because their choices will reflect on you.
    - gpderetta 7y ago
      Yet you could make the same claim (" not the content a user requested or wanted to see") for edited movies.
dTal 7y ago
Ad blockers are distinct as ads are separate from, and frequently interfere with, the actual content. The ads themselves are written by different people. If the goal is "consume media as the artist intended", then ad blockers are entirely in line with that goal.
- otabdeveloper4 7y ago
  You're bonkers if you think that news websites intend for you to read news without ads. Ultimately this is just another case of "rules for thee but not for me".

Ads are a different topic. Anyway, ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content, which in itself is completely legitimate. The reason why I'm not against using ad blockers is that the way ads often are used today poses security and privacy risks as well as performance problems.

kd5bjo 7y ago
> ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content I’ve seen plenty of ads that are creative, funny, and engaging in their own right. A lot of talented people lend their creativity to make these, and your statement feels reminiscent of people that say genres they don’t like aren’t actually music. It’s incredibly condescending to dismiss their work as “not content”.
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  Then let me define it more precisely: Ads usually are not the content a user requested or wanted to see when accessing a particular media outlet. In a way, well-designed ads are similar to a well-designed checkout process in that respect: I can admire its beauty or simplicity but I wouldn’t visit a website solely because of it.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    This whole conversation is about the situation where the artist/author includes something that the viewer/user doesn’t want to see. Whether or not to include ads is as much an artistic choice as whether or not to include profanity— they’re both parts of the aggregate experience, and editing them out means you’re no longer experiencing the work as its creator intended. This is evident in that works sometimes include fictional advertisements with the same presentation as you would expect from real ones. As such, I struggle to see a meaningful distinction between these cases. As a corollary, I also believe online publications have a responsibility to exercise editorial control over the ads that appear on their sites.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Ironically it's not usually the artists' choice, it's not unusual for the actual creators to be under contracts to the publisher which give them very little veto over the context in which a work is shown and what ads are included in it. Especially with works produced by a large number of people like films.
      - kd5bjo 7y ago
        But it was their choice to enter into the contract in the first place. When someone delegates part of their job to someone else (in this case distribution to the publisher), that doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for the end result— choose your partners wisely, because their choices will reflect on you.
  - gpderetta 7y ago
    Yet you could make the same claim (" not the content a user requested or wanted to see") for edited movies.

dTal 7y ago

Ad blockers are distinct as ads are separate from, and frequently interfere with, the actual content. The ads themselves are written by different people. If the goal is "consume media as the artist intended", then ad blockers are entirely in line with that goal.

otabdeveloper4 7y ago
You're bonkers if you think that news websites intend for you to read news without ads. Ultimately this is just another case of "rules for thee but not for me".