5 ms·

Adblockers are arguably worse to a company than piracy. Pirates often argue that they aren't causing a lost sale, because if the product wasn't free, the pirat

Adblockers are arguably worse to a company than piracy. Pirates often argue that they aren't causing a lost sale, because if the product wasn't free, the pirate customer simply wouldn't use the product in the first place. Pirates however, generally aren't putting sustained load on the IP-holders' servers. Whereas adblockers are putting load on the companies' servers while not "paying" for the services, by blocking the ads.

hypertele-Xii 4y ago
Yeah but they also lighten the ad servers' load by not downloading the ads themselves, so it evens out. And considering most load from modern websites is indeed tracking and ads, I might even argue that adblocking saves the website money when I was never going to click on an ad anyway. If a website needs money to exist, paywalls and donations exist. If a website serves content without payment, that's their problem not mine.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  The advertiser is saving (pennies) hosting money not the website owner. The website owner is providing a service, paying hosting and is not getting paid by the advertiser.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    If the website owner is not getting paid by the advertiser, why is the website showing ads?
kennywinker 4y ago
It's unclear what the business relationship is when you click on a link. I click on a link in a tweet, and I'm taken to a site and apparently I've agreed to be shown ads? No. Plenty of sites I visit are not trying to monetize my eyeballs. Calling using software to give you a choice about what you agree to "piracy" seems wrong. If sites offered consent - like "Welcome to this site, you'll see 10 ads per page, sold through google's ad network. Our content is written by humans not robots. Please disable adblock and proceed." That's a different relationship. Perhaps then it's more like taking something without paying ("piracy"). Perhaps in a sustained relationship, where you repeatedly visit a site, you know what it offers you and you want it, but are unwilling to pay the price of ads... maybe that starts to edge towards a piracy like situation.
throwaway123531 4y ago
That's shortsighted. There is only so much money in the system. People who use content blockers usually don't buy stuff in response to ads. Ad blocking users won't reduce the entire ad revenue that is flowing through the system. From the perspective of a company this is different of course - a company can increase revenue by maximizing the number of ads shown to users. But when you look at it from the perspective of the entire system, the more users are forced to view ads, the less valuable an ad becomes, so it's a race to the bottom. The biggest problem is that ads are the wrong solution. In earlier times, many services that operate for free now were primarily paid services - paid voluntarily, which is based on respect and human dignity. And the ads were just printed in paper form, so there was a limit to how much money you could extract out of it. Ads had their place, but were limited in their scope. Publishers of paper newspapers would have never thought to maximize revenue by forcing users to actually look at an ad, because there was no technical way to do it. Now they think they are entitled to be intrusive, and to control user behavior while legally giving away something for free without any legal obligation for readers to return anything. So those who benefit from ads resort to moral pressure. They have developed feedback systems, and the feedback systems are carefully designed to extract as much money out of people with no regard for anything else, which is dehumanizing, and this means ads (like all systems that use psychology to manipulate behavior) are actively destroying what makes us human. They will only stop once the ad system has been dried out, and when that happens we finally may get meaningful content and journalism again.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >People who use content blockers usually don't buy stuff in response to ads. This is not true at all. >Ad blocking users won't reduce the entire ad revenue that is flowing through the system. Yes, they do. There is a reason why sites try and bypass adblockers. It's not because they are evil and want people to have a worse user experience. It's because they can earn money by actually showing them ads.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I don't see either of you providing any evidence for your claims. I think it's unlikely that no person who uses an ad blocker wouldn't occasionally click an ad and buy something. But what's the percentage? Is it something small, like 5%, or more like 25%? The grandparent's point about all of this being dehumanizing really resonated with me. At what percentage does it become justified to dehumanize people for revenue? My opinion is that advertising is emotional manipulation, and is by its very nature unethical. No, that doesn't mean that no one ever has benefited from buying a product that they wouldn't have known about without advertising, but my belief is that the overwhelming majority of ads serve the purpose of causing people to buy things that a) they would have bought anyway (so the ad just wasted their time), or b) they would have gotten along without just fine (so the ad manipulated them into spending money they didn't need to spend). I ad block at several levels on my laptop and network. I will never, ever click on an ad and buy something. My situation may not be universal among ad-blocking users, but I doubt I'm part of a small minority either.
concordDance 4y ago
If every ad network sustained website died I for one would be happy with this return to the good old early 2000s when hyper optimized content farms weren't a thing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- solarkraft 4y ago
  Monetization is the root of most evil on the internet.
BLKNSLVR 4y ago
When even Google serve ads that link to fake bank account sites[0], not blocking ads is a poor security practise. [0]:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/scammers-using-text-messages-calls-emails-fake-ads-to-get-money/101167848 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/scammers-using-text-m...
wruza 4y ago
Idk about other users, but when I accidentally see an ads and its product seems interesting, I just google it in another tab. If that makes me a pirate, yo-ho-ho.
horsawlarway 4y ago
So don't use an ad driven model. Full fucking stop. Look - you can attempt to send me any content you'd like. You absolutely (as in utterly, morally, ethically) have zero claim to force me to receive it. I have autonomy. I can choose what to view, and what not to view. If you don't want me to get your content without paying for it - ask me to pay for it before sending it to me. EASY FUCKING PEASY. If you've asked me to pay and I go download it somewhere else: fine, call me a pirate. If you haven't asked me to pay and you're sending me a firehose of unrelated bullshit every time I attempt to interact with your service - expect me to filter that bullshit out.

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

Yeah but they also lighten the ad servers' load by not downloading the ads themselves, so it evens out. And considering most load from modern websites is indeed tracking and ads, I might even argue that adblocking saves the website money when I was never going to click on an ad anyway. If a website needs money to exist, paywalls and donations exist. If a website serves content without payment, that's their problem not mine.

jokethrowaway 4y ago
The advertiser is saving (pennies) hosting money not the website owner. The website owner is providing a service, paying hosting and is not getting paid by the advertiser.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  If the website owner is not getting paid by the advertiser, why is the website showing ads?

kennywinker 4y ago

It's unclear what the business relationship is when you click on a link. I click on a link in a tweet, and I'm taken to a site and apparently I've agreed to be shown ads? No. Plenty of sites I visit are not trying to monetize my eyeballs. Calling using software to give you a choice about what you agree to "piracy" seems wrong. If sites offered consent - like "Welcome to this site, you'll see 10 ads per page, sold through google's ad network. Our content is written by humans not robots. Please disable adblock and proceed." That's a different relationship. Perhaps then it's more like taking something without paying ("piracy"). Perhaps in a sustained relationship, where you repeatedly visit a site, you know what it offers you and you want it, but are unwilling to pay the price of ads... maybe that starts to edge towards a piracy like situation.

throwaway123531 4y ago

That's shortsighted. There is only so much money in the system. People who use content blockers usually don't buy stuff in response to ads. Ad blocking users won't reduce the entire ad revenue that is flowing through the system. From the perspective of a company this is different of course - a company can increase revenue by maximizing the number of ads shown to users. But when you look at it from the perspective of the entire system, the more users are forced to view ads, the less valuable an ad becomes, so it's a race to the bottom. The biggest problem is that ads are the wrong solution. In earlier times, many services that operate for free now were primarily paid services - paid voluntarily, which is based on respect and human dignity. And the ads were just printed in paper form, so there was a limit to how much money you could extract out of it. Ads had their place, but were limited in their scope. Publishers of paper newspapers would have never thought to maximize revenue by forcing users to actually look at an ad, because there was no technical way to do it. Now they think they are entitled to be intrusive, and to control user behavior while legally giving away something for free without any legal obligation for readers to return anything. So those who benefit from ads resort to moral pressure. They have developed feedback systems, and the feedback systems are carefully designed to extract as much money out of people with no regard for anything else, which is dehumanizing, and this means ads (like all systems that use psychology to manipulate behavior) are actively destroying what makes us human. They will only stop once the ad system has been dried out, and when that happens we finally may get meaningful content and journalism again.

charcircuit 4y ago
>People who use content blockers usually don't buy stuff in response to ads. This is not true at all. >Ad blocking users won't reduce the entire ad revenue that is flowing through the system. Yes, they do. There is a reason why sites try and bypass adblockers. It's not because they are evil and want people to have a worse user experience. It's because they can earn money by actually showing them ads.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I don't see either of you providing any evidence for your claims. I think it's unlikely that no person who uses an ad blocker wouldn't occasionally click an ad and buy something. But what's the percentage? Is it something small, like 5%, or more like 25%? The grandparent's point about all of this being dehumanizing really resonated with me. At what percentage does it become justified to dehumanize people for revenue? My opinion is that advertising is emotional manipulation, and is by its very nature unethical. No, that doesn't mean that no one ever has benefited from buying a product that they wouldn't have known about without advertising, but my belief is that the overwhelming majority of ads serve the purpose of causing people to buy things that a) they would have bought anyway (so the ad just wasted their time), or b) they would have gotten along without just fine (so the ad manipulated them into spending money they didn't need to spend). I ad block at several levels on my laptop and network. I will never, ever click on an ad and buy something. My situation may not be universal among ad-blocking users, but I doubt I'm part of a small minority either.

concordDance 4y ago

If every ad network sustained website died I for one would be happy with this return to the good old early 2000s when hyper optimized content farms weren't a thing.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
solarkraft 4y ago
Monetization is the root of most evil on the internet.

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

When even Google serve ads that link to fake bank account sites[0], not blocking ads is a poor security practise. [0]:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/scammers-using-text-messages-calls-emails-fake-ads-to-get-money/101167848 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/scammers-using-text-m...

wruza 4y ago

Idk about other users, but when I accidentally see an ads and its product seems interesting, I just google it in another tab. If that makes me a pirate, yo-ho-ho.

horsawlarway 4y ago

So don't use an ad driven model. Full fucking stop. Look - you can attempt to send me any content you'd like. You absolutely (as in utterly, morally, ethically) have zero claim to force me to receive it. I have autonomy. I can choose what to view, and what not to view. If you don't want me to get your content without paying for it - ask me to pay for it before sending it to me. EASY FUCKING PEASY. If you've asked me to pay and I go download it somewhere else: fine, call me a pirate. If you haven't asked me to pay and you're sending me a firehose of unrelated bullshit every time I attempt to interact with your service - expect me to filter that bullshit out.