11 ms·

Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what y

by vasco 4y ago

Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. If you consider ads to be psychological assault or other characterizations like this that I've heard before in this forum, stop going to those websites. You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? More hypocritical than that is that I know many such people who then go to create their apps and as soon as they have enough traffic, they'll add adsense to their apps but keep blocking it in others. There's also the argument that you block ads due to privacy, again here I'd say, don't use those websites. If you know there's a security camera at the bank branch and you don't want to be recorded, you don't go to the bank branch, no normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go. I bet this is going to get downvoted to shit, because I've been in HN for a few years and it's predictable where the crowd goes, but it seems very odd to me how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground.

Majestic121 4y ago
I somewhat agree with you that it is hypocritical to refuse ads but still go to the website, especially if the website offer a paid option and that you have a Software Developer salary. However, if you get downvoted, it might also be because complaining about being downvoted (even before actually receiving downvotes) is pretty annoying
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wintermutestwin 4y ago
  Youtube is a great example of your argument - you can subscribe and avoid ads (I think?). I would gladly do so, except google is also stealing my data and now these thieves have it tied to my CC#.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Imagine being extorted by Google into paying to avoid ads, being advertised to anyway by sponsored segments hardcoded into videos and being tracked and profiled on top of it all. Paying just makes your attention even more valuable. If you have enough disposable income to pay for this, they can only imagine what you'll pay for if they manage to get ads in front of your eyeballs.
hobs 4y ago
If you don't like roads with billboard, use the backroads instead! This a poor argument, no HN crowdthink required.
- bwb 4y ago
  Billboards dont pay for roads. Ads pay for websites.
  - hobs 4y ago
    Billboard companies pay taxes, rent land, and pay special fees to the state for their use... so, they sort of do.
    - bwb 4y ago
      But not really :)
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Yes, taxes pay for most roads.
        bwb 4y ago
        yes they do. Bill board ads do not.
        tomrod 4y ago
        Billboard companies receive revenue. They pay employees and shareholders or holdover cash, all of which is taxed. So yes, your misunderstanding aside, billboard ads do pay for roads in a clearly understood way.
        bwb 4y ago
        Sigh... not in any meaningful way. The point is this, ads directly fund websites. Without ads those websites do not exist. Bill boards do not directly fund highways, our taxes do, and those are collected 99.9999999999% from not bill boards.
_chu1 4y ago
No
eldenwrong 4y ago
I only block ads for shitty multinational companies that are sadly essential for many daily tasks. I don't lose sleep over that. Those companies ain't playing by the rules
blibble 4y ago
> Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. there is no agreement in legal terms, there's no offer consideration or acceptance if they want to lock it behind a paywall with an actual contract where they forbid me from doing that, then fair enough if it's offered anonymously then I will render the page using my equipment however I want
coldpie 4y ago
How do you propose I know whether a website displays ads before I visit it? I'm not going to maintain a blocklist of every ad-using website on every device I use. I'm just going to use an ad blocker. Their crappy business model isn't my problem.
RunSet 4y ago
> Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. 1. If someone doesn't want their content to be publicly available, they should not put it on a public web server.[0] 2. The question should not be whether ad blocking is ethical, but whether it is a moral obligation.[1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew [1] https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-block-ads/ https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-...
- vasco 4y ago
  Do you close your eyes walking around town any time you go by a store front, you see a roadside ad, a bench covered in ads, a taxi backseat, public toilets, any sports events and jerseys, TV, newspapers, magazines, radio... Are you morally obligated to get rid of those too? If you truly believe this, how do you function in society? Why is digital attention morally a big problem but attention in real life not? I get it, the world would be prettier without ads, but you'd also be able to afford way less things. Maybe you want to live that life, but most of society over time has gravitated to this mode of selling goods and services.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    > Do you close your eyes walking around town any time you go by a store front, you see a roadside ad, a bench covered in ads, a taxi backseat, public toilets, any sports events and jerseys, TV, newspapers, magazines, radio... Honestly, yes, I often do. I intentionally do not look at billboards when driving, I skip ad pages in my woodworking magazines, and I listen to local public radio without ads. In the rare times I watch live TV (wife watching football) I mute the TV during ads. Obviously it's impossible in every situation ever, but yes, I genuinely do try to avoid ads off the Internet, too. I find most of them really bothersome and offensive.
    - bezoz 4y ago
      Congratulations. You are now in violation of the highway code of ethics as billboard revenue is how they pay for creating those highways. By not looking at them, you are lowering their roi, costing them more money and this is akin to stealing I kid i kid
stickfigure 4y ago
No. The agreement is that my browser will issue HTTP requests, their web server will return some HTML. There's a legal requirement that neither payload is intended to cause harm, but the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that. If someone wants to feed ads into that content, that's their right. If I want to change the way that content displays, that's my right.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  by opening the website, that data HAS left the origin server and is sent to my browser. What i do with that data is up to me. i choose to ignore half of it so be it. Is there a mandate that i have to "hold it the right way only" like apple famously did with their antennagate?
  - Nemi 4y ago
    This is the best argument. If they send me an exploit it isn’t expected for me to run it blindly because of some unwritten contract, right? Once the payload is sent to me it is my right to execute it as I wish. That is the unwritten contract.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong.
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    The internet is not an honesty box.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Well I think it is - they're offering something with an understanding. Yes the understanding isn't legally enforced, but socially that's what they're expecting. Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree, rather than continuing to take while knowing that it's not what they wanted.
ptero 4y ago
I would see that as a reasonable view (not the one I agree with, but a reasonable viewpoint) in the late 1990s where people wrote their own web pages and hosted them on different servers. Now that we have a coordinated oligopoly on content distribution "if you do not like it do not use it" does not work anymore. Today, if someone wants to say something using the web they will see that content monetized via algorithmics and attention grabbing ads. I feel no moral constraints on pushing back. My 2c.
Cpoll 4y ago
> More hypocritical than that is that I know many such people who then go to create their apps and as soon as they have enough traffic, they'll add adsense to their apps but keep blocking it in others. That's not hypocrisy, at least not with only the facts presented. It would only be hypocrisy if they actively speak out against other websites that include ads (or against people that use adblockers on their website). > No normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go. That's actually a pretty rational decision if you need to use the bank but don't want to be on camera.
rrwo 4y ago
You don't know what websites have ads until you visit them. But the problem isn't the presence of ads. It's that the ads are served by advertising networks, that track users across multiple websites and build profiles of users. And that the original websites have very little control over the content of the ads, which may be irrelevant or contain malware. The ads are often animated images, sometimes with sound, which are distracting. The ads are often deceptive ("Your computer is infected. Install this program now!") or clickbait. Some sites don't distinguish the ads from the content, which makes it confusing. If you want a blast from the past, disable the popup blocker on your web browser and see how many sites still fill your screen with intrusive popups and notifications. Also, people have used video recordings of live television to skip commercials. Some devices even have a commercial skip function. Or people just mute the television while commercials are playing. If this is acceptable, then why not block ads on websites?
- lelandfe 4y ago
  > people just mute the television while commercials are playing. If this is acceptable, then why not block ads on websites The makers of my favorite shows have already been paid. My favorite small blog has not.
  - rrwo 4y ago
    The people who made the shows got paid. The commercial television network that broadcasts the shows is paid by commercials. And TV networks don't like commercial skipping, e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/2012/05/25/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement/ https://www.techdirt.com/2012/05/25/tv-networks-file-legal-c...
- poorlyknit 4y ago
  This. I'd be perfectly happy with ads that are actually related to the content and served by the same IP as the content. Going advertising networks is lazy and inconsiderate.
nnopepe 4y ago
HTTP is a request based protocol. I make a request and you can choose to accept or reject it. If the host breaks the social contract by polluting the connection with unsolicited content it's entirely within the users prerogative to block such requests.
pfortuny 4y ago
So I cannot cut out the ads from my paper newspaper?
imiric 4y ago
First of all, I find it silly to downvote a comment based on a disagreement, and I hope other HNers can use it for what it's for: off topic, spam, misleading and nonsensical comments. That said, I do disagree with you. The fact of the matter is that most content on the web is monetized by ads. Applying your argument would effectively limit you to a very small fraction of the web. Content providers choose advertising as a business model because it's easy to integrate and, given enough traffic, pays well. If they would prioritize user experience and protecting their users' privacy, they would choose different, and perhaps less profitable and more difficult to integrate, revenue streams. Besides, ad blockers don't only serve the purpose of blocking advertising, but tracking scripts in general. Web analytics and user monitoring scripts that track the user to feed data brokers and the shady multi-billion dollar market that exists because of it, is particularly evil. Also, I'll choose how I want to consume the content that is provided on the open internet, control the bytes that I download and the programs that are allowed to run on _my machine_. If the content provider absolutely wants to get paid for their content, they're free to put up a paywall and block access altogether. If content providers have the freedom to choose how to monetize, then I have the freedom to choose how to consume.
dooglius 4y ago
> You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? For internet content, the people who create the content I want and the people adding the advertisements and profiting from them are rarely the same. For physical content, it's often a necessary evil due to ethical (non-advertising) products being unable to compete effectively with unethical ones.
Nursie 4y ago
> you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living I entered no such agreement. I asked your server for some data and it gave it to me. What happens beyond that is up to me. I might be using lynx, for all you know, or have javascript or even image rendering off for reasons of resources or bandwidth. Are those classes of user also freeloaders? But in the interest of transparency, how about I set a header, let's call it "WontRenderAds" and tell you ahead of time, then you can decide whether to even serve the page. That sound fair? I'd be perfectly happy to do it.
datadata 4y ago
What exactly is the "agreement" here? Consider this parallel: Every time commercials come on the TV, I turn off the TV. Am I in breach of an agreement with the TV station to consume the ad? Why is that different than using an ad blocker?
einpoklum 4y ago
> if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. I don't use websites with ads! I use just the websites, without the ads. > Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. They are breaking the agreement of not filling proper content with ad junk. You know, the agreement everybody in society is implicitly part of because I believe it's the right thing to do? > You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? That's like saying if someone published a poem with an ad slogan on the last line, I'm not supposed to skip it, because why am I using their poem without the ads. > how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground. Developers should definitely create free tools (to modify and redistribute, as well as to use). But they should not spoil them with ads.
Justin_K 4y ago
I don't think people have a problem with getting served ads. It's how they are served ads / tracking / stalking / data collection that's disliked.
photochemsyn 4y ago
Isn't this a bit equivalent to owning a TV (pre-internet days) that refuses to allow you to mute the sound during the advertising segments? How about taping such television shows for your own personal use, while cutting out the advertisements? What about loaning (or copying) such videotapes so others can watch them? See for example, these historical discussions from the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1984/01/22/the-right-to-bear-videotape/dd4879b2-cbdf-4175-b15c-78df39c38eb8/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1984/01/22/t... > (1984) "Several Hollywood studios sued Sony, a manufacturer of VCRs, seeking money damages and an injunction against sales. The studios charged that Sony was responsible for copyright infringements. A lower court held that there was no infringement in recording material broadcast over public airwaves. An appeals court reversed, holding Sony liable for "contributory infringement." The Supreme Court has reversed that, saying that Sony is not liable because Congress has not spoken clearly about this practice." See also, this 2012 discussion of that case: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/the-court-case-that-almost-made-it-illegal-to-tape-tv-shows/251107/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/the-c... There were even technologies introduced to automate the process, and IIRC, some were able to automatically skip over the advertisements when auto-taping the shows (1991): https://buffalonews.com/news/vcr-plus-will-make-taping-shows-simple/article_91a488cc-9f0a-56ba-8184-bb9a9e9c5a84.html https://buffalonews.com/news/vcr-plus-will-make-taping-shows...
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<<but it seems very odd to me how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground. In general, I think most people would agree that your right ends when my begin. The moment I send the request and the wheels start spinning to get all the information in, I should be able to decide whether or not something is filtered out. Why do some developers ( and frankly, I do not even think its developers -- its their management ) feel entitled to being able to serve whatever they want on my machine? What if I just one this one tiny little snippet here?
concordDance 4y ago
> You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? Because black hat SEO has made it very hard to find the non-ad filled stuff.
icambron 4y ago
I honestly don’t get it. I block ads because I don’t want to see them, because I find them annoying and distracting. I don’t need any other rationale. They’re being shown on my computer, which I control, so of course I make changes to it that enhance the experience for me. If you don’t want me to have the ability to do that, it is unwise to send me the content in the first place. I haven’t agreed to look at ads; the website owners put the content in a public place.
cpsns 4y ago
> if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. I wish this was a tenable solution as if this were practical it’s exactly what I’d do. As it stands I can’t even use basic web search without ads, or even my banks online banking service! Even services which I pay for are increasingly getting greedy and showing ads, which is unacceptable. I do find advertising offensive, but I’m not fundamentally opposed to the concept. In reality though online ads are heavily abused by almost company/individual and I will opt to control my network traffic as I see fit.
brk 4y ago
While I doubt any statistically significant number of people browse the web with a mindset of "I really hope I see some great ads today", I also doubt that most people "don't like websites with ads". IMO, what most people dislike is websites with overly intrusive and distracting ads, ads that attempt to fingerprint the users, or other things that lean towards a user-hostile experience. Also, by blocking ads and still consuming the content you signal to the content owner/producer that you do in fact value the content. The subtext is that they might have better options to monetize your visit, perhaps through a better layout and ad experience. IMO the average content publisher would not want a purely binary experience of "browse my ad ridden cotent, or avoid my site altogether". What they want is a monetization strategy that retains enough viewers to be viable. As viewers/readers, we only have so many practical feedback options to tell them what is acceptable or what is not.
wintermutestwin 4y ago
So you are saying that I should respect some form of implied agreement with a industry that is rampantly engaging in the theft of my data? Isn't there some form of implied agreement that I get to name the price of my product? Also, you are acting like all web browsing is by choice and ignoring the network effect that essentially forces people to use certain sites to participate in the society that they belong to.
Okawari 4y ago
I find blocking ads online to be as immoral as changing the channel for a few minutes or getting snacks during the ad break on tv. The ads are part of the their monetization, By this logic I'm not fulfilling my social contract by not diligently watching the ads? The reality of advertising on the web is something you need to account for when building your site and content around an ad based payment model.
throwawayacc2 4y ago
I wrote this before and I will write it here again. There is a burger place. The burger place offers free burgers. They are able to do this because Big Lettuce pays the burger place to put lettuce in their burger. When I go and get a burger from the free burger place, what I do is I remove the lettuce from my burger. I just don’t like it. I made no agreement with the burger place to eat lettuce. They assume I will. They try to convince me to. They might even try to make the lettuce hard to remove from the burger. But what has not happened, unlike you are implying, is an agreement that I will consume the lettuce. I’m not going to stop going to the free burger place. I really like free burgers. And I won’t stop removing lettuce from my burger either. I deeply dislike lettuce. So, instead of telling me to stop going to the free burger shop because I like removing lettuce, how about you tell the shop to stop giving away free lettuce? If people really like their burgers, they will pay for them. If their burgers aren’t really that good and people consume them just because they’re free, maybe the burger place should go out of business.
- datavirtue 4y ago
  As ridiculous as this sounds, it makes sense. We tried the business model and it just didn't work out. We need to innovate ways to support content explicitly with some form of payment. The elusive micro-transactions that economists have been begging for for decades now. Maybe it is too late?
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    If I had an answer for this I’d be pitching my startup somewhere. I honestly don’t know what the alternative will be. But I am sure there is on. Forcing people to consume ads just isn’t sustainable I think.
- jefftk 4y ago
  Here's where we had this conversation last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32765972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32765972 As I said before, in your hypothetical you would be undermining a business model that is letting a lot of people eat burgers for free, and that would be selfishly making the world worse.
youngtaff 4y ago
Under GDPR and other privacy legislation then people in the EU have the right to refuse personalised ads
mikro2nd 4y ago
Controversial opinion: If you can't make money from your website without shoving ads in my face, perhaps you should seek either: * another monetisation scheme for your website, or * a different line of business than a website. The race-to-the-bottom that is ad-supported websites is nothing more than a massive failure of imagination; pure laziness; a grift of the first magnitude.
danbruc 4y ago
Even if I am blocking ads, I am still paying for the content. Every product that I buy has a fraction of the ad budget in its price, the ad budget gets spend on various web sites. At least to a first approximation it does not really matter whether I see ads or block them. One could do a more careful analysis, how seeing the ads would change my spending behavior, how blocking ads changes ad prices and what not. But I do not think that blocking ads means that I am not paying my share for the content I am consuming. [1] [1] Admittedly it could be the case, the people using ad blockers could be a very special group of people that would also see very special ads and buy very special products. But even then, the ad budget in the products I buy has to go somewhere. Therefore I would assume that at worst there will be some distortion in the prices of ads, how ad budgets are allocated and so on when I am blocking ads but no complete freeloading on the backs of others.
wzdd 4y ago
I think it's a good idea to act in the same way that you would like other people to act. I think making an income through advertising is both immoral and inefficient, and I would like to see ad-supported sites shut down. So I think that it is actually morally imperative that I send a message to such sites that their actions are causing harm, and I would encourage everyone else to do the same. If I were hyporcritical enough to run an ad-supported site, I would hope that my site visitors would do the same thing to me.
lwhi 4y ago
Your 'controversial opinion' is incorrect. We live in a world where THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Not withstanding the negative environmental, social and psychological effects that advertising can have .. I simply don't care to live in a world where I'm sold products and services 24/7. "Then pay for the content!" .. fully subscribing to every publication I read isn't viable; financially or practically. How is anyone expected to navigate a world where there is no alternative? More importantly, if we follow "don't use websites with ads" logic, we could also logically end up with "don't live here if you don't like the politics". The way the world is shaped, should be a conversation .. I categorically refuse to put up with a world view that's been put upon me by a bunch companies I had no part in choosing or guiding.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads No need to abstain from anything, we have the technology to fix the websites instead. It's called uBlock Origin. Here's the deal: websites are rendering and running on our computers, and we alone decide what code runs and what elements show up on screen. If you don't like it, then don't send out web pages for free to any user agent that requests one. All you have to do is return 402 Payment Required. > you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living I don't remember "agreeing" to anything. > If you know there's a security camera at the bank branch and you don't want to be recorded, you don't go to the bank branch, no normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go. Yeah, just opt out of society. Every single bank everywhere has cameras so if you don't like to be tracked just don't go to banks at all. You gotta be kidding me.
kolla 4y ago
Well when you have ideas and thoughts that are not shared by the majority it's no wonder you get downvoted.
horsawlarway 4y ago
Controversial opinion: I don't serve ads to my customers - I feel absolutely zero fucking sympathy for site owners when I block ads. If you don't want me to block ads - pick a different model. Preferably one where I'm a customer, and you're catering to my needs instead of selling me off to the highest bidder. Second controversial opinion: Ads should be banned entirely, legislatively, because the industry is a breeding ground of misaligned incentives, data abuse, corruption, and generally scummy behavior. Will that remove a lot of free services? Sure - I don't care. I think the net will be a win. Third controversial opinion - your "controversial opinion" leads to a dystopia where people are forced to view ads everywhere. They are manipulated non stop for the benefit of someone else. I don't just think you're wrong - I think you're malicious.
- potta_coffee 4y ago
  It's definitely a net win. If people won't pay for the content and services, then they don't deserve to exist. There's a ton of useless, low quality crap on the internet.
Eleison23 4y ago
To some extent, I agree. I am far too lazy and morally I feel an obligation to disable adblocking for sites I visit and derive value from. But I always forget or don't bother. So yeah, I'm ripping off those sites. But my ad blocker's primary purpose is to keep me safe and sane when I stray from my regularly-visited sites. I often do this while checking references at Wikipedia. I have no obligation to feed those sites ad revenue, and they have no right to run/download unwanted content on my system.
creata 4y ago
Here's a better analogy than a bank: a local club. All your friends go to the club. All your favorite events are at the club. Suddenly, the club starts putting face recognition cameras all over the place. Am I going to stop going? Of course not, all my friends are there! Am I going to "put a hood on [my] head"? Of course I am!
- vasco 4y ago
  You know what happens in places with video surveillance when you intentionally conceil your identity? Depending on the country it's either illegal or you're asked to leave the premises. You might not like how it is, but it is.
  - creata 4y ago
    Yep, hence the ad blocking arms race. But my point is that I wouldn't say I'm "hypocritical" or that I'm "breaking [an] agreement" by trying to conceal my identity; in fact, I'm doing the reasonable thing.
paulmooreparks 4y ago
A lot of sites I visit pop up a box that says, "We noticed you're using an adblocker." I'm perfectly fine with that. My response is to immediately close the tab and move on to other content. They've let me know that they don't want to serve me content that's ad-blocked, and I've let them know that I don't find their content so valuable that I'll suffer the rude interruption.
account42 4y ago
> Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. Sure as soon as they stop capturing users and content that would have otherwise been on ad-free sites. > Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. There is no agreement. Someone making a living off it is one of the worst reasons to keep a shitty thing around. > If you consider ads to be psychological assault or other characterizations like this that I've heard before in this forum, stop going to those websites. You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? See the first point. Ad-supported websites still affect you even if you don't use the because they compete with and thus influence what other options are available.

by vasco 4y ago

Majestic121 4y ago

I somewhat agree with you that it is hypocritical to refuse ads but still go to the website, especially if the website offer a paid option and that you have a Software Developer salary. However, if you get downvoted, it might also be because complaining about being downvoted (even before actually receiving downvotes) is pretty annoying

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wintermutestwin 4y ago
Youtube is a great example of your argument - you can subscribe and avoid ads (I think?). I would gladly do so, except google is also stealing my data and now these thieves have it tied to my CC#.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Imagine being extorted by Google into paying to avoid ads, being advertised to anyway by sponsored segments hardcoded into videos and being tracked and profiled on top of it all. Paying just makes your attention even more valuable. If you have enough disposable income to pay for this, they can only imagine what you'll pay for if they manage to get ads in front of your eyeballs.

hobs 4y ago

If you don't like roads with billboard, use the backroads instead! This a poor argument, no HN crowdthink required.

bwb 4y ago
Billboards dont pay for roads. Ads pay for websites.
- hobs 4y ago
  Billboard companies pay taxes, rent land, and pay special fees to the state for their use... so, they sort of do.
  - bwb 4y ago
    But not really :)
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Yes, taxes pay for most roads.
      - bwb 4y ago
        yes they do. Bill board ads do not.
        tomrod 4y ago
        Billboard companies receive revenue. They pay employees and shareholders or holdover cash, all of which is taxed. So yes, your misunderstanding aside, billboard ads do pay for roads in a clearly understood way.
        bwb 4y ago
        Sigh... not in any meaningful way. The point is this, ads directly fund websites. Without ads those websites do not exist. Bill boards do not directly fund highways, our taxes do, and those are collected 99.9999999999% from not bill boards.

_chu1 4y ago

eldenwrong 4y ago

I only block ads for shitty multinational companies that are sadly essential for many daily tasks. I don't lose sleep over that. Those companies ain't playing by the rules

blibble 4y ago

> Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. there is no agreement in legal terms, there's no offer consideration or acceptance if they want to lock it behind a paywall with an actual contract where they forbid me from doing that, then fair enough if it's offered anonymously then I will render the page using my equipment however I want

coldpie 4y ago

How do you propose I know whether a website displays ads before I visit it? I'm not going to maintain a blocklist of every ad-using website on every device I use. I'm just going to use an ad blocker. Their crappy business model isn't my problem.

RunSet 4y ago

> Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. 1. If someone doesn't want their content to be publicly available, they should not put it on a public web server.[0] 2. The question should not be whether ad blocking is ethical, but whether it is a moral obligation.[1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew [1] https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-block-ads/ https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-...

vasco 4y ago
Do you close your eyes walking around town any time you go by a store front, you see a roadside ad, a bench covered in ads, a taxi backseat, public toilets, any sports events and jerseys, TV, newspapers, magazines, radio... Are you morally obligated to get rid of those too? If you truly believe this, how do you function in society? Why is digital attention morally a big problem but attention in real life not? I get it, the world would be prettier without ads, but you'd also be able to afford way less things. Maybe you want to live that life, but most of society over time has gravitated to this mode of selling goods and services.
- coldpie 4y ago
  > Do you close your eyes walking around town any time you go by a store front, you see a roadside ad, a bench covered in ads, a taxi backseat, public toilets, any sports events and jerseys, TV, newspapers, magazines, radio... Honestly, yes, I often do. I intentionally do not look at billboards when driving, I skip ad pages in my woodworking magazines, and I listen to local public radio without ads. In the rare times I watch live TV (wife watching football) I mute the TV during ads. Obviously it's impossible in every situation ever, but yes, I genuinely do try to avoid ads off the Internet, too. I find most of them really bothersome and offensive.
  - bezoz 4y ago
    Congratulations. You are now in violation of the highway code of ethics as billboard revenue is how they pay for creating those highways. By not looking at them, you are lowering their roi, costing them more money and this is akin to stealing I kid i kid

stickfigure 4y ago

No. The agreement is that my browser will issue HTTP requests, their web server will return some HTML. There's a legal requirement that neither payload is intended to cause harm, but the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that. If someone wants to feed ads into that content, that's their right. If I want to change the way that content displays, that's my right.

2Gkashmiri 4y ago
by opening the website, that data HAS left the origin server and is sent to my browser. What i do with that data is up to me. i choose to ignore half of it so be it. Is there a mandate that i have to "hold it the right way only" like apple famously did with their antennagate?
- Nemi 4y ago
  This is the best argument. If they send me an exploit it isn’t expected for me to run it blindly because of some unwritten contract, right? Once the payload is sent to me it is my right to execute it as I wish. That is the unwritten contract.
chrisseaton 4y ago
> the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  The internet is not an honesty box.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Well I think it is - they're offering something with an understanding. Yes the understanding isn't legally enforced, but socially that's what they're expecting. Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree, rather than continuing to take while knowing that it's not what they wanted.

ptero 4y ago

I would see that as a reasonable view (not the one I agree with, but a reasonable viewpoint) in the late 1990s where people wrote their own web pages and hosted them on different servers. Now that we have a coordinated oligopoly on content distribution "if you do not like it do not use it" does not work anymore. Today, if someone wants to say something using the web they will see that content monetized via algorithmics and attention grabbing ads. I feel no moral constraints on pushing back. My 2c.

Cpoll 4y ago

> More hypocritical than that is that I know many such people who then go to create their apps and as soon as they have enough traffic, they'll add adsense to their apps but keep blocking it in others. That's not hypocrisy, at least not with only the facts presented. It would only be hypocrisy if they actively speak out against other websites that include ads (or against people that use adblockers on their website). > No normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go. That's actually a pretty rational decision if you need to use the bank but don't want to be on camera.

rrwo 4y ago

You don't know what websites have ads until you visit them. But the problem isn't the presence of ads. It's that the ads are served by advertising networks, that track users across multiple websites and build profiles of users. And that the original websites have very little control over the content of the ads, which may be irrelevant or contain malware. The ads are often animated images, sometimes with sound, which are distracting. The ads are often deceptive ("Your computer is infected. Install this program now!") or clickbait. Some sites don't distinguish the ads from the content, which makes it confusing. If you want a blast from the past, disable the popup blocker on your web browser and see how many sites still fill your screen with intrusive popups and notifications. Also, people have used video recordings of live television to skip commercials. Some devices even have a commercial skip function. Or people just mute the television while commercials are playing. If this is acceptable, then why not block ads on websites?

lelandfe 4y ago
> people just mute the television while commercials are playing. If this is acceptable, then why not block ads on websites The makers of my favorite shows have already been paid. My favorite small blog has not.
- rrwo 4y ago
  The people who made the shows got paid. The commercial television network that broadcasts the shows is paid by commercials. And TV networks don't like commercial skipping, e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/2012/05/25/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement/ https://www.techdirt.com/2012/05/25/tv-networks-file-legal-c...
poorlyknit 4y ago
This. I'd be perfectly happy with ads that are actually related to the content and served by the same IP as the content. Going advertising networks is lazy and inconsiderate.

nnopepe 4y ago

HTTP is a request based protocol. I make a request and you can choose to accept or reject it. If the host breaks the social contract by polluting the connection with unsolicited content it's entirely within the users prerogative to block such requests.

pfortuny 4y ago

So I cannot cut out the ads from my paper newspaper?

imiric 4y ago

First of all, I find it silly to downvote a comment based on a disagreement, and I hope other HNers can use it for what it's for: off topic, spam, misleading and nonsensical comments. That said, I do disagree with you. The fact of the matter is that most content on the web is monetized by ads. Applying your argument would effectively limit you to a very small fraction of the web. Content providers choose advertising as a business model because it's easy to integrate and, given enough traffic, pays well. If they would prioritize user experience and protecting their users' privacy, they would choose different, and perhaps less profitable and more difficult to integrate, revenue streams. Besides, ad blockers don't only serve the purpose of blocking advertising, but tracking scripts in general. Web analytics and user monitoring scripts that track the user to feed data brokers and the shady multi-billion dollar market that exists because of it, is particularly evil. Also, I'll choose how I want to consume the content that is provided on the open internet, control the bytes that I download and the programs that are allowed to run on _my machine_. If the content provider absolutely wants to get paid for their content, they're free to put up a paywall and block access altogether. If content providers have the freedom to choose how to monetize, then I have the freedom to choose how to consume.

dooglius 4y ago

> You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? For internet content, the people who create the content I want and the people adding the advertisements and profiting from them are rarely the same. For physical content, it's often a necessary evil due to ethical (non-advertising) products being unable to compete effectively with unethical ones.

Nursie 4y ago

> you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living I entered no such agreement. I asked your server for some data and it gave it to me. What happens beyond that is up to me. I might be using lynx, for all you know, or have javascript or even image rendering off for reasons of resources or bandwidth. Are those classes of user also freeloaders? But in the interest of transparency, how about I set a header, let's call it "WontRenderAds" and tell you ahead of time, then you can decide whether to even serve the page. That sound fair? I'd be perfectly happy to do it.

datadata 4y ago

What exactly is the "agreement" here? Consider this parallel: Every time commercials come on the TV, I turn off the TV. Am I in breach of an agreement with the TV station to consume the ad? Why is that different than using an ad blocker?

einpoklum 4y ago

> if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. I don't use websites with ads! I use just the websites, without the ads. > Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. They are breaking the agreement of not filling proper content with ad junk. You know, the agreement everybody in society is implicitly part of because I believe it's the right thing to do? > You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? That's like saying if someone published a poem with an ad slogan on the last line, I'm not supposed to skip it, because why am I using their poem without the ads. > how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground. Developers should definitely create free tools (to modify and redistribute, as well as to use). But they should not spoil them with ads.

Justin_K 4y ago

I don't think people have a problem with getting served ads. It's how they are served ads / tracking / stalking / data collection that's disliked.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Isn't this a bit equivalent to owning a TV (pre-internet days) that refuses to allow you to mute the sound during the advertising segments? How about taping such television shows for your own personal use, while cutting out the advertisements? What about loaning (or copying) such videotapes so others can watch them? See for example, these historical discussions from the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1984/01/22/the-right-to-bear-videotape/dd4879b2-cbdf-4175-b15c-78df39c38eb8/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1984/01/22/t... > (1984) "Several Hollywood studios sued Sony, a manufacturer of VCRs, seeking money damages and an injunction against sales. The studios charged that Sony was responsible for copyright infringements. A lower court held that there was no infringement in recording material broadcast over public airwaves. An appeals court reversed, holding Sony liable for "contributory infringement." The Supreme Court has reversed that, saying that Sony is not liable because Congress has not spoken clearly about this practice." See also, this 2012 discussion of that case: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/the-court-case-that-almost-made-it-illegal-to-tape-tv-shows/251107/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/the-c... There were even technologies introduced to automate the process, and IIRC, some were able to automatically skip over the advertisements when auto-taping the shows (1991): https://buffalonews.com/news/vcr-plus-will-make-taping-shows-simple/article_91a488cc-9f0a-56ba-8184-bb9a9e9c5a84.html https://buffalonews.com/news/vcr-plus-will-make-taping-shows...

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

<<but it seems very odd to me how we so easily deny other developers of creating free to use tools just because we think we have some moral higher ground. In general, I think most people would agree that your right ends when my begin. The moment I send the request and the wheels start spinning to get all the information in, I should be able to decide whether or not something is filtered out. Why do some developers ( and frankly, I do not even think its developers -- its their management ) feel entitled to being able to serve whatever they want on my machine? What if I just one this one tiny little snippet here?

concordDance 4y ago

> You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? Because black hat SEO has made it very hard to find the non-ad filled stuff.

icambron 4y ago

I honestly don’t get it. I block ads because I don’t want to see them, because I find them annoying and distracting. I don’t need any other rationale. They’re being shown on my computer, which I control, so of course I make changes to it that enhance the experience for me. If you don’t want me to have the ability to do that, it is unwise to send me the content in the first place. I haven’t agreed to look at ads; the website owners put the content in a public place.

cpsns 4y ago

> if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. I wish this was a tenable solution as if this were practical it’s exactly what I’d do. As it stands I can’t even use basic web search without ads, or even my banks online banking service! Even services which I pay for are increasingly getting greedy and showing ads, which is unacceptable. I do find advertising offensive, but I’m not fundamentally opposed to the concept. In reality though online ads are heavily abused by almost company/individual and I will opt to control my network traffic as I see fit.

brk 4y ago

While I doubt any statistically significant number of people browse the web with a mindset of "I really hope I see some great ads today", I also doubt that most people "don't like websites with ads". IMO, what most people dislike is websites with overly intrusive and distracting ads, ads that attempt to fingerprint the users, or other things that lean towards a user-hostile experience. Also, by blocking ads and still consuming the content you signal to the content owner/producer that you do in fact value the content. The subtext is that they might have better options to monetize your visit, perhaps through a better layout and ad experience. IMO the average content publisher would not want a purely binary experience of "browse my ad ridden cotent, or avoid my site altogether". What they want is a monetization strategy that retains enough viewers to be viable. As viewers/readers, we only have so many practical feedback options to tell them what is acceptable or what is not.

wintermutestwin 4y ago

So you are saying that I should respect some form of implied agreement with a industry that is rampantly engaging in the theft of my data? Isn't there some form of implied agreement that I get to name the price of my product? Also, you are acting like all web browsing is by choice and ignoring the network effect that essentially forces people to use certain sites to participate in the society that they belong to.

Okawari 4y ago

I find blocking ads online to be as immoral as changing the channel for a few minutes or getting snacks during the ad break on tv. The ads are part of the their monetization, By this logic I'm not fulfilling my social contract by not diligently watching the ads? The reality of advertising on the web is something you need to account for when building your site and content around an ad based payment model.

throwawayacc2 4y ago

I wrote this before and I will write it here again. There is a burger place. The burger place offers free burgers. They are able to do this because Big Lettuce pays the burger place to put lettuce in their burger. When I go and get a burger from the free burger place, what I do is I remove the lettuce from my burger. I just don’t like it. I made no agreement with the burger place to eat lettuce. They assume I will. They try to convince me to. They might even try to make the lettuce hard to remove from the burger. But what has not happened, unlike you are implying, is an agreement that I will consume the lettuce. I’m not going to stop going to the free burger place. I really like free burgers. And I won’t stop removing lettuce from my burger either. I deeply dislike lettuce. So, instead of telling me to stop going to the free burger shop because I like removing lettuce, how about you tell the shop to stop giving away free lettuce? If people really like their burgers, they will pay for them. If their burgers aren’t really that good and people consume them just because they’re free, maybe the burger place should go out of business.

datavirtue 4y ago
As ridiculous as this sounds, it makes sense. We tried the business model and it just didn't work out. We need to innovate ways to support content explicitly with some form of payment. The elusive micro-transactions that economists have been begging for for decades now. Maybe it is too late?
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  If I had an answer for this I’d be pitching my startup somewhere. I honestly don’t know what the alternative will be. But I am sure there is on. Forcing people to consume ads just isn’t sustainable I think.
jefftk 4y ago
Here's where we had this conversation last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32765972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32765972 As I said before, in your hypothetical you would be undermining a business model that is letting a lot of people eat burgers for free, and that would be selfishly making the world worse.

youngtaff 4y ago

Under GDPR and other privacy legislation then people in the EU have the right to refuse personalised ads

mikro2nd 4y ago

Controversial opinion: If you can't make money from your website without shoving ads in my face, perhaps you should seek either: * another monetisation scheme for your website, or * a different line of business than a website. The race-to-the-bottom that is ad-supported websites is nothing more than a massive failure of imagination; pure laziness; a grift of the first magnitude.

danbruc 4y ago

Even if I am blocking ads, I am still paying for the content. Every product that I buy has a fraction of the ad budget in its price, the ad budget gets spend on various web sites. At least to a first approximation it does not really matter whether I see ads or block them. One could do a more careful analysis, how seeing the ads would change my spending behavior, how blocking ads changes ad prices and what not. But I do not think that blocking ads means that I am not paying my share for the content I am consuming. [1] [1] Admittedly it could be the case, the people using ad blockers could be a very special group of people that would also see very special ads and buy very special products. But even then, the ad budget in the products I buy has to go somewhere. Therefore I would assume that at worst there will be some distortion in the prices of ads, how ad budgets are allocated and so on when I am blocking ads but no complete freeloading on the backs of others.

wzdd 4y ago

I think it's a good idea to act in the same way that you would like other people to act. I think making an income through advertising is both immoral and inefficient, and I would like to see ad-supported sites shut down. So I think that it is actually morally imperative that I send a message to such sites that their actions are causing harm, and I would encourage everyone else to do the same. If I were hyporcritical enough to run an ad-supported site, I would hope that my site visitors would do the same thing to me.

lwhi 4y ago

Your 'controversial opinion' is incorrect. We live in a world where THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Not withstanding the negative environmental, social and psychological effects that advertising can have .. I simply don't care to live in a world where I'm sold products and services 24/7. "Then pay for the content!" .. fully subscribing to every publication I read isn't viable; financially or practically. How is anyone expected to navigate a world where there is no alternative? More importantly, if we follow "don't use websites with ads" logic, we could also logically end up with "don't live here if you don't like the politics". The way the world is shaped, should be a conversation .. I categorically refuse to put up with a world view that's been put upon me by a bunch companies I had no part in choosing or guiding.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads No need to abstain from anything, we have the technology to fix the websites instead. It's called uBlock Origin. Here's the deal: websites are rendering and running on our computers, and we alone decide what code runs and what elements show up on screen. If you don't like it, then don't send out web pages for free to any user agent that requests one. All you have to do is return 402 Payment Required. > you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living I don't remember "agreeing" to anything. > If you know there's a security camera at the bank branch and you don't want to be recorded, you don't go to the bank branch, no normal person would think to put a hood on their head to still go. Yeah, just opt out of society. Every single bank everywhere has cameras so if you don't like to be tracked just don't go to banks at all. You gotta be kidding me.

kolla 4y ago

Well when you have ideas and thoughts that are not shared by the majority it's no wonder you get downvoted.

horsawlarway 4y ago

Controversial opinion: I don't serve ads to my customers - I feel absolutely zero fucking sympathy for site owners when I block ads. If you don't want me to block ads - pick a different model. Preferably one where I'm a customer, and you're catering to my needs instead of selling me off to the highest bidder. Second controversial opinion: Ads should be banned entirely, legislatively, because the industry is a breeding ground of misaligned incentives, data abuse, corruption, and generally scummy behavior. Will that remove a lot of free services? Sure - I don't care. I think the net will be a win. Third controversial opinion - your "controversial opinion" leads to a dystopia where people are forced to view ads everywhere. They are manipulated non stop for the benefit of someone else. I don't just think you're wrong - I think you're malicious.

potta_coffee 4y ago
It's definitely a net win. If people won't pay for the content and services, then they don't deserve to exist. There's a ton of useless, low quality crap on the internet.

Eleison23 4y ago

To some extent, I agree. I am far too lazy and morally I feel an obligation to disable adblocking for sites I visit and derive value from. But I always forget or don't bother. So yeah, I'm ripping off those sites. But my ad blocker's primary purpose is to keep me safe and sane when I stray from my regularly-visited sites. I often do this while checking references at Wikipedia. I have no obligation to feed those sites ad revenue, and they have no right to run/download unwanted content on my system.

creata 4y ago

Here's a better analogy than a bank: a local club. All your friends go to the club. All your favorite events are at the club. Suddenly, the club starts putting face recognition cameras all over the place. Am I going to stop going? Of course not, all my friends are there! Am I going to "put a hood on [my] head"? Of course I am!

vasco 4y ago
You know what happens in places with video surveillance when you intentionally conceil your identity? Depending on the country it's either illegal or you're asked to leave the premises. You might not like how it is, but it is.
- creata 4y ago
  Yep, hence the ad blocking arms race. But my point is that I wouldn't say I'm "hypocritical" or that I'm "breaking [an] agreement" by trying to conceal my identity; in fact, I'm doing the reasonable thing.

paulmooreparks 4y ago

A lot of sites I visit pop up a box that says, "We noticed you're using an adblocker." I'm perfectly fine with that. My response is to immediately close the tab and move on to other content. They've let me know that they don't want to serve me content that's ad-blocked, and I've let them know that I don't find their content so valuable that I'll suffer the rude interruption.

account42 4y ago

> Controversial opinion: if you don't like websites with ads, don't use websites with ads. Sure as soon as they stop capturing users and content that would have otherwise been on ad-free sites. > Otherwise you're breaking the agreement that the people hosting what you want to use have to make a living. There is no agreement. Someone making a living off it is one of the worst reasons to keep a shitty thing around. > If you consider ads to be psychological assault or other characterizations like this that I've heard before in this forum, stop going to those websites. You think the people that created what you want to use are bad people, infringing on your rights, why would you still use their stuff? See the first point. Ad-supported websites still affect you even if you don't use the because they compete with and thus influence what other options are available.