26 ms·

By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.

by relix 14y ago

jasonlotito 14y ago
The same argument can be made for not running Flash, JavaScript, or any other technology the site asks you to run in order to run ads. After all, the intent is that you watch those ads to consume the content. If the intent is to require me to watch ads, then the site can be setup to require that. What I download from where is up to me. I could say that I actually do whitelist sites to display ads, but we both know that I'm in the minority there, and beside the point.
- relix 14y ago
  The site is setup to require that you watch ads, that's why they're there. Regardless of the technical meaning of blocking an ad ("not downloading it"), the intent behind it is clear: not viewing the ads. Yes, the same argument can be made for not running Flash or Javascript, it doesn't detract from my point. You're specifically consuming content that was created to be viewed with ads, which is the trade you're making to consume the content. By not doing your part of the trade, you're the one exploiting the site, not the other way around. Regardless of the ethics of tracking people, because you can choose not to consume the content if you don't agree with the ads.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    > The site is setup to require that you watch ads Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already. However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly. And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it. Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.
    - s_baby 14y ago
      You can rationalize all you want but if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. You're not participating in a fair transaction.
      - Nursie 14y ago
        AdBlock is one of a few ways I have to set my terms in this otherwise one-sided transaction. Should I be ashamed of myself for occasionally using lynx too?
      - jasonlotito 14y ago
        Reading this comment costs you $20. If you don't want to pay, don't read this comment. However, if you read this comment, you owe me $20. By not paying, you are not participating in a fair transaction. > if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. I'm not worried about that. I pay when given the opportunity for content on the web that I regularly enjoy. > You're not participating in a fair transaction. You seem to think that it's unfair that some people are able to negotiate a lower price than others. You can rationalize it all you want but if everyone did what you propose we do, everything would be far more expensive.
DanBC 14y ago
There are three people here. The content providers. The advertisers. Me. I'm ad tolerant; I don't run ad-blockers. This means I get to see all ads. And some of them a really awful. I feel sorry for content creators having to have those on their sites. A 30 minute YouTube video with a 5 minute advert? Those yelling smileys or buzzing mosquitoes? (I politely emails the site owner; I nearly installed ad-block) The really slow loading page-covering ad delaying access to the actual content? I fully understand why people block ads. I don't understand why advertisers ever thought that "Annoy the hell out of anyone seeing this advert" was the best way to go.
- relix 14y ago
  The point is moot though. I understand why people pirate content - it's easier to get something for free than to pay for it - it doesn't mean it's right. You're doing the right thing by not installing adblock, but really you should vote with your feet, by just not visiting those sites. As soon as you see ads that annoy you - go away. That's the right thing to do, because then you're not consuming the content. You're always free to consume content or not, but if you do, you should adhere to the rules that the owner of that content set - namely that you also view this ad.
Silhouette 14y ago
By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. That's a fair point, to some extent. It's no different than pirating stuff Off the top of my head... Piracy is illegal, while not watching ads isn't. In general, when something is sold for a price it's normal to pay so you can buy it, while when ads are displayed in other media there's no expectation that people must stop and look at them and the advertiser knew that up-front. Consuming pirated content is a security risk if you do the "wrong" thing, while displaying on-line ads is a security risk if you do the "right" thing.
- mkmkmmmmm 14y ago
  Actually, I don't think downloading files is illegal, just morally wrong. The distribution of them is a different matter.
king_jester 14y ago
Nobody who runs ads on their site has any right to have visitors view those ads or get impressions/clicks on those ads from visitors. After all, my browser always gets final say in what content loads for me to see, even without adblock.
joosters 14y ago
Damn right! We should also arrest TV viewers who have the temerity to get up from the couch during the ad-breaks. Scummy pirates, how dare they not view the adverts! Send them to jail!
Nursie 14y ago
By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here. People can and do detect my use of adblock and either ask me to disable it for their site, subscribe to their service, or decide not to serve me the data. I have every write to request data from you while also instructing my browser not to request ads. You have every right to decide not to serve me any data. Until or unless I actually infringe your copyright, or enter into an agreement to see your ads and then renege, this is not equivalent to piracy.
- Nursie 14y ago
  My brain must have been malfunctioning. Every right, not every write. Doh.
bierko 14y ago
Don't you feel that it's -somewhat- misleading to compare blocking ads to illegally downloading ("stealing") content?

By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.

by relix 14y ago

By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.

jasonlotito 14y ago

The same argument can be made for not running Flash, JavaScript, or any other technology the site asks you to run in order to run ads. After all, the intent is that you watch those ads to consume the content. If the intent is to require me to watch ads, then the site can be setup to require that. What I download from where is up to me. I could say that I actually do whitelist sites to display ads, but we both know that I'm in the minority there, and beside the point.

relix 14y ago
The site is setup to require that you watch ads, that's why they're there. Regardless of the technical meaning of blocking an ad ("not downloading it"), the intent behind it is clear: not viewing the ads. Yes, the same argument can be made for not running Flash or Javascript, it doesn't detract from my point. You're specifically consuming content that was created to be viewed with ads, which is the trade you're making to consume the content. By not doing your part of the trade, you're the one exploiting the site, not the other way around. Regardless of the ethics of tracking people, because you can choose not to consume the content if you don't agree with the ads.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  > The site is setup to require that you watch ads Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already. However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly. And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it. Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.
  - s_baby 14y ago
    You can rationalize all you want but if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. You're not participating in a fair transaction.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      AdBlock is one of a few ways I have to set my terms in this otherwise one-sided transaction. Should I be ashamed of myself for occasionally using lynx too?
    - jasonlotito 14y ago
      Reading this comment costs you $20. If you don't want to pay, don't read this comment. However, if you read this comment, you owe me $20. By not paying, you are not participating in a fair transaction. > if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. I'm not worried about that. I pay when given the opportunity for content on the web that I regularly enjoy. > You're not participating in a fair transaction. You seem to think that it's unfair that some people are able to negotiate a lower price than others. You can rationalize it all you want but if everyone did what you propose we do, everything would be far more expensive.

DanBC 14y ago

There are three people here. The content providers. The advertisers. Me. I'm ad tolerant; I don't run ad-blockers. This means I get to see all ads. And some of them a really awful. I feel sorry for content creators having to have those on their sites. A 30 minute YouTube video with a 5 minute advert? Those yelling smileys or buzzing mosquitoes? (I politely emails the site owner; I nearly installed ad-block) The really slow loading page-covering ad delaying access to the actual content? I fully understand why people block ads. I don't understand why advertisers ever thought that "Annoy the hell out of anyone seeing this advert" was the best way to go.

relix 14y ago
The point is moot though. I understand why people pirate content - it's easier to get something for free than to pay for it - it doesn't mean it's right. You're doing the right thing by not installing adblock, but really you should vote with your feet, by just not visiting those sites. As soon as you see ads that annoy you - go away. That's the right thing to do, because then you're not consuming the content. You're always free to consume content or not, but if you do, you should adhere to the rules that the owner of that content set - namely that you also view this ad.

Silhouette 14y ago

By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. That's a fair point, to some extent. It's no different than pirating stuff Off the top of my head... Piracy is illegal, while not watching ads isn't. In general, when something is sold for a price it's normal to pay so you can buy it, while when ads are displayed in other media there's no expectation that people must stop and look at them and the advertiser knew that up-front. Consuming pirated content is a security risk if you do the "wrong" thing, while displaying on-line ads is a security risk if you do the "right" thing.

mkmkmmmmm 14y ago
Actually, I don't think downloading files is illegal, just morally wrong. The distribution of them is a different matter.

king_jester 14y ago

Nobody who runs ads on their site has any right to have visitors view those ads or get impressions/clicks on those ads from visitors. After all, my browser always gets final say in what content loads for me to see, even without adblock.

joosters 14y ago

Damn right! We should also arrest TV viewers who have the temerity to get up from the couch during the ad-breaks. Scummy pirates, how dare they not view the adverts! Send them to jail!

Nursie 14y ago

By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here. People can and do detect my use of adblock and either ask me to disable it for their site, subscribe to their service, or decide not to serve me the data. I have every write to request data from you while also instructing my browser not to request ads. You have every right to decide not to serve me any data. Until or unless I actually infringe your copyright, or enter into an agreement to see your ads and then renege, this is not equivalent to piracy.

Nursie 14y ago
My brain must have been malfunctioning. Every right, not every write. Doh.

bierko 14y ago

Don't you feel that it's -somewhat- misleading to compare blocking ads to illegally downloading ("stealing") content?