4 ms·

I'm so torn on Adblockers. While I agree that advertisers generally don't act in good faith, the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. Two wrongs don't m

I'm so torn on Adblockers. While I agree that advertisers generally don't act in good faith, the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. Two wrongs don't make a right, but maybe the middle ground is to be a responsible website owner who uses best privacy practices around advertising while consumers un-adblock their site. Seems like it's really just an arms race not benefiting content producers, as it is now.

isomorphic 12y ago
A couple of years back, Ars Technica started putting up banner ads targeting adblockers: "Ads pay for the lights, etc." I felt guilty enough that I unblocked ads on Ars. Returning to the site one day, I see the technical equivalent of a "punch the monkey" flashing banner ad. Aaand, adblocking back on, plus I now block the anti-adblock ad. And I no longer feel guilty. You had your chance and you squandered it. Ars Technica styles itself as a site for well-informed technology-oriented people. The ads should fit the site. Insulting your audience's intelligence might work on Facebook, but these days you don't deserve to make money from advertising (on what is essentially a niche site).
nfoz 12y ago
> the penalty falls unfairly on content producers Not really. No-one is obligated to produce content; if a business model doesn't work, then you probably shouldn't do it. So what business model should content producers use, if they can't use the "advertising can fund anything" hack? That's a broader conversation, and I think it's the right conversation for our society to have. Advertising is an expensive tax on our economy (and on human well-being) that doesn't need to exist.
- crandycodes 12y ago
  I would argue the content producers do receive a larger burden due to the costs of hosting that content. A more fair argument would be that users should just boycott the site, not consume it in an altered means. That kind of gets into the weeds, though, eh? While, I think there is room to fund content producers in alternate means, I don't think advertising needs to be written out of the playbook. It's just a matter of properly recognizing the cost of violating privacy and the alternatives. I think society as a whole has a bit to learn about the price of privacy.
cfeduke 12y ago
I disagree that the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. The content producers choose their business model. If technology makes that model untenable then the content producers must change their model.
- technomancy 12y ago
  Imagine a site that started their business when ad networks were less abusive. Over time people started running ad blockers, and the ad networks saw revenues declining, so they started amping up the annoyance factor--more animations, more noise, more tracking. This drives more of the site's visitors to blocking, which makes the ad networks more desperate. Revenues continue to decline even though the site does nothing except produce more valuable content. None of this is the fault of the site running the ads. Maybe it's inevitable, and maybe they just need to suck it up and evolve or join the ranks of obsolete business models, but it's hard not to feel some sympathy for the unfairness of the situation.
- crandycodes 12y ago
  I replied with something similar elsewhere. The content producers have to pay for hosting (generally). Their business model may not work, but adblocking is basically circumventing their revenue model. The only "fair" means would be to not go to that site if it serves ads, but then the internet would be much smaller. It's just as moral as pirating movies in countries that don't offer them or offer them in friendly formats. I see why you'd steal, I don't think you're a bad person, but it's still not a moral means of acquiring the content.

isomorphic 12y ago

A couple of years back, Ars Technica started putting up banner ads targeting adblockers: "Ads pay for the lights, etc." I felt guilty enough that I unblocked ads on Ars. Returning to the site one day, I see the technical equivalent of a "punch the monkey" flashing banner ad. Aaand, adblocking back on, plus I now block the anti-adblock ad. And I no longer feel guilty. You had your chance and you squandered it. Ars Technica styles itself as a site for well-informed technology-oriented people. The ads should fit the site. Insulting your audience's intelligence might work on Facebook, but these days you don't deserve to make money from advertising (on what is essentially a niche site).

nfoz 12y ago

> the penalty falls unfairly on content producers Not really. No-one is obligated to produce content; if a business model doesn't work, then you probably shouldn't do it. So what business model should content producers use, if they can't use the "advertising can fund anything" hack? That's a broader conversation, and I think it's the right conversation for our society to have. Advertising is an expensive tax on our economy (and on human well-being) that doesn't need to exist.

crandycodes 12y ago
I would argue the content producers do receive a larger burden due to the costs of hosting that content. A more fair argument would be that users should just boycott the site, not consume it in an altered means. That kind of gets into the weeds, though, eh? While, I think there is room to fund content producers in alternate means, I don't think advertising needs to be written out of the playbook. It's just a matter of properly recognizing the cost of violating privacy and the alternatives. I think society as a whole has a bit to learn about the price of privacy.

cfeduke 12y ago

I disagree that the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. The content producers choose their business model. If technology makes that model untenable then the content producers must change their model.

technomancy 12y ago
Imagine a site that started their business when ad networks were less abusive. Over time people started running ad blockers, and the ad networks saw revenues declining, so they started amping up the annoyance factor--more animations, more noise, more tracking. This drives more of the site's visitors to blocking, which makes the ad networks more desperate. Revenues continue to decline even though the site does nothing except produce more valuable content. None of this is the fault of the site running the ads. Maybe it's inevitable, and maybe they just need to suck it up and evolve or join the ranks of obsolete business models, but it's hard not to feel some sympathy for the unfairness of the situation.
crandycodes 12y ago
I replied with something similar elsewhere. The content producers have to pay for hosting (generally). Their business model may not work, but adblocking is basically circumventing their revenue model. The only "fair" means would be to not go to that site if it serves ads, but then the internet would be much smaller. It's just as moral as pirating movies in countries that don't offer them or offer them in friendly formats. I see why you'd steal, I don't think you're a bad person, but it's still not a moral means of acquiring the content.