11 ms·

>which is the only way they make money other than ads. Yeah. > So, you use the site resources Yeah. >don't see ads Yeah. > don't add to their user/page vi

by pikzen 11y ago

>which is the only way they make money other than ads. Yeah. > So, you use the site resources Yeah. >don't see ads Yeah. > don't add to their user/page view numbers. Yeah. >Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc Yeah. Well you know what ? I wouldn't be doing this if ads provider didn't abuse my trust and displayed popup ads. I wouldn't be doing this if ads were actually targeted (lol jk). Early ads providers fucked it up for everyone. Not only do I hate the very principle of ads, I go out of my way to avoid them. And most of all, I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't Google Analytics. Use piwik, use whatever you want as long as it's selfhosted and doesn't report to <gigantic database of users> and I will allow it. After all, I have no way of knowing if you're selling my data back anyways. It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. You want stats ? Use your own server.

untog 11y ago
It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. If you really wanted to take a principled stand you just wouldn't use those web sites. Ad blockers are just lazy activism.
- marrs 11y ago
  What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are seen, then there's no reason to continue paying.
    - nfoz 11y ago
      I would pay the premium for newspapers without ads. In fact, I do -- I support news organizations that aren't driven by advertisement. If you can't find a business model that doesn't antagonize me, then you haven't found a business model that I care to support. If capitalism is failing to provide us with even basic methods of producing quality works, then that's a problem we should tackle at a larger scale.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        But this isn't about you choosing to pay for a source without ads, this is about people choosing the source with ads, and then removing them. Those are entirely different things.
    - marrs 11y ago
      You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers aren't getting much value from the newspaper. If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money they would have otherwise wasted.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        I'm making no argument that they have to survive on their current business model, or that the current business model deserves to survive. I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract, and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. I don't see this as any different than if you were at a conference, and someone offered you a free book which you were interested in if you talked to them for thirty seconds about their product. Taking the book without hearing the pitch is not what I would consider acceptable behavior. In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content. Some people have made arguments about how intrusive some the the advertisement tracking is as a justification for blocking it. This is a perfectly acceptable justification for blocking that tracking, but it does nothing to address the further consumption of the content. The correct response to the abusive shopkeeper that berates you in line is not to steal his goods, but to leave the goods and refuse to give him your business. > If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not? In any case, the market decides this. You are just making information in the market harder to come by, making the market less efficient. > In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money that would otherwise be wasted. Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.
- DanWaterworth 11y ago
  > Ad blockers are just lazy activism. Activism for the lazy; sounds like a good deal.
- gpvos 11y ago
  The sites are being lazy and/or cheap by using GA. They can use piwik instead. As long as they are lazy, I have an equal right to be lazy.
  - bhouston 11y ago
    uBlock also blocked piwik last time I checked.
    - gpvos 11y ago
      That's a pity. This gives me an extra reason not to use blocklists maintained by anyone but myself. (I currently don't use uBlock, but RequestPolicy + NoScript, but am considering switching.)
  - untog 11y ago
    Not really, GA offers a lot more features than Piwik. But either way, that doesn't stop ad blockers being lazy activism.
    - gpvos 11y ago
      Well, then the sites should buy a service that gives them more features. If the existence of GA means there is no market for such products, then GA should go away. I have no problem with lazy activism.
- blumkvist 11y ago
  More like hypocricy and self-entitlement.
Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
I agree absolutely. That's why I use piwik on my sites. Unfortunately, uBlock blocks piwik all the same.
- VieElm 11y ago
  > uBlock blocks piwik all the same Good. I don't want to contribute to your analytics. I don't want ads. I just want to browse the web without being tracked. I don't care if that means you can't pay for your site, other sites will spring up that can without annoying users with ads and without tracking them.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    But you're only blocking ads and analytics? You're not making any effort to avoid the sites that track?
    - baddox 11y ago
      Why avoid the sites that track if it's trivial to visit those sites without getting tracked?
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Some of the ad-block using crowd say that this is not about getting the content and avoiding the ads - it's just about avoiding the ads. I've started asking people who use an ad-blocker if there are any sites they no longer visit.
  - Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
    The "other site" in the area I'm operating in is Google. So the situation is more like "other sites will continue to dominate by cross-subsidising from their core business, namely annoying users with ads and tracking them". Is that really what you want?
    - danso 11y ago

by pikzen 11y ago

untog 11y ago

It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. If you really wanted to take a principled stand you just wouldn't use those web sites. Ad blockers are just lazy activism.

marrs 11y ago
What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.
- kbenson 11y ago
  It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are seen, then there's no reason to continue paying.
  - nfoz 11y ago
    I would pay the premium for newspapers without ads. In fact, I do -- I support news organizations that aren't driven by advertisement. If you can't find a business model that doesn't antagonize me, then you haven't found a business model that I care to support. If capitalism is failing to provide us with even basic methods of producing quality works, then that's a problem we should tackle at a larger scale.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      But this isn't about you choosing to pay for a source without ads, this is about people choosing the source with ads, and then removing them. Those are entirely different things.
  - marrs 11y ago
    You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers aren't getting much value from the newspaper. If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money they would have otherwise wasted.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      I'm making no argument that they have to survive on their current business model, or that the current business model deserves to survive. I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract, and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. I don't see this as any different than if you were at a conference, and someone offered you a free book which you were interested in if you talked to them for thirty seconds about their product. Taking the book without hearing the pitch is not what I would consider acceptable behavior. In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content. Some people have made arguments about how intrusive some the the advertisement tracking is as a justification for blocking it. This is a perfectly acceptable justification for blocking that tracking, but it does nothing to address the further consumption of the content. The correct response to the abusive shopkeeper that berates you in line is not to steal his goods, but to leave the goods and refuse to give him your business. > If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not? In any case, the market decides this. You are just making information in the market harder to come by, making the market less efficient. > In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money that would otherwise be wasted. Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.
DanWaterworth 11y ago
> Ad blockers are just lazy activism. Activism for the lazy; sounds like a good deal.
gpvos 11y ago
The sites are being lazy and/or cheap by using GA. They can use piwik instead. As long as they are lazy, I have an equal right to be lazy.
- bhouston 11y ago
  uBlock also blocked piwik last time I checked.
  - gpvos 11y ago
    That's a pity. This gives me an extra reason not to use blocklists maintained by anyone but myself. (I currently don't use uBlock, but RequestPolicy + NoScript, but am considering switching.)
- untog 11y ago
  Not really, GA offers a lot more features than Piwik. But either way, that doesn't stop ad blockers being lazy activism.
  - gpvos 11y ago
    Well, then the sites should buy a service that gives them more features. If the existence of GA means there is no market for such products, then GA should go away. I have no problem with lazy activism.
blumkvist 11y ago
More like hypocricy and self-entitlement.

Doctor_Fegg 11y ago

I agree absolutely. That's why I use piwik on my sites. Unfortunately, uBlock blocks piwik all the same.

VieElm 11y ago
> uBlock blocks piwik all the same Good. I don't want to contribute to your analytics. I don't want ads. I just want to browse the web without being tracked. I don't care if that means you can't pay for your site, other sites will spring up that can without annoying users with ads and without tracking them.
- DanBC 11y ago
  But you're only blocking ads and analytics? You're not making any effort to avoid the sites that track?
  - baddox 11y ago
    Why avoid the sites that track if it's trivial to visit those sites without getting tracked?
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Some of the ad-block using crowd say that this is not about getting the content and avoiding the ads - it's just about avoiding the ads. I've started asking people who use an ad-blocker if there are any sites they no longer visit.
- Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
  The "other site" in the area I'm operating in is Google. So the situation is more like "other sites will continue to dominate by cross-subsidising from their core business, namely annoying users with ads and tracking them". Is that really what you want?
  - danso 11y ago