Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 299 posts

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#101

Post by TravelTechGuy »

darawk wrote: post #44
koolba wrote: post #39

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

I would consider this contract to be more "legal" if it contained the other side of the equation:

By looking at the ads and executing the code we download to your computer, our site assumes full responsibility for the code, ads and content, and will reimburse you for any damage (physical, material, emotional) caused to you by the software we serve.

We will not blame it on the "ad network", or "ad exchange" or a "google". Nope - if you got it from us, it's ours. So feel safe in deactivating your ad-block and surfing our site, because we got your back!

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#102

Post by mikestew »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #97

Personally I have no problems with ads per se , it's the tracking, privacy, and security aspect I'm concerned about (and also the unbelievable bloatedness of ad-financed sites lately as ad prices race to the bottom). Personally I'd be fine with ads if we could go back to a content-oriented model where first-party static assets are served as ads rather than the targeted advertising we have now. I know others here who…

it's the tracking, privacy, and security aspect I'm concerned about

And that's what ads are, per se, in the 21st century. "Ads", as the current implementation defines it from my perspective, are no longer general-purpose and static. No, they chase you around the web and then for weeks will try to sell you the thing you just purchased. They'll load random executable code onto your machine. I, too, have no problem with a static JPG at the top of the screen, but that hasn't been what ads are in over a decade.

Now the counter-argument would be, "but TV and print ads are not like that, so not all ads." Okay, fair argument though that might be, it's only because TV and print can't, and it's not for lack of trying. Print had the CueCat[0], TV has tried (and mostly failed), but those Samsung TVs are looking pretty creepy from what I'm reading.

So to me, it's like saying, "I don't have a problem with authoritarian governments per se, it's all of the spying, control of the citizenry, and propaganda I have a problem with." Well, that kind of defines an authoritarian government, ergo...

Anyway, I'm just being pedantic. Load up those ad blockers, and get Pi-hole running.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#103

Post by mikestew »

xenophonf wrote: post #33
vanadium wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been running it myself for 5-6 months, and other than the occasional (actually, very rare) complaint from the Mrs. that a link she clicked won't go through due to a blocked tracker/analytics intermediary, it's been a peachy time VPNing into our home network so it works just as well on the go. Our install Pi-Hole points its upstream DNS to 1.1.1.1, with uBlock Origin where possible installed on our devices. Can't imag…

What advantage is there in using 1.1.1.1 instead of your own DNS resolver?

To add to a1369209993's comment, an alternate DNS might be faster (as Cloudflare claims for 1.1.1.1), too. Or more stable than your default DNS. But for me, anyway, I made the switch after Frontier started pulling the NXDOMAIN stunt.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#104

Post by darawk »

c22 wrote: post #82
darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

I'm curious about this point of view. Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop? If I buy a newspaper, read it, and then give it to a friend, would that be a form of theft? Is using a Tivo to prerecord a show then fast-forwarding through…

> Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop?

Reading through the glass may be a bit different, because the glass is transparent on purpose to entice you to buy the paper, so they intend for you to do that. That is, it's part of the deal they're making with you.

> Is using a Tivo to prerecord a show then fast-forwarding through the ads stealing?

Yes.

> What about just using the mute button?

Yes.

> What if I watch all the ads but never buy any of the advertised products?

No. Advertising is a risk taken by the advertiser. The contract is that they pay for the content and you consume the message. You're under no obligation to be impacted by that message.

> From my point of view advertisers pay to access channels where they believe their messages will have an impact. Presumably they will pay more for higher-impact channels and less for low-impact ones, it would be unreasonable for them to expect their message to have 100% consumer penetration. If people without technical expertise have chosen to package "valuable" content along with a low-impact advertising channel in a way where the ads can be trivially stripped and relying on these ads to be profitable I posit that these entities deserve to go out of business and stripping their ads is no more stealing than buying a gizmo from a company that has unwisely decided to offer their product for less than it cost to produce.

I think you're right in a certain sense, but also conflating some things. Let me clarify a bit. If a website clearly states "You must watch the ads in order to consume our content", then I believe it is stealing to contravene that. They have stated their terms, and are providing content to you contingent upon your adherence. If you break that agreement, you're stealing. Simple as that. If the agreement is not explicit, that's less clear. If the website does not say that you have to watch the ads to view the content, then i'd say that it's not stealing. Same with television, by the way.

The litmus test for stealing here is breaking an agreement. I believe fundamentally that any content creator has the right to specify the terms by which their content is consumed. If one of those terms is 'watch the ads', then you are morally obligated to watch the ads. If they don't specify, then i'd say you're free to do as you wish.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#105

Post by darawk »

annabellish wrote: post #71
darawk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. That's fine for you to say, it just doesn't happen to be true. TOS are enforceable to some degree. > But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off. So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?

>TOS are enforceable to some degree You cannot state "by reading this notice you have accepted our terms and conditions". Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral. The ability to control what code executes on one's computer is a fundamental freedom of…

> Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral.

What moral rule exactly does that contravene? You can simply not load their content. What gives you the right to load their content on terms other than theirs?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#106

Post by darawk »

ryan-c wrote: post #94
darawk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. That's fine for you to say, it just doesn't happen to be true. TOS are enforceable to some degree. > But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off. So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?

How many sites include in their ToS that you must not block their ads? How many sites are willing to accept legal liability for malware served up by their ads?

I don't know. I'm simply saying that if they do, then it's stealing. If they don't, then it's not.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#107

Post by darawk »

BonesJustice wrote: post #67
darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

> Of course it's stealing. Oh, really? What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. And what about data brokers? My browsing history is my work product ; I create it through my own actions. Much of the information that data brokers sell about me would not and could not exis…

> What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy.

Yes, even then. You have no right to the content they produce. They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#108

Post by Freak_NL »

tombrossman wrote: post #99
horsawlarway wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse, associating blocking ads as something akin to stealing is morally bankrupt. It's an incredibly slippery slope that leads to complete loss of autonomy for individuals. If I refuse to read roadside billboards, am I now stealing? If I tear up newspaper ads and throw them away, am I now stealing? If I turn off my tv during ads on a cable show, am I now stealing? I think any sane person would definitively say…

In the past, when people have asked me about the ethics of using an ad blocker, I always ask the same question: "When you are watching TV, do you wait for the commercial break to go take a leak?" (Not my line, wish I remembered the origin so I could give proper attribution). The strange thing is it's one of those conversation stoppers, the other person usually gives me a funny look and does not reply at all. This is…

That's a good comparison. It's a shame that a lot of people will now answer that they just pause Netflix and go, and rarely bother with broadcast television.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#109

Post by darawk »

TravelTechGuy wrote: post #101
darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

I would consider this contract to be more "legal" if it contained the other side of the equation: By looking at the ads and executing the code we download to your computer, our site assumes full responsibility for the code, ads and content, and will reimburse you for any damage (physical, material, emotional) caused to you by the software we serve. We will not blame it on the "ad network", or "ad exchange" or a "goog…

And as a consumer of content, it is absolutely within your rights to only frequent websites that have that clause.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#110

Post by alkonaut »

craftyguy wrote: post #96
iamatworknow wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immediately below that line on the pi-hole site: >Our code is completely open, but piping to bash can be dangerous. For a safer install, review the code and then run the installer locally.

And yet piping to bash is being advertised boldly as the 'one-liner install process' In other news, eating rat poison might kill you, but there's a tiny warning printed on the back so no one will do ever do it.

What people do to install software 98% of the time is download a proprietary windows binary and executing it - occasionally also with elevated privileges.

Piping to bash is dangerous but it’s not more dangerous than software installation in general. I think this point is some times lost on e.g people who run software from vetted repositories like apt or often make their open source apps from source. Computer programs to most people means double clicking an exe.

Post reply on HN