Live data from Hacker News

The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

bloomberg.com

271–280 of 299 posts

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#271
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…

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…

>If I turn off my tv during ads on a cable show, am I now stealing?

I think this is an excellent analogy.

What if broadcasters transmitted control codes that could reconfigure your TV or even disable its functions? You're watching something, a commercial begins and suddenly your TV's volume is maxed out by the broadcaster because they want to reach people who left the room. You try to set it back to what it was, but the controls don't respond. You try to mute the TV but the function appears to have been disabled. Changing channel doesn't work. Turning it off doesn't work. It's as if they were saying "So... You actually thought you could get away with watching our stuff for free, huh? You think you're so smart... Now we've made it so you HAVE to watch this commercial. See how you like THAT!" This attitude is straight up hostile to the subscribers. It attempts to control them, lest they escape from the publisher's money-making machine. Such audacity, right? How dare they not watch my commercial! Can you imagine the rage and indignation the publishers must feel?

How much time would it take before TV manufacturers realized TVs which ignored the broadcaster's commands were objectively superior to those which didn't? The broadcasters would probably call use of such TVs "stealing", too. They'd probably call these manufacturers a "brotherhood of non-standard television manufacturers". They'd probably force narratives saying "hey I hate commercials as much as the next guy but really it's stealing if you don't watch them". They'd probably lobby for laws that criminalize devices which automatically remove ads from recorded footage. They'd probably try to introduce new ways to control the user's hardware in order to make the user do what they want.

This is what Javascript does. "I see you're using an ad blocker, so let me just put an overlay on top of the text so you can't read anything without "paying" for it." Sometimes publishers take issue with something as basic as copy-paste: "trying to select a portion of my page, huh? Must be a lazy pirate trying to clone my website. I'll manipulate the clipboard and make it contain a scathing message instead, just for you!" It's so hostile, sometimes I think they hate users and only see them as potential click-throughs and conversion rates. It's dehumanizing.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#272

> Publishers will target Salmela’s software if it becomes anywhere near as popular as AdBlock Plus, says Nicole Perrin, an analyst at researcher EMarketer. I'd caution about that claim. Google pulled AdNauseam[0], a uBlock Origin extension, from the Chrome Web Store since it was fundamentally disrupting Google's business model via click fraud. (It automates clicking ads in order to create noise in user tracking.) Thi…

Shut down how? It's not being distributed by some fischer-price curated app store. Even if Alphabet companies essentially hire the judicial system to shut down or arrest troublesome developers for arbitrary reasons, it wouldn't stop piHole from being distributed p2p or stop others from picking up its updates and development, right?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#273

I think we are slowly gaining consciousness about the danger of ads. It's really pernicious but I think has overall terrible effects on people (self estime, food / alcohol consumption...). And not just ads, but also product placement in movies / TV shows. I think it's terrible for our health and our minds.

Ads aren't innocent anymore. As technology gets better they are getting far, far more persuasive. It's gonna get weird once it hits a crucial threshold of effectiveness and basically make public opinion counterfeit.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#274

> Publishers will target Salmela’s software if it becomes anywhere near as popular as AdBlock Plus, says Nicole Perrin, an analyst at researcher EMarketer. I'd caution about that claim. Google pulled AdNauseam[0], a uBlock Origin extension, from the Chrome Web Store since it was fundamentally disrupting Google's business model via click fraud. (It automates clicking ads in order to create noise in user tracking.) Thi…

Shut down how? It's not being distributed by some fischer-price curated app store. Even if Alphabet companies essentially hire the judicial system to shut down or arrest troublesome developers for arbitrary reasons, it wouldn't stop piHole from being distributed p2p or stop others from picking up its updates and development, right?

I was too extreme with the term 'get shut down', which is obviously impossible as you say. I meant 'get action taken against them' which I argue will happen far before PiHole picks up in popular use.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#275
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't this come up with TiVo commercial skipping? The issue was with TiVo, the customer never even had a chance to see the ad, not that ads are mandatory to watch. Doesn't that apply here?

Do you mean ReplayTV? I owned a Tivo at some point but replayTV was great because it auto-detected ads and had an option (or default behavior?) of skipping them automatically. Tivo you had to manually push 30 second skip 6 times.

TiVo currently has an ad-detecting feature. You used to have to fast forward through the ads (though at 30x speed that just took a few seconds). Now it's still not automatic, but when the commercial break comes you press channel up once and it skips perfectly to the end of the break. It's now almost as good as torrenting!

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shut down how? It's not being distributed by some fischer-price curated app store. Even if Alphabet companies essentially hire the judicial system to shut down or arrest troublesome developers for arbitrary reasons, it wouldn't stop piHole from being distributed p2p or stop others from picking up its updates and development, right?

I was too extreme with the term 'get shut down', which is obviously impossible as you say. I meant 'get action taken against them' which I argue will happen far before PiHole picks up in popular use.

what action can be taken against them?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#277
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…

> On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is my decision and mine alone. Absolutely. I reserve the right to decide what gets displayed on my computer, and what code runs. Websites can try to serve me stuff I don't want to see, but if they do, I am well within my rights to remove it. That doesn't stop at ads, either. I often use my ad blocker's element…

This. So many times.

Sites like the BBC go in for this nonsense with their “Breakinng News” pop over.

Or Reddit taking a third of the screen to push their app.

Even this Bloomberg article has one of those annoying scroll back vanity flaps.

Adblockers are a way of asserting control over how content is displayed, something that was part of the original design of the web.

Many content creators think only they should control display of information hence the push to apps and removing control from users.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#278

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 all of those cases you're paying elsewhere for the service. In the case of web ads, you're not usually paying for the content, and so they're expecting you to see the ads. I don't know why people go to websites to read their content for free while block their ads. To me that just says "I am consuming too much shit." You don't HAVE to go to these websites and consume everything in the world, you know? Life will go…

> In all of those cases you're paying elsewhere for the service.

Recorded and enforced by a contract.

> In the case of web ads, you're not usually paying for the content, and so they're expecting you to see the ads.

It doesn't matter what they expect. I'm not obliged to view their ads.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#279
post #104
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

And luckily there are plenty of content creators that don't think that way.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#280
post #155
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…

The only reason we have free online content to consume is because content creators expect to be reimbursed through ads. When I block ads I am free-riding off of people that don't. Whether this is stealing or not is semantics, and I don't care to get into that discussion. But I do see a moral problem here. I personally do block most ads, which is kind of justifiable to me because of malware concerns, but I'm not going…

Content creators seem to be expecting a lot, based on absolutely nothing.
Post reply on HN