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

Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 154 posts

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#51

Post by jefftk »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #42

I find the idea that anyone, a single person, could consider blocking ads to be wrong to be hilarious. I've never met such a person. I can only imagine them to be barely human. What other bizarre opinions, internal or external, would they have? I don't think that I could trust them with literally anything.

I think running an ad blocker is freeloading, the same as using paywall-bypassing software. There are worse things people regularly do, but I do think it's minorly wrong and I don't run an ad blocker.

I would be fine with ad blockers that only blocked ads, as long as publishers could chose to refuse service to users running ad blockers or ask them to turn their ad blocker off. But uBlock Origin etc don't just block ads, they also pretend to the site that the ads aren't blocked.

(I used to work in ads)

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#52

Post by trey-jones »

float_laugh wrote: post #20

I have a degree in marketing, took a vow never to work in it, and use these words to describe advertisements - Motivated deception, manipulation, mind control, inauthentic, inorganic, insincere, a betrayal by your peers. They're using your own mind against you with psycological techniques you're blind to. Behind every advertisement is a group of real life people working hard to find new ways to control and manipulate…

Yes, this is how I feel about marketing in the 21st century as well. Most pointedly that lies and psychological manipulation have become the status quo. Unfortunately there are so many products and so much information available that it's difficult (impossible?) to actually discern the good products from the bad. As well as to discern the value of good products.

Lying and manipulation as marketing aren't exactly new, but it's more pervasive, to the point that it seems impossible to succeed without stretching the truth of your capabilities. Everybody else is doing it after all, and there is no penalty. By the time your customers find out you screwed them, they've already paid for your product twice and told their friends it was 5/5 would buy again.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#53

Post by Drakim »

robertlagrant wrote: post #14
robertlagrant wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just the idea that you can close your eyes will lead to it, because advertisers want you to look at ads for commercial reasons. Doesn't require an ethical argument.

Just as blocking them as an ethical issue fundamentally commercial: you're accessing content paid for by adverts, but you aren't contributing to that payment. The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site.

Then make me sign a contract that exchanges the service for my action of viewing the ads. Make it an official transaction. Right now they want it both ways where the content is "free" but I'm also stealing it by not paying.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#54

Post by krageon »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #42

I find the idea that anyone, a single person, could consider blocking ads to be wrong to be hilarious. I've never met such a person. I can only imagine them to be barely human. What other bizarre opinions, internal or external, would they have? I don't think that I could trust them with literally anything.

> What other bizarre opinions, internal or external, would they have?

From experience: When your government spies on you and locks folks up without due process, this is good because it keeps the children safe. And a host of other convictions that are so toxic I cannot say them online without feeling dirty. These are the kind of people that say "think of the children" without irony, that view the world in purely adversarial terms and do their best to hate as many things as they can. They live to make everyone around them miserable.

I have seen this repeatedly and only from this kind of person. I am glad I don't have them around me anymore, but sad that other people might.

> I don't think that I could trust them with literally anything.

It being the case that these are the purest of bad faith actors, you can at least trust them to ruin whatever they touch. It's something :)

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#55

Post by jgilias »

jefftk wrote: post #45

If enough of us used ad blockers, it could help force a systemic shift away from the attention economy altogether It's worth putting serious thought into whether this would actually be a better web; I think it would likely be worse. Most sites today are supported by ads, and if that weren't an option we'd see some combination of paywalls, sponsored content, and sites shutting down. (I used to work on ads)

I really like the solution put forth by Brave. Basically reify the attention economy and make it explicit so that you, as the producer of your attention get a say and a monetary stake in it.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#56

Post by robertlagrant »

horsawlarway wrote: post #25
robertlagrant wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as blocking them as an ethical issue fundamentally commercial: you're accessing content paid for by adverts, but you aren't contributing to that payment. The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site.

> The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site. But this isn't the fucking model. The model is: We created compelling content that draws lots of views, and companies will pay us to plaster their name/products on it. There is literally zero contract with the person being shown the ads at all. They can do as they please. If companies don't like that... move…

I'm not sure if this adds anything. I know there's no contract. But while the system can shoulder a certain load of parasitic behaviour, if everyone does as you say then it stops working. So practically speaking it is a quid quo pro.

A better analogue for your description is something like the Guardian website, where you don't have to pay for it, but it does require a certain number of people to volunteer to subscribe for it to work.

Another different model is paywalls, which you may be correct in saying will pop up increasingly as use of ad blockers decreases ad revenue sufficiently.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#57

Post by krageon »

jefftk wrote: post #51
throwaway22032 wrote: post #42

I find the idea that anyone, a single person, could consider blocking ads to be wrong to be hilarious. I've never met such a person. I can only imagine them to be barely human. What other bizarre opinions, internal or external, would they have? I don't think that I could trust them with literally anything.

I think running an ad blocker is freeloading, the same as using paywall-bypassing software. There are worse things people regularly do, but I do think it's minorly wrong and I don't run an ad blocker. I would be fine with ad blockers that only blocked ads, as long as publishers could chose to refuse service to users running ad blockers or ask them to turn their ad blocker off. But uBlock Origin etc don't just block a…

> I used to work in ads

The fact that you admit to working in an industry that actively tries to take as much agency away from others as it can without (apparently) feeling bad about it is really terrible.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#58

Post by IvanK_net »

chii wrote: post #47
IvanK_net wrote: post #39

It is okay because website creators tolerate it. Once all website owners stop tolerating it, everybody would have to watch ads. Just like if at the grocery store, you could choose to pay or not pay. It would be totally okay not to pay. But if the number of non-paying customers grew too much, the owners would make it mandatory to pay. This did not happen to the web yet.

> you could choose to pay or not pay. It would be totally okay not to pay it was never OK to never pay at a grocery store. But some stores don't want the cost of enforcement, so accept some losses from stealing. Whether this argument applies to web based ads is difficult to say. I don't agree - but there's valid viewpoints out there do agree.

I said IF you could choose not to pay (if it was legal, the owner did not mind it), it WOULD make more sense not to pay (as you would save your money). That is how it is with websites today, the owners let you do it, even though they could prevent you from accessing their content.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#59

Post by rglullis »

paulcole wrote: post #24

I don’t block ads. If I hate the ads more than I like the site, I stop going to that site. It’s not that hard of a choice for me. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the But-My-HTTP-Requests defense and understand that ads and tracking are the trade I make for reading/watching/enjoying content without getting my wallet out. I also personally enjoy learning about new products and buying things I might like. Why do I earn…

Congratulations on being such a happy cog in the machine.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#60

Post by [deleted] »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #10
simion314 wrote: post #3

A women told in a comment that after around 13 years old she would get ads on Facebook to become a cam girl. So FB with all the data they have on their user still pushed such a fucking ad to a child. I am expecting an ashole to respond and tell me that FB can\t afford to validate the ads they put in front of children and my premtive response is "Don't fucking put ads in fron of children, or at least put only the ones…

These things are only profitable at scale which is why humans will never be part of the process. With that said- it's not our problem that it doesn't scale. As it exists it is hurting people so something obviously needs to change. Platforms have a duty to uphold and shouldn't exist if they cannot even protect children from sex worker ads.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN