How is this a new point? This is literally why everybody uses adblockers.
A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
61–70 of 227 posts
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#62I have run an ad blocker for at least the last 6 years, probably longer - it has been a staple in my browser setup for so long I cannot stand browsing without one. The author linked to a tweet which I think requires further examination "ad blocking is shoplifting for the Web". This argument fails on several fronts, the main one is consent - by loading a website, I am not required to load any or all resources that the…
I wish bitcoin could enable micro-payments like this. I would love to donate small (or large) amounts of money to websites that I found a useful answer on. Unfortunately, for this to be possible every website has to enable or provide a way for me to pay them (be it bitcoin or something else) and all of the end users also must have this same payment system set up, which will just never happen. I just wish there were a better way for content creators to make money than ads. A ubiquitous bitcoin type solution would definitely be a step in the right direction.
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#63The major argument against adblockers (at least as far as I have seen) is that it deprives content creators a source of revenue. I can't disagree with this statement because it is true, it is a (read: singular) source of income that we (read: users of an adblocking program/method) are eliminating. I for one believe that they should ge something.et paid for their work, but ads just don't seem to be the right solution.…
I wrote a blog post about this a while back and said how the economy of web is changing and a lot of businesses have to adapt or die: http://www.pesfandiar.com/blog/2014/04/05/is-adblocking-unet...
I think content is becoming cheaper to create, but there will always be business models for high-end publishers other than advertising. (Like many other forms of art)
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#64Ad blocking software, until it comes default in a browser, actually helps the industry. The sort of people who run the software are also the same people that ignore ads anyway. By removing yourself from their audience profile, they are able to decrease CPMs/CPVs for their advertisers, since they aren't wasting impressions on you.
Part of web advertising for the bigger companies is brand awareness. Every ad viewed is absorbed at some level, it can't be fully ignored. Even if you don't click your awareness of the brand has increased.
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a weak argument. You don't need advertising to make money if what you're doing is valuable. People will compensate you for it because they know it will go away if they don't. Take the No Agenda Show[1] for example, they have no advertising. Two podcasters make a living creating six hours of original content every week and are solely supported by their listeners. [1] http://www.noagendashow.com/
That sounds nice in theory but in actuality is complete BS. On a site like Teamliquid.net, a video game/eSports forum and team, over 50% of visitors have ad blocked enabled and they in no way make of this missed revenue from donations or TL Plus ($5/mo for ad free). Everyone always says they only have ad block on for obnoxious sites, but that's such a load of shit. The free internet is run by ads, like it or not, and…
I'm responding to this post because it's a good segue (esports). I'm an esports fan myself and count as one of that 50% on the few times I visit that site. It is, unfortunately, not their fault. I have on several occasions uninstalled my ad blocker for a time -- one time it was a few months, one time it was a couple years. Both times it was ended by a single website that was a bad actor. Once it was autoplaying audio ads, which frustrated me enough that I nope'd right into installing AdBlock Plus. The second time it was a flash ad that, after about 30 seconds on the page, began consuming about half of my CPU. After I figured out why I immediately nope'd on over to AdBlock Plus once again.
For me, at least, it's a tragedy of the commons out there. All it takes is one bad actor to spoil it all.
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#66People are publishing content on the internet without putting it behind a login/password/restricted access. Not only are they publishing it, they're announcing its presence on social media, performing "search engine optimizations", and cross-promoting it on other non-web technologies (radio, tv, printed media, etc.). ... At no point, as a consumer of this content, did I get presented with so much as a simple "In retu…
If an ad comes on the radio, I usually change the station. During TV commercials, I mute and do something else. There's nothing that compels me to sit through the ads to listen to the music or watch the television show. Similarly, I have no problem with "skipping", or blocking, ads.
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#67Does anybody remember the internet in the early 90s? Before it started getting rammed full of ads and get quick rich startup schemes? It was kind of awesome, kind of a mess. People just put up whatever personal scratch they wanted to itch paid the then outrageous hosting fees ($20/mo for 1MB of space!) and the world was good. My point is that these days, it seems like providing the same experience for most people, in…
Surprised you haven't heard of neocities, sounds a lot like a modern version of what you're talking about :). Neocities is a community of 42,200 sites that are bringing back the lost individual creativity of the web. We provide free hosting and tools that allow anyone to make a web site. Only your imagination is required. https://neocities.org/
Also http://tilde.club/ as a more retro take on that concept.
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#68Tim Swanson in 2007[1] on ad blocking:
There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with an ad-blocker. It is no different than using any other technology to filter language or explicit content. No one is being harmed nor has property been destroyed or stolen (the owner was not deprived of their property).
Plain and simple: if you do not want to pay for the bandwidth and hosting charges, don't put material online. Just because you are trying to make a living does not mean anyone should partake in your business model. After all, should everyone that visits your site be required to click on one of the ads?
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20070422181056/http://blog.mises...
(Interestingly, in the current link to this article, http://mises.org/blog/whats-wrong-blocking-ads , the author credited is B.K. Marcus, despite there being no change in the article.)
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#69How is this a new point? This is literally why everybody uses adblockers.
More importantly, no big publishers / ad networks really care about adblock. A vocal minority use it and think their convenience is socially progressive. The only people feeling the burn are niche sites that happen to have a core demographic which overlaps with adblocker users. Big companies don't care, and the second they do - they'll just block people from using their service who have adblock until its disabled.
Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers
#70I think the anger is quite misplaced here by the author as it has never been the ad industry that has done "everything that was within their technical capabilities to spy on people and shovel ads on top of them" as the ad networks are simply a platform for which there are buyers of ads/eyeballs (advertisers) and sites/apps that display said advertising. It's the sites that you use that have chosen to include the code…
His point is valid. If you rely on something that causes people harm that must be factored in when they seek to minimize their risk. I don't use ad blockers because I generally support your position. I do block flash because it is so annoying and especially noisy ads and downloading video I didn't ask for on my limited bandwidth. It seems to me it isn't 100% either way. There is an issue of being a free-riding meanie…
> I didn't ask for on my limited bandwidth.
Your browser asked for it though. Maybe fix you browser so it isn't doing things you don't like?
Of course with HTTP/2, websites will be able to send you stuff that even your browser didn't ask for.