A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers • Hacker News Board

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#71

Post by crandycodes » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:35 AM UTC

nfoz wrote: post #44

crandycodes wrote: post #12

I'm so torn on Adblockers. While I agree that advertisers generally don't act in good faith, the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. Two wrongs don't make a right, but maybe the middle ground is to be a responsible website owner who uses best privacy practices around advertising while consumers un-adblock their site. Seems like it's really just an arms race not benefiting content producers, as it is now.

> the penalty falls unfairly on content producers Not really. No-one is obligated to produce content; if a business model doesn't work, then you probably shouldn't do it. So what business model should content producers use, if they can't use the "advertising can fund anything" hack? That's a broader conversation, and I think it's the right conversation for our society to have. Advertising is an expensive tax on our e…

I would argue the content producers do receive a larger burden due to the costs of hosting that content. A more fair argument would be that users should just boycott the site, not consume it in an altered means. That kind of gets into the weeds, though, eh?

While, I think there is room to fund content producers in alternate means, I don't think advertising needs to be written out of the playbook. It's just a matter of properly recognizing the cost of violating privacy and the alternatives. I think society as a whole has a bit to learn about the price of privacy.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#72

Post by scrollaway » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:37 AM UTC

alecdbrooks wrote: post #60

pudquick wrote: post #27

People 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…

>... At no point, as a consumer of this content, did I get presented with so much as a simple "In return for consuming this content, you agree that you will look at the ads being shown here". Isn't it common knowledge that many sites rely on ads for their revenue? Sit-down restaurants in the U.S. don't tell you as you walk in that you're expected to tip, but it's common knowledge that wait staff aren't paid minimum w…

> Sit-down restaurants in the U.S. don't tell you as you walk in that you're expected to tip, but it's common knowledge that wait staff aren't paid minimum wage because customers are expected to tip.

That's also something the rest of the world scratches its head about. I'm not sure the best way to make your point is to use an example of how absurd the US is.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#73

Post by technomancy » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:38 AM UTC

cfeduke wrote: post #49

crandycodes wrote: post #12

I'm so torn on Adblockers. While I agree that advertisers generally don't act in good faith, the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. Two wrongs don't make a right, but maybe the middle ground is to be a responsible website owner who uses best privacy practices around advertising while consumers un-adblock their site. Seems like it's really just an arms race not benefiting content producers, as it is now.

I disagree that the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. The content producers choose their business model. If technology makes that model untenable then the content producers must change their model.

Imagine a site that started their business when ad networks were less abusive. Over time people started running ad blockers, and the ad networks saw revenues declining, so they started amping up the annoyance factor--more animations, more noise, more tracking. This drives more of the site's visitors to blocking, which makes the ad networks more desperate. Revenues continue to decline even though the site does nothing except produce more valuable content.

None of this is the fault of the site running the ads. Maybe it's inevitable, and maybe they just need to suck it up and evolve or join the ranks of obsolete business models, but it's hard not to feel some sympathy for the unfairness of the situation.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#74

Post by billwilliams » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:38 AM UTC

billwilliams wrote: post #69

billwilliams wrote: post #61

How 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.

And as long as we're all whining in one direction or the other, the average U.S. citizen still watches more than 25 hours of tv per week. So we're all just yelling into the ether of the tech-haves for the next 20 years while that number slowly drops.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#75

Post by crandycodes » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:39 AM UTC

cfeduke wrote: post #49

crandycodes wrote: post #12

I'm so torn on Adblockers. While I agree that advertisers generally don't act in good faith, the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. Two wrongs don't make a right, but maybe the middle ground is to be a responsible website owner who uses best privacy practices around advertising while consumers un-adblock their site. Seems like it's really just an arms race not benefiting content producers, as it is now.

I disagree that the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. The content producers choose their business model. If technology makes that model untenable then the content producers must change their model.

I replied with something similar elsewhere. The content producers have to pay for hosting (generally). Their business model may not work, but adblocking is basically circumventing their revenue model. The only "fair" means would be to not go to that site if it serves ads, but then the internet would be much smaller. It's just as moral as pirating movies in countries that don't offer them or offer them in friendly formats. I see why you'd steal, I don't think you're a bad person, but it's still not a moral means of acquiring the content.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#76

Post by BrainInAJar » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:39 AM UTC

calbear81 wrote: post #18

I 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…

So find a better business model. If it's not paywalls, and it's not ads, figure it out.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#77

Post by borgia » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:41 AM UTC

I'll pay for good content - and I do with WSJ, Nat Geo and more - but I'm sure as hell not going to disable my adblocker any time soon.

I'm sick of marketing and marketers. They bombard us 24/7 on every medium they can.

- Turn on the TV and you're not only swamped with blatant ads, but they've pushed subtle product placement into everything possible.

- Turn on the radio and you're blasted with ads.

- Go on Facebook and you're hammered with "tailored" ads, clickbait, autoplaying viral videos and more.

- Go on Twitter and every popular hashtag is flooded with people advertising unrelated products.

- Walk down the street and ads are everywhere.

- Open a "free" news site and you're bombarded with ads and ads disguised as articles. Look up a tutorial and you're presented with a slide-based site that loads up new ads every time you click, or throws extra ads in on every other slide.

It's a battle and I will never entertain a "morality" argument from those in charge of the above.

Completely "free" content online is total junk for the most part. I wouldn't pay to read Reddit, anything from the Gawker network, ReCode, etc. as they haven't content worth paying for, and I won't support their ad revenue either as it makes no difference to me whether they survive or disappear. I would have previously considered paying for some of the mainstream tech news sites but they've absolutely ruined their content in recent years in the name of getting easy clicks for ad revenue.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#78

Post by billwilliams » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:42 AM UTC

DodgyEggplant wrote: post #2

On a broad scale, we have moved from a culture of ads as info, to ads that push you to buy whatever the factory produces. This huge supply and false demand for things we don't really need has a huge impact of consumption culture, personal distress - an ongoing feeling that you always lack something, ecological waste and people wasting their hard earned dollars on things they don't really need. God bless ad blockers.

While I like your poetic verve, this isn't true. Ads were always garbage. Old ads lied just as much and tried to instill the same feelings. They just had less direction since they didn't know how to measure and optimize on outcomes.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#79

Post by rosser » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:43 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #56

pudquick wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice strawman. Nowhere did I imply that. Everything I mentioned was webpage reading/viewing content that the publishers themselves announced across the world, hoping to get readers - who in turn would view their ads.

My point is that your argument is ludicrous. "What, these people that have been promoting their stuff everywhere have advertising on their site?". It's not like it's unexpected. The idea that each website would have to get your consent to show you ads is outright silly. I don't have a problem with people using adblockers (I use NoScript myself, which has a similar effect), but let's not pretend that it's some kind of…

I'm not a party to the contract between the advertiser and the content provider. In principle, I don't necessarily even have an expectation that a given content provider uses advertising revenue to support the provision of their content — they may use a subscription-based revenue model, and offer some number of "free" page views per day/week/month/whatever, as a teaser to encourage new subscriptions. They may just have stupendously deep pockets and like providing that content out of the goodness of their hearts.

Whatever; doesn't matter.

To make the leap from "I chose to view that page" to "I chose to view the ads on that page" is specious and unsupported, and I'm under no obligation whatsoever to enter into an agreement between two other parties on the basis that they happen to have a standing agreement.

To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that because I chose to walk down a specific street at a specific time, I somehow also chose to see a specific dude taking a specific dump.

I can promise you, I didn't. Just as with ads on the web, however, my consent is apparently not a factor in this equation.

(Why, yes, I do live in San Francisco. How ever did you guess?)

EDIT: And, yes, before you judge or jump to conclusions: I do have paid, auto-renewing subscriptions on subscription-model websites, and I use ad and tracker blocking plugins. It's not my fault that some of the sites I view have chosen (what I think are) shitty revenue models.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#80

Post by tim333 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:45 AM UTC

jotux wrote: post #52

calbear81 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. If an ad isn't displayed, then the impression probably doesn't count and the publishing site doesn't get paid. It would certainly hurt the content creator more.

>It would certainly hurt the content creator more. I think you could make the argument that you affect the content creator to a higher degree (larger percent of income) but I suspect you affect the ad company to a higher dollar amount. Nonetheless it's a negative for both.

I'm not sure anyone's that worried about the ad companies - they go bust, less ads, win. It's a shame though when creators like Gigaom go.