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

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

#131

Post by sauronlord » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:28 AM UTC

ender7 wrote: post #112

I don't think framing the issue as one of individual morals is very constructive. Here's how I tend to think about the future of web advertising: 1. The tracking data that the online advertising industry gathers is bad for users and will ultimately be bad for advertisers. It should go away. Doing so will require a combination of technical and political restrictions on the way that advertisers do business. Solely one…

"If a majority of users install ad blockers, society as a whole will suffer as content creators are squeezed out of the market."

Oh noes, you mean there won't be more Buzzfeed crap or their ilk?

If your art is good enough, people will find a way to pay you.

Beethoven, Newton, Einstein... their content is SUPREME. They would have done what they did regardless. They didn't need advertising, and neither should you.

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

#132

Post by comex » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:29 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #91

BrainInAJar wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you want to smarm about a better business model, I invite you to find it yourself. It's much easier to perform that smarm than find one, but I guess if you have to rationalize free ridership it's a good line. And it means you don't have to come to grips with the idea that it's a social problem instead of a free-market-hallowed-be-thy-name problem; it does mean you can mostly wave away that the money needs to come…

I claim that part of it at least is a technical problem.

No, really. Compare user payment habits on desktops/websites versus mobile devices. Sure, there are the issues that users have become attuned to $1 apps, that many are incredibly reluctant to pony up even that, etc. etc. But at least some users pay $1, because it only requires a few taps and the purchase is associated with their existing $devicevendor account; good luck getting that to happen on the web, where not everyone has PayPal (to which the most common alternative is pulling out a physical wallet and filling in a long list of text boxes) and you need to make your own account system.

What would the web be like if micropayments had actually become a thing?

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

#133

Post by ahaltindis » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:29 AM UTC

itistoday2 wrote: post #48

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…

> In fact, our reluctance to pay for any type of content has led to the state we are in today. People's reluctance to pay and their aversion to advertising is, I think, understandable and reasonable. It is just a quirk of the time period that we find ourselves in that there is any "moral" dilemma attached to this situation. The reason people perceive it as a moral situation is because we've established a society in w…

> Our welfare system is not yet currently capable of providing people with the basic necessities: food, shelter, clothing, clean water, healthcare, education, and equal access to opportunities.

Even if the welfare system was capable of giving these, people would want more. We can examine this by looking current people model. Their desire to earn more is not decreasing when they reach the minimum or optimum level of necessities.

I think the problem is life standards that emphasized to us by ads. The goal will be always higher than our necessities. Because, this is the only way to keep alive current economic system, balance of production and consumption.

So, I don't believe giving more to people solves anything. But I do believe, people's desire should be left to themselves by standing a position against all ads or things serve to this purpose.

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

#134

Post by c22 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:30 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #40

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…

Sounds like you would not consider it unethical to exploit a flaw in a website that allowed you to order products without paying. After all, the website is public, and you weren't asked not to exploit the flaw...

If the company ships your order then I'd say the ethical onus is quite low on your part. This is a company that has made not one, but two errors that seem to reinforce each other. How could a reasonable person tell if the company intended to give away their products or not?

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

#135

Post by deciplex » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:32 AM UTC

calbear81 wrote: post #121

deciplex wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not without cost, though. It could mean that poor become so inundated with ads that they waste their already limited budget on frivolous bullshit and junk food, and have to take out more payday loans to pay the water bill this month.

Your point has been made several times on this topic but can someone cite some study about how poor people are more "susceptible" to the ill effects of advertising and how everything that is being advertised is obviously "bullshit"? If anything, advertising is what allows poor people to have the same access to content/information without having to pay real wages in return for access. What types of online ads that you…

It's not that they are necessarily more susceptible, it's that they would be exposed to more of it, under this model.

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

#136

Post by mirimir » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:33 AM UTC

cube00 wrote: post #64

meritt wrote: post #30

Ad 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.

That's why I never knowingly view ads.

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

#137

Post by nitrogen » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

calbear81 wrote: post #121

deciplex wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not without cost, though. It could mean that poor become so inundated with ads that they waste their already limited budget on frivolous bullshit and junk food, and have to take out more payday loans to pay the water bill this month.

Your point has been made several times on this topic but can someone cite some study about how poor people are more "susceptible" to the ill effects of advertising and how everything that is being advertised is obviously "bullshit"? If anything, advertising is what allows poor people to have the same access to content/information without having to pay real wages in return for access. What types of online ads that you…

How do the advertisers benefit from showing ads to people who can't afford their products anyway?

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

#138

Post by javajosh » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

RodericDay wrote: post #8

"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the wo…

Public advertising certainly has a coercive feel to it. If ads were food then advertisers would be running around shoving food into people's mouths (mostly junk food, too). And yet we think nothing of feeding people information without their consent.

It's interesting to imagine a world where you have to explicitly agree to be exposed to information. I think I would rather like that world.

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

#139

Post by anilgulecha » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:36 AM UTC

matteotom wrote: post #66

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…

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.

Some may not want to deal with the bandwidth required to keep an ad-blocking loop running at all times. They get a default penalty of having to suffer ads, without actively having signed on for it.

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

#140

Post by greggman » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:36 AM UTC

isomorphic wrote: post #46

greggman wrote: post #17

I'm as scared as the next person of all the data being sucked up but if I wanted to be charitable, ... a different pov is perfect advertising which would effectively read your mind and present you info exactly when you need it. Thinking about going on vacation to Vietnam? perfect advertizing would devine that and show you ads for good hotel deals, flights, attractions, restaurants, events, markets, etc in Vietnam. Pe…

No. Perfect advertising will convince you to buy the advertiser's product, regardless of what that is. This is the mindset described in the original article. You're describing perfect advertising for you . Even if the ads were limited to a topic you deemed relevant, the advertisers would still essentially lie (or elide truths). E.g., they'd show you good deals on hotels in Vietnam without bothering to mention that pe…

As soon as people are knifed that will make it back to review sites and the ad's rep and the firm behind it are over.

So no, scamming people is not perfect advertising even for the advertizer