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

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

utcc.utoronto.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 227 posts

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

#151

Post by terryf »

"Shoplifting for the web" - so where do you draw the line? If I mute the TV during commercials, is that stealing? If I change the channel, is that stealing? If my monitor is too small for the ads to show on the side of the article, is that stealing? If my internet connection for some reason drops all connections to doubleclick.net is that stealing? If I don't have ad blocker enabled, but have conditioned myself to not even notice the ads, is that stealing?

If the first two ads in google search results are exactly the same as the first two actual search results, which link is is moral for me to click?

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

#153

Post by itistoday2 »

millstone wrote: post #146
itistoday2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I dread the day where the only content available is what artists can produce independently. Movies like Interstellar, or the TV show Lost, are by their nature very expensive, and it would be a great loss if this type of content could no longer recoup its expenses. I hope there's a place in the future for both indie work and expensive "blockbuster" content.

> I hope there's a place in the future for both indie work and expensive "blockbuster" content.

Certainly. You'll note that as individual expenses go down, group expenses should go down as well since employers will no longer have to cover their employees cost of living. Prices of everything will continue to plummet (as they have been). If anything, they should be able to do more on the same budget.

EDIT: You might think "Well who's paying for all those basics? Surely that will imply higher taxes."

Compare the cost of a 1GHz CPU today to the cost 10 years ago. The price went down and yet taxes did not play a significant role in that. The basics could be covered by taxes, but they need not be. The price of basics goes down over time naturally as technology advances and builds off of the knowledge and efficiencies of the technology before it. Taxes can be used to accelerate this process, but they are not necessary for it to happen in the first place. Free, clean drinking water was not even a thing a few centuries ago. Now it is everywhere in first world countries. The same should happen with other necessities.

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

#154

Post by adrusi »

unholiness wrote: post #141

There is a huge irony in that fact that AdBlock's function of keeping ads away from our content will eventually do the opposite. The alternative to ads alongside my content is ads inside my content. Let's face it: paywalls don't work. The alternative on the horizon is native advertising. Buzzfeed is now famously refusing to host ads. Instead they sustain themselves by publishing content that subtly supports the agend…

If we can get some kind of legislation that requires native advertising to be labelled in a non-obnoxious, but non-discreet way, I'd be totally cool with it, and prefer it to traditional advertising even. Too bad that probably won't happen.

I think Buzzfeed actually does a reasonable job of it, it's pretty easy to see whether or not content is an ad, and who paid for it.

It's not like advertising-supported content was ever uninfluenced by its advertisers.

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

#155

Post by frankzinger »

xai3luGi wrote: post #70
curiouscats wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HTTP/2 makes provision for the rejection of pushed resources.

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

#156

Post by mirimir »

zaroth wrote: post #150
mirimir wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Accessing the APIs to retrieve content through an entirely alternate program, unfortunately, has been deemed circumvention and the site would have a case against anyone who tried it." Do you have a cite for that?

You really never heard of Aaron Swartz or Andrew [Weev] Auernheimer?

Getting from those cases to circumventing adblockers seems quite a stretch.

What do you mean by "entirely alternate program"? Curl vs wget vs Firefox?

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

#157

Post by saraid216 »

XorNot wrote: post #101
sohkamyung wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In fact, our reluctance to pay for any type of content has led to the state we are in today. One way I'm trying to overcome that is to actually pay for content. I've started in a small way by supporting people who producing the content I care about at Patreon.

Patreon's model desperately needs a "one-shot" mode. Ideally there'd be two types: the one-off, and the time-limited subscription. Not only would this provide a bit more data to the content-creators, but for me the consumer it would play better with my budgeting. Having to remember I have N subscriptions going on at any time is far more tiring then knowing I have X disposable income and want to apportion it out, or t…

IMO, a lot of content creators had already been providing one-shot opportunities by selling merchandise. The problem for me is that I frequently don't care for merch, so Patreon basically filled a niche for me: creators I was happy to give money to without actually asking for any more.

It really discomforts me that a lot of creators seem to feel obligated to provide a higher level of service for patrons.

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

#158

Post by ahaltindis »

itistoday2 wrote: post #145
ahaltindis wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 n…

> I think the problem is life standards that emphasized to us by ads. Heh, if that's true, that's another reason for folks to use adblockers. ;) > So, I don't believe giving more to people solves anything. When it comes to solving problems, the evidence is rather strong. Giving people more food, shelter, medicine, health care, education (even plain old money), results in striking benefits to individuals and communiti…

I am trying to say, while you are giving people what they need, also you are(or others) saying that to people what they have is not enough and they need more to survive.

But of course people would motivated more if they didn't have to think about their necessities.

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

#159

Post by joepie91_ »

soheil wrote: post #86

We would simply not have many of the greatest web companies today if it was not because of ads. It's one solution that works and works really well. To call it immoral is to ignore everything that it has given us. You can complain about the annoyances of it and rightly so, but if you are going to bring in morality, first you must consider and imagine an internet or world without some of the most beloved businesses in…

And I'm sure that you can provide sources backing those claims. Right?

EDIT: And yes, advertising is immoral. By its very definition, it is a form of manipulation for own benefit.

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

#160

Post by DataCreep »

borgia wrote: post #77

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 a…

I'll never feel bad about hurting an industry that is responsible for things like "advocate marketing".

The only problem I have with ad blockers is that they don't cause enough suffering for marketing companies. I'd like to see more projects like this one pop up.

http://adnauseam.io/

Post reply on HN