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

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

#211

Post by opinali » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 1:13 PM 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…

Banksy's quote is quite ironic, coming from a guy that's well known as a master of publicizing his own work... even more, doing that by creating/exposing his work in "public space", using the walls of private and public buildings as a canvas without asking anyone for authorization.

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

#212

Post by sithadmin » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

opinali wrote: post #211

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…

Banksy's quote is quite ironic, coming from a guy that's well known as a master of publicizing his own work... even more, doing that by creating/exposing his work in "public space", using the walls of private and public buildings as a canvas without asking anyone for authorization.

But when the cool kids do it, it's disruptive

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

#213

Post by jokoon » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

opinali wrote: post #211

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…

Banksy's quote is quite ironic, coming from a guy that's well known as a master of publicizing his own work... even more, doing that by creating/exposing his work in "public space", using the walls of private and public buildings as a canvas without asking anyone for authorization.

http://antiadvertisingagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/...

Anyways, property can still be argued about, and cities will make laws to make sure nothing gooes out of control. I prefer seeing graffitis than large ads.

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

#214

Post by rcamera » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 3:12 PM UTC

edias wrote: post #38

infamouscow wrote: post #23

Earlier 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…

This isn't theory, it is a concrete example of content creators who make content and make a living with absolutely zero advertisement. If you need yet another example, LWN ( http://lwn.net ) runs mostly on subscriptions, instead of ads (90% of their revenue is subscriptions).

People won't pay for bad/terrible content, that is the hard truth.

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

#215

Post by opinali » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 3:59 PM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #213

opinali wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banksy's quote is quite ironic, coming from a guy that's well known as a master of publicizing his own work... even more, doing that by creating/exposing his work in "public space", using the walls of private and public buildings as a canvas without asking anyone for authorization.

http://antiadvertisingagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/... Anyways, property can still be argued about, and cities will make laws to make sure nothing gooes out of control. I prefer seeing graffitis than large ads.

Yep, cities may have regulations for that, and they usually do these days.

And I don't necessarily agree with your preference. My family used to own a large, historical house that had a huge front wall because the terrain was very elevated from street level. And I can tell you from experience, most "graffiti" is worthless crap scrabbled by drunk teenagers without ANY artistic talent or ANY worthwhile message to the world. If you give graffiti a pass because there's the one-in-a-million Banksy, you should also tolerate ads everywhere because a few of them happen to be awesome.

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

#216

Post by GhotiFish » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 4:42 PM UTC

Potando wrote: post #117

trimbo wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, our reluctance to pay for any type of content has led to the state we are in today Then how come, every time I pay for content, that content still has ads? The paywalled newspaper sites I frequent do this. Or, notice how they do this in every movie theater in America now -- you can't sit there in peace before a movie. Instead, before the trailers start, you're subjected to a barrage of loud ads. Even on th…

The newspaper used to cost $1 (each! every day!) and it was full of ads. Probably about as much percentage of area as a typical news site today. There must be a balance between "no payment" and "no ads" - the optimum profit doesn't necessarily happen at one of the extremes. Do you think you'd choose a higher priced subscription if it offered no ads?

well, newsprint ads have the benefit of curation so that they are not overly sexualized or from scam artists, and they don't attempt to track and collate you. They also have the benefit of being bought by local services in your town, if it's a local paper. So advertisements actually serve a useful function there.

That said, if my local paper started producing the swill I encounter merely seconds after turning off adblock, I would consider the "no bullshit" version as well!

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

#217

Post by marssaxman » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:10 PM 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…

As the sage once said, "your failed business model is not my problem". If someone wants to spend time and money making stuff and instructing a web server to give it away for free, on the gamble that people who want that stuff might also download a bunch of ads, it is not my responsibility to ensure that their gamble pays off by acting according to their predictions.

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

#218

Post by unholiness » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

xorcist wrote: post #173

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…

> paywalls don't work. That's not a serious discussion. There are tons of websites out there, especially those with professional content, that you pay for. For trade magazines, one trick is to get your employer to pay. LWN has presented the most quality content on Linux and related tech for about ten years now, and they do it professionally. There are also lots of communities with entrance fees, like Metafilter. And…

> That's not a serious discussion.

You're right. Let's discuss paid content.

There is absolutely a place for paid content on the internet. But I don't think paying for content is a replacement for the majority of things currently funded by ads. The internet is inherently open. Paid content is inherently exclusionary. If we're talking about a genuine substitute for ads, that right there is a non-starter. Whether I'm paying for it out of pocket or through my company, the fact is that there are loads of people out there who are not getting access to that content.

A lot of what sucks about paywalls is the friction, and the trust needed of the host (that the content will be worthwhile). But even in a world that's solved these problems, there's still the fundamental problem that the majority of the world won't have access that content because they don't have the money to throw around.

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

#219

Post by cbd1984 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:47 PM UTC

_yosefk wrote: post #144

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…

"Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours." That's an interesting conception of one's natural rights in a public space, given that basically nothing in a public space "gives you choice whether you see it or not" by the definition of "public space." The following does not sound different in principle from the quote: "Any member of the opposite sex (who with their looks i…

Are you really comparing blocking ads and remix culture to rape?

OK, that's it. You're done. You've passed the point of no return in this discussion, and are no longer participating honestly. You're just going for shock value.

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

#220

Post by bane » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 7:03 PM UTC

joepie91_ wrote: post #163

bane wrote: post #14

Does 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…

Very relevant here: http://www.textfiles.com/thoughts/advertising.html

Jason Scott is exactly what I'm talking about. He's almost singularly keeping the promise of the Internet alive. Long after most people have given up and signed on with the ad networks, he spends his days trying to catalog and make available human knowledge.