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

221–227 of 227 posts

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

#221

Post by TheLoneWolfling »

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…

I don't know about where you are, but your state's (failure of a) business model is not my concern.

Where I am, at the very least, wait staff are required to be paid minimum wage, like (almost) everyone else.

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

#222

Post by vacri »

rosser wrote: post #166
vacri wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, using that rationale, I should be blocking any work done by anyone I choose to block You were complaining above that you were presented with content from a third party that you hadn't consented to, and didn't have a contract with. I'm not the one arguing ad-blocking is an ethical position. If you're not arguing about the ethics of it, why have you been talking about consent and the structure of contracts between…

I didn't say there weren't ethical arguments to be made around ad blocking. In fact, I offered what I thought was a pretty clear position on what I found to be the most compelling issue in that vein. I didn't lead with that argument in my original reply to you because it wasn't on point; I was replying to your specific language about contracts with an argument about my duty to honor a contract I wasn't a party to. As…

Sorry, was pulled away yesterday.

In short, I find it really odd that you take a "that's the way the world is" with the diner, but not with website advertising. You talk of consent and contracts as if website advertising is some kind of weird outlier that you hardly ever come across.

Just as you don't have a contract with the EFT vendor, neither do you have a contract with the web ad vendor. But the product is a whole - you're supposed to get one without the other. Blocking web ads is like skipping out on paying the bill at a diner. The individual damage is much less, and trivial, but ethically it's the same thing.

I do it. It's a selfish thing - I value my convenience more than I value the trivial fraction of a cent it costs the content provider. My problem is with people who will torture philosophy to try and make it sound like they're fighting a morally pure fight by blocking ads. It's not ethical, but it's not a great sin either. Just admit it's a selfish action and stop torturing the philosophy around consent and contracts. This kind of debate tactic is like the libertarian who redefines 'violence' to include receiving a letter from the tax department.

If you want to be ethical and you feel violated by ads, simply don't patronise the site. I don't care about blocking ads, but I do care that people describe it as some sort of morally clean action rather than a selfish convenience.

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

#223

Post by vacri »

rosser wrote: post #147
vacri wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is true of every element on the page, from the menu system to the related articles box. Shall we have headers for every single element on a page?

Navigation elements are an expected, and rather essential part of a site's functionality. Ads aren't — as ad-blocking software perfectly demonstrates: the day a site legitimately doesn't work (in the sense of being unnavigable, or somehow otherwise unable to be utilized in the way its creators intended, irrespective of its revenue model) because advertising content — which someone has chosen to include in order to mo…

Navigation elements beyond a spacebar and hyperlinks aren't essential. And probably PageUp. From websites of the 90's to today's product pages, there are plenty of websites that only require a spacebar and links to get around - no fancy dropdown menus or related article boxes.

Example, I've just been looking at https://www.consul.io/ - no menus, no special boxes. All you need is a spacebar to navigate the page, and you click on links to go to other pages. It's perfectly workable - fancy geegaws are not essential to navigate the site. Just like not all sites have ads, neither to all sites have drop-down menus and similar.

Perhaps I should have used HN as the example - it's also nothing but space/pageup and links.

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

#224

Post by xorcist »

unholiness wrote: post #218
xorcist wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

As is often the case on the modern Internet, the majority of things currently funded by ads is spam.

Then there's all the low-quality content, which isn't outright spam, but no-one in their right mind would pay for. Most people would probably not mourn that either.

The problem with news, if that's what we're discussing, is that they can't decide which side of the fence they want to fall on. Celebrity gossip and researched content is vastly different and there is no reason to believe they fall under the same business model.

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

#226

Post by jokoon »

opinali wrote: post #215
jokoon wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

No, I still prefer graffiti.

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

#227

Post by djKianoosh »

dbg31415 wrote: post #4

Kill ads using a host file. You have to update it every few weeks but it makes the web so much easier to look at. Using a Hosts File To Make The Internet Not Suck (as much) || http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ For backup blocking... Adblock Plus - Surf the web without annoying ads! || https://adblockplus.org/

I love using the someonewhocares hosts file plus Ghostery plugin on all of my browsers
Post reply on HN