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

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

#101

Post by XorNot » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:01 AM UTC

sohkamyung wrote: post #47

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. 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 that I've committed to a maximum of subscription period of X before I'll decide to renew it.

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

#102

Post by sandworm » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:01 AM UTC

Adblockers do not block ads. They block BANNER ads.

If advertisers want to pitched their products, they should contract with websites for that website to display a relevant, clickable, ad hosted by the website. Such schemes are no different than buying space to paint a poster on a stadium wall. And as adblockers only target ads delivered by third parties, such displays will go untouched.

(Yes, i know adblock allows ad hoc image blocking, but the user will see the ad and must choose to block it every time it is updated.)

Advertisers than want to buy open-ended ad space on websites, that want to display different ads depending on who views the space, who want to track users to better target ads, who want to use "ads" as a Trojan horse for installing tracking cookies ... they can all rot alongside the good people from "windows technical service department" who called me at 4am this morning.

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

#103

Post by mirimir » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:02 AM UTC

calbear81 wrote: post #20

jotux wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But its the content creators being punished, not the ad companies. It's both, right?

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.

Maybe ad blockers should emulate downloading and displaying ads, perhaps via proxy servers to minimize throughput. That would protect content creators, no?

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

#104

Post by mikelat » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:03 AM UTC

Google has bothered me for a while with their lack of advertising ethics. I recently cleared and disabled my youtube history and they're still doing targeted advertising for videos I had searched for and watched weeks earlier. Clearly my history was not truly removed, which was my assumption anyway but the fact they so blatantly show it off is rather disrespectful from a user standpoint.

Honestly I think the best bet moving forward for sites is to have a small minimalistic form of advertising (the way HN does advertisement with job postings for example, even while its just for Ycombinators benefit, is a good example of non-intrusive advertising done correctly), and probably a small subscription fee ($1.99? $4.99? pay what you want? hard to set a price) for users to hide advertising and support the site/service they enjoy using.

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

#105

Post by godzilla82 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:03 AM UTC

alecdbrooks wrote: post #89

scrollaway wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

American tipping isn't a particularly good system, but it's unkind to not tip if it means cheating the wait staff out of their wages. Similarly, ads have issues, but blocking them is not fair to the creator, who reasonably expected ad impressions in exchange for creating the content and paying for visitors' traffic.

Then why dont you lobby for the government to raise minimum wages for waiters.

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

#106

Post by itistoday2 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:05 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…

I'd be interested to know what the Internet is like for folks in countries like Sweden where welfare systems are far more capable.

For example, do Swedish websites also rely heavily on advertising? How does the economy of Swedish content (in Swedish markets) compare to American content in America?

BTW: I should be clear that I am not advocating any particular type of welfare system. It does not even have to be government managed. The important thing is that a system exist to free people's minds from the mundane details of basic survival.

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

#107

Post by deciplex » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:05 AM UTC

trimbo wrote: post #98

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 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…

It's a combination of "the ads subsidize the production of the content somewhat i.e. you aren't paying the full price" and "everyone is desensitized to ads now anyway so we might at well show them in every place we can possibly get away with it".

FWIW I think it's mostly the latter (e: was thinking specifically of cinema when I wrote this - nl is right it depends on the medium).

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

#108

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

jotux wrote: post #28

>The ad industry has spent years cultivating a 'fuck you' attitude where they would do everything that was within their technical capabilities to spy on people and shovel ads on top of them. To now suddenly be concerned about the 'morality' of what other people do is the height of hypocrisy. The ad industry has lived by the sword of 'technical capabilities are all that matters' (to the detriment of basically everyone…

> in the past

in the continuing present

Do you have a specific argument against the concept of "turnabout is fair play" here? That it's not okay to be "mean" to "mean" advertisers? I'm not convinced it's an invalid argument here.

Even if you do, I have another disagreement with your characterization of the argument here - on the one hand, "mean" is too mild a term for the sheer willful negligence on behalf of ad networks in preventing a flood of malware, fraud, and untold millions in economic damage at the hands of criminals in these and other fashions.

On the other hand, "mean" is too strong a term for committing basic self defense at the expense of a minor impact to a few revenue streams - when this is lauded as a good thing, to be achieved wherever possible, when it serves the consumer - to be encouraged through competition in a capitalistic society. It's an act which requires no malice whatsoever.

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

#109

Post by alexashka » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:07 AM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #35

I think if you step back a bit from this problem, the real source of the problem is that typical capitalism -- supply and demand and all that -- fails miserably for such things as web sites and services, where there is zero marginal cost. Subscriptions or other kinds of paywalls are the closest to a capitalist solution, but they require artificially limiting supply. The most dramatic and poetic discussion of the evil…

I don't think there is a problem to be honest. It's just the market playing itself out - if you can't provide content with ads that I'd like to see, then you should go bankrupt.

I am subscribed to some weekly email newsletters - they have a few ads, that make sense. I don't mind it, I like it when a product I may actually be interested in, is advertised to me.

Gruber has weekly sponsors - I don't mind, at all. I like it.

When google provides me with an amazon link when I search for a book, I am fine with that.

On and on. The only folks moaning at the ad-revenue being decimated are the ones who thought annoying their users with ads they don't want is ok. It's not ok.

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

#110

Post by deciplex » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 5:09 AM UTC

s3r3nity wrote: post #90

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.

+1 to you and I agree this is a nice step - though it doesn't work at scale, nor is it 100% appropriate for the ideals of the web. If you think about the web as the penultimate democracy for content, where content of the highest quality is available to even the poorest person, then saying "pay for this or you'll remain ignorant" is just not fair. Example: I would be more ok if Coursera/Udacity and the like went with…

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.