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

The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 249 posts

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#111

Post by JD557 »

reasonishy wrote: post #17
bediger4000 wrote: post #5

How is ad blocking an ethical issue? I get to control my computer, at least until some legislation passes that says I don't. Even if I don't control my computer entirely, how about my DNS? I have a lot of the more intrusive domains (tynt, doubleclick, etc) set up as 127.0.0.1 in my dnsmasq config. The "whose computer is it anyway" question seems key here. In order to make advertising possible, we have to take control…

OK, so the equivalent would be this: I buy magazines from the wholesaler. I rip out all the adverts. I then sell them to the public. I'm acting as a lovely "ad-blocker" for magazines. Is what I'm doing legal or ethical? Another argument would be is it ethical to block people who have adblock installed. In such an arms race, who will win?

I think magazines is the wrong analogy here, as you paid for them.

A better example would be doing the same to free newspapers.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#112

Post by VLM »

jules wrote: post #63
RodericDay wrote: post #7

What I really can't understand, that permeates this whole discussion, is plenty of people that try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". It's insane. If companies are buying ad-space, it's because they expect to get more business in return. This means that someone out there is being influenced by said ads, so that if the content cost X to p…

Funding the content suffers from a tragedy of the commons problem.

Something rarely discussed is how the cost of publishing the content is imploding.

A generation ago it took a real company with full time employees to run Slashdot. In 2014 it took some volunteers and some linode instances to run SoylentNews using slashcode. In another decade you'll have people running things like /. and HN on the equivalent of a raspberry pi drawing 5 watts.

A generation ago some cool sites started as an old desktop underneath some desk, then they scaled to internet size which meant a mid size corporation. Well, for technological reasons we're scaling it back down to some legendary sites will once again run on a desktop underneath someone's desk, its just that desktop will run internet scale not mere thousands of users.

I'm not sure that society gets much value from journalists. Take corporate press release, lightly wrap in trendy breezy cliches and clickbait headline like 1000 of your closest competitors but supposedly your re-skin is better than theirs, and spam the link everywhere.

When that industry is gone, I won't miss it. Remember when the blue collars were losing their jobs and the journalists were all "ha ha not my problem go back to school"? What comes around goes around, and after the journos lose their jobs they can go back to beautician school or air conditioning repairman or whatever, "ha ha not my problem go back to school"

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#113

Post by Balgair »

mikestew wrote: post #74

In my book, it's no longer a question of ethics, at least not directly. Way back when, we all agreed that if I look at some ads, a web site will let me view some content. Fair enough, it's a proven model and though I might not particularly like advertising, I'll trade some eyeballs for some content. Way back when, maybe it _was_ a question of ethics. But not anymore. What "we" didn't agree to was being tracked all ov…

http://www.artofmanliness.com/

This site is a great one to look at in terms of the ad ecosystem. The ads are (typically) not that bad and very targeted, and the content is fantastic to the sub-genre of people looking at it. The admin there uses, reviews, and runs give-aways for products he actually likes and wants to advocate for. True, the site is never going to make billions or even millioons, but it is enough for his needs.

The issue is that it takes a lot of work to build that with your community and ad partners. You have to make a lot of phone calls and write a lot of emails. You have to have consistently good and timely articles. Your content and audience have to be managed. Big ad firms do not have the margins to do this and are forced into blast ads.

Many other commenters here mention that the ad ecosystem is up for a change, much like pop-ups a decade ago. Perhaps a more curated environment is going to appear for a little while.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#114

Post by zzalpha »

bediger4000 wrote: post #5

How is ad blocking an ethical issue? I get to control my computer, at least until some legislation passes that says I don't. Even if I don't control my computer entirely, how about my DNS? I have a lot of the more intrusive domains (tynt, doubleclick, etc) set up as 127.0.0.1 in my dnsmasq config. The "whose computer is it anyway" question seems key here. In order to make advertising possible, we have to take control…

How is ad blocking an ethical issue? I get to control my computer, at least until some legislation passes that says I don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

No one said it's a black-and-white ethical issue. It's unquestionably a dilemma. And as a user of ad blocking software, one I myself wrestle with.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#115

Post by stevesearer »

joosters wrote: post #108
otis_inf wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why whitelist ads at all? Ads are evil, the ad agencies track you, you run the risk of viruses / malware (like the recent 0-day exploit on a russian news site through ads), and there's zero gain for the person visiting the site.

I understand the idea of whitelisting sites that you want to support, but even that is tricky when their ads are provided by a myriad of ad companies, clearinghouses and ad auction sites. So even if the original website is good and trustworthy, the ad networks that you let through could still ruin you.

whitelist officesnapshots.com because we self-host and sell our own ads circumventing ad networks :)

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#116

Post by fwn »

RodericDay wrote: post #85
aembleton wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might have had the need before seeing the ad but hadn't seen a solution. Adverts are at their basic level a way of informing end users about what they can purchase. They are also there to try and raise brand awareness. People are more likely to trust a brand that they have heard of rather than some unknown.

> People are more likely to trust a brand that they have heard of rather than some unknown. Is this a good thing?

Brand awareness is one reputation mechanism. For better or worse. ... and reputation itself is a good thing.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#117

Post by jfb »

frou_dh wrote: post #45

The formal name for the browser is "User Agent". Your agent should act in you, the user's, interest. Decidedly partisan and so what? You shouldn't have to explicitly instruct it to defend you from surveillance and pollution - it should do that of its own accord from day zero. Or is your browser a double-agent?

Think about who makes the browser, and what their interests are. Mozilla and Google both are 100% creatures of the advertising world (in the former case, indirectly through their search box deals) and have a vested interest in selling you on.

I'm not saying switch to Safari or Edge, but it's important to remember the incentives that the browser vendors respond to.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#118

Post by acdha »

loco5niner wrote: post #103
RodericDay wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, I really like markets, and I have a problem with phrases like: > I like reading techcrunch, but would never pay for it. Sounds to me a lot like Mitt Romney talking about how his wife has the most important job in the world, but she's essentially his unpaid housewife. Sounds hollow. You are paying for techcrunch, by buying products advertised on it. It would be good for the finances of everyone in society to know…

> Sounds to me a lot like Mitt Romney talking about how his wife has the most important job in the world, but she's essentially his unpaid housewife. Sounds hollow. No, he's actually saying that raising the next generation is the most important job in the world. aka, Mom. And I think he's right.

Most of us live in market economies. Jobs which are truly considered to be important have respect and pay well. In contrast, in the U.S. we don't even respect mothers enough to e.g. give them enough time to fully recover from giving birth before going back to work or ensure that nobody has to worry about losing their job or income if they take a sick kid to the doctor.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#119

Post by zzalpha »

VLM wrote: post #112
jules wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funding the content suffers from a tragedy of the commons problem.

Something rarely discussed is how the cost of publishing the content is imploding. A generation ago it took a real company with full time employees to run Slashdot. In 2014 it took some volunteers and some linode instances to run SoylentNews using slashcode. In another decade you'll have people running things like /. and HN on the equivalent of a raspberry pi drawing 5 watts. A generation ago some cool sites started…

Something rarely discussed is how the cost of publishing the content is imploding.

You are aware that content generation isn't, in fact, a technological problem, right?

You still need folks to write the copy, edit, research and fact check, moderate discussion forums, etc.

Yes, the cost of the actual physical act of publishing copy has gotten cheaper. But high quality journalism costs money. That's unavoidable.

I'm not sure that society gets much value from journalists. Take corporate press release, lightly wrap in trendy breezy cliches and clickbait headline like 1000 of your closest competitors but supposedly your re-skin is better than theirs, and spam the link everywhere.

I hate to break it to you, but: this was caused by the internet. Two major effects are at play. First, yup, it's a lot cheaper to publish complete drek, hence the Gawkers of the world. This has caused those organizations that actually invested in content generation to have to cut costs (ask any news agency in the world... the investigative journalist is a dying breed, to everyone's detriment). The result is lower and lower quality journalism as investigation, fact checking, and so forth, is thrown out the window.

This is exactly like folks who would complain about the incompetence of government while trying to financially strangle it. And then, when that underfunded government isn't able to react to some disaster or adequately execute some social program, they use that as further evidence that government must be slashed ("look, government is so competent, yuk yuk yuk!"), while conveniently downplaying the fact that they caused the problem in the first place.

Quality journalism is dying because no one will pay for content. And no one will pay for content because of the perceived low quality of journalism. Repeat ad nauseum.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#120

Post by VLM »

The sale of eight-track players for cars is a violation of my government given right to an eternal revenue stream as an owner of a radio station and I demand "someone" do something about those evil (evil because they cut into my constitutionally protected right to profit) evil eight-track players cutting into my ad revenue. Won't someone Please think of the children, and the top 40 music boy bands, oh and most importantly my profits? I don't care if technology has passed me by, I have a good given right to profit as my manifest destiny and I demand those meddling kids stop interfering with it. Or else I'll... well, or else, yeah that's it.
Post reply on HN