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

Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 154 posts

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#111

Post by b3morales »

krapp wrote: post #83
ziml77 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also like to call ads "mind control" because they are that manipulative, but it's hard to say that without sounding like a nutjob. I don't think ads are inherently evil, but most ads are designed to exploit human psychology instead of just making you aware that a product exists.

> I also like to call ads "mind control" because they are that manipulative, but it's hard to say that without sounding like a nutjob. If they were that manipulative, they would always work. Every time you saw an ad you would immediately be compelled to buy whatever it was advertising like those mall zombies from Dawn of the Dead. Ads are manipulative but definitely not "mind control" manipulative. You would probably…

They don't have to fool all the people all the time, they just have to fool some of the people enough of the time to hit their sales quotas.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#112

Post by blooalien »

robertlagrant wrote: post #56
horsawlarway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site. But this isn't the fucking model. The model is: We created compelling content that draws lots of views, and companies will pay us to plaster their name/products on it. There is literally zero contract with the person being shown the ads at all. They can do as they please. If companies don't like that... move…

I'm not sure if this adds anything. I know there's no contract. But while the system can shoulder a certain load of parasitic behaviour, if everyone does as you say then it stops working. So practically speaking it is a quid quo pro. A better analogue for your description is something like the Guardian website, where you don't have to pay for it, but it does require a certain number of people to volunteer to subscrib…

One big problem is that the advertising industry has become the "parasitic behaviour" that is helping to destroy the modern Internet, and a whole huge mess of people not only don't see or understand that fact, but even actively defend their "right" to do it.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#113

Post by lelanthran »

chii wrote: post #44
horsawlarway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site. But this isn't the fucking model. The model is: We created compelling content that draws lots of views, and companies will pay us to plaster their name/products on it. There is literally zero contract with the person being shown the ads at all. They can do as they please. If companies don't like that... move…

> move to a different model - stop showing your stuff for free. what if that model was a contract to the viewer, wherein the viewer agrees to see all adverts? Currently this contract is assumed, or implied, but not enforced. What if it changes in the future? For example, youtube could require that you have a webcam, and run a trusted-computing-module DRM code which forces your webcam to be on and recording your face…

> what if that model was a contract to the viewer, wherein the viewer agrees to see all adverts? Currently this contract is assumed, or implied, but not enforced. What if it changes in the future?

There is no contract; it's an open market and they are competing for my attention.

There is no contract assumed, there is no contract implied, thus there is nothing to enforce.

> but not enforced. What if it changes in the future?

You make it sound like they didn't try. All those sites that attempted to "enforce"[1] this fictional contract you are referring to are not longer in existence, because there was no contract so the "enforcement" was merely user-abuse.

[1] Lots of sites did their best to undermine adblockers, going so far as to disable the site if an adblocker was detected. Those sites no longer exist.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#114

Post by blooalien »

Drakim wrote: post #53
robertlagrant wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as blocking them as an ethical issue fundamentally commercial: you're accessing content paid for by adverts, but you aren't contributing to that payment. The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site.

Then make me sign a contract that exchanges the service for my action of viewing the ads. Make it an official transaction. Right now they want it both ways where the content is "free" but I'm also stealing it by not paying.

Sure, but if there's a contract like that, then I insist that I be paid for my time and bandwidth in addition to the content I'm being interrupted/distracted from viewing. My time and bandwidth are both valuable, and can be far better used than viewing ads for products or services I guarantee I won't buy just because of some shitty advert.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#115

Post by lelanthran »

robertlagrant wrote: post #56
horsawlarway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site. But this isn't the fucking model. The model is: We created compelling content that draws lots of views, and companies will pay us to plaster their name/products on it. There is literally zero contract with the person being shown the ads at all. They can do as they please. If companies don't like that... move…

I'm not sure if this adds anything. I know there's no contract. But while the system can shoulder a certain load of parasitic behaviour, if everyone does as you say then it stops working. So practically speaking it is a quid quo pro. A better analogue for your description is something like the Guardian website, where you don't have to pay for it, but it does require a certain number of people to volunteer to subscrib…

> But while the system can shoulder a certain load of parasitic behaviour, if everyone does as you say then it stops working.

Isn't that a worthy goal? After all, if the "system" stops working, it's not as if the internet will go away, or the worthwhile sites will disappear.

The "system" is a parasitic drain on the users. If it went away, the internet will still be there, as will the users.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#116

Post by krapp »

b3morales wrote: post #111
krapp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also like to call ads "mind control" because they are that manipulative, but it's hard to say that without sounding like a nutjob. If they were that manipulative, they would always work. Every time you saw an ad you would immediately be compelled to buy whatever it was advertising like those mall zombies from Dawn of the Dead. Ads are manipulative but definitely not "mind control" manipulative. You would probably…

They don't have to fool all the people all the time, they just have to fool some of the people enough of the time to hit their sales quotas.

Ok, but that's still just influence, not mind control. By that rationale, literally every form of communication which has a chance of affecting someone's behavior is "mind control."

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#117

Post by TheCoelacanth »

blooalien wrote: post #106
sushibowl wrote: post #7

I feel like any argument that starts with the idea that blocking ads is unethical would inevitably lead to that black mirror episode where the ad pauses if you close your eyes or look away, and you must pay to skip it. Closing your eyes is just another ad blocking measure, and the idea that that would be unethical ought to be utterly preposterous.

Rest assured that if advertisers could display ads on the inside of your eyelids and charge you a fee to open your eyes, they absolutely would not hesitate for even one single second over "ethical issues" before implementing it world-wide. If there's an actual literal Hell, then Lucifer surely has an extra cushy corner of it set aside for advertisers, and he'll force the rest of us to march through it with our eyes o…

Yes, that's why I consider it not only okay to block ads, but unethical not to.

If you look at ads, you are funding advertisers' mission to create hell on earth.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#118

Post by simion314 »

concinds wrote: post #61
simion314 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FB can determining the approximate age of the user by the content they posted They give users tags like "rich, dumb, racist, likes watches, likes big cars". The reason they might not tag you "possible minor" is to deny they knew in case of something bad happening. Even if you lied that you are older then 13 years , did the Cam girls company paid FB to show that ad for ages between 13-18? Why? To prepare their minds f…

> Even if you lied that you are older then 13 years , did the Cam girls company paid FB to show that ad for ages between 13-18? Why? To prepare their minds for the future ? From the Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/26/children-lie-a... ): > The survey found that 83% of the 11 to 15 year olds whose internet usage was monitored registered on a social media site with a false age. > Just over 40% of…

I am working as a dev for many years, some problems are not hard to solve but some other stuff has more priority and is placed up int he list. So IMO FB has FB pushed this at the bottom from various reasons, one of them might be that is a problematic one so they won't touch it until they are forced too.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#119

Post by RajT88 »

IvanK_net wrote: post #66
RajT88 wrote: post #34

As long as malvertising campaigns are a thing, you should block ads. The online ad industry AFAIK still has not got their shit together.

I guess you always pay in cash. The amount of information which banks and card issuers collect about you is just tremendous. And unlike web ads, they know your real name, your address, your age ...

What a peculiar response to a comment about ads infecting your PC with malware!

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#120

Post by blooalien »

mcv wrote: post #72
IvanK_net wrote: post #39

It is okay because website creators tolerate it. Once all website owners stop tolerating it, everybody would have to watch ads. Just like if at the grocery store, you could choose to pay or not pay. It would be totally okay not to pay. But if the number of non-paying customers grew too much, the owners would make it mandatory to pay. This did not happen to the web yet.

> Once all website owners stop tolerating it, everybody would have to watch ads. Or everybody would stop visiting corporate websites and we'd go back to the user-generated web of old, where people created stuff out of love, instead of to get views and sell ads.

> "Or everybody would stop visiting corporate websites and we'd go back to the user-generated web of old, where people created stuff out of love, instead of to get views and sell ads."

Oh how I miss those days. Back then, the advertising industry literally scoffed at the idea of advertising on the "It's just a passing fad" early web [1], and most of the people online at that time were "content creators" of one kind or another, just looking to share what they were passionate about with others around the world.

[1] Source: I used to run a small printing business back in the day, and tried for years to convince advertisers of the value of advertising on the Internet and was literally laughed at…

Post reply on HN