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

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#141

Post by paulcole »

commmentator wrote: post #41
paulcole wrote: post #24

I don’t block ads. If I hate the ads more than I like the site, I stop going to that site. It’s not that hard of a choice for me. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the But-My-HTTP-Requests defense and understand that ads and tracking are the trade I make for reading/watching/enjoying content without getting my wallet out. I also personally enjoy learning about new products and buying things I might like. Why do I earn…

> Why do I earn money if not to buy things? To create a safety net for yourself (and perhaps your family)? So that if you were to incur unexpected catastrophic expenses, or lose your job, you would still be able to sustain yourself?

That’s a fair point, but the amount of money needed for those things isn’t insanely high for me. I don’t have kids, don’t own a car, and have pretty low living expenses.

There’s always another job to get. I can always spend less. If something’s truly catastrophic (like healthcare), I just wouldn’t pay the bill. I rent (not interested in owning property) so my exposure there is pretty limited.

I have a pretty big stack of credit cards and would just use those if I absolutely had to. I don’t carry a balance on them now so that’s a lot of freedom in a truly worse-case-scenario.

Plus, I have a chronic illness so I tend to not be too worried about long-long-term. How long do I really want/need to sustain myself for?

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#142

Post by actionfromafar »

concinds wrote: post #71
actionfromafar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees seldom are evil cartoon characters. Banality of evil, and all that. It's the system as setup which is the problem. When faced with such a hard problem, there are basically two outcomes: - oh well, carry on then - maybe we shouldn't be doing these things, and make a drastic change? I know, the second option is almost laughably absurd.

That's fair, and there's certainly tons of incentives to ignore problems; office politics, liability (because if a company is "internally aware" of a problem, that's a huge liability for lawsuits and regulation), etc. But I'd give a lot to see a reality TV show where people who constantly criticise big corporations are put in charge of the relevant team for a year (people here being put in charge of FB's ads team; pe…

That's what I'm saying. The fundamentals of some companies are such that they can't be (morally) rescued, only divested.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#143

Post by geoduck14 »

mojzu wrote: post #87
jefftk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think advertising is harmful in general, and I think an ad-funded web is likely much better than a paywall-funded web. More: https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads

In theory, ads are great, I'd like to hear about products and services that can solve problems or improve my quality of life. In practice, my experience of ads on the web is to degrade the user experience of the page I came to see and to build intrusive personal profiles on what my interests are believed to be (which often seems to result in being repeatedly fed the same ads for products I've already purchased) Anecd…

>Anecdotally the best advertising I have engaged with and bought the most as a result of is content based, not personalised for me in any way

I'm curious what you bought and how you interact with ads.

For me, I bought a house. I worked closely with a realtor to find my house. That experience was highly personalized.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#144

Post by chii »

lelanthran wrote: post #113
chii wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Those sites no longer exist.

lots of sites that stop adblockers still exist - your sampling is probably biased if you don't see it.

> You make it sound like they didn't try.

Recently (or about a yr ago, cannot recall any more) twitch.tv stopped allowing adblockers from blocking their ad feeds in to the stream. It's an expensive method (injecting ad video stream into the livestream data - you cannot directly ignore the ad; at best you can blank it out and wait for the 30 seconds).

Youtube didn't try. Youtube probably considers adblocking a small issue atm (just my guess), and likely a lot of views come from the mobile app, which is much harder to block ads on. Twitch is trying, and is pretty successful. It wouldn't surprise me that the method twitch uses might work elsewhere too.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#145

Post by mojzu »

geoduck14 wrote: post #143
mojzu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, ads are great, I'd like to hear about products and services that can solve problems or improve my quality of life. In practice, my experience of ads on the web is to degrade the user experience of the page I came to see and to build intrusive personal profiles on what my interests are believed to be (which often seems to result in being repeatedly fed the same ads for products I've already purchased) Anecd…

>Anecdotally the best advertising I have engaged with and bought the most as a result of is content based, not personalised for me in any way I'm curious what you bought and how you interact with ads. For me, I bought a house. I worked closely with a realtor to find my house. That experience was highly personalized.

Some general examples for me would be:

  - Watching a board game video, here are ways to buy the game/expansions/similar games
  - Listening to a book review, here are ways to buy the book/other books by the author/art related to the book
  - Listening to a tech podcast, here are tech related services that may have been discussed
I'm sure it's different for many people and perhaps personalisation helps in many cases, but for me the context of what I'm doing/looking at is most important, causing a context switch/distraction from what I'm trying to do is more likely to be irritating

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#146

Post by robertlagrant »

mmcgaha wrote: post #84
robertlagrant wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know there is a lot of push back against pay walls but I would rather give money to a business that I know than to have some creepy unknown entity record everything I do.

And that's fine, but for sites funded by advertising the answer is to not visit them.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#147

Post by robertlagrant »

blooalien wrote: post #112
robertlagrant wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're misunderstanding what I mean. I'm saying if a site has decided to fund itself through showing advertisements, then that model can only tolerate so many people avoiding that, because the site will generate less money.

You're talking about something else.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#148

Post by robertlagrant »

phoe-krk wrote: post #22
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.

>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. Maybe unrelated, but I always think of this when I pay for a ticket and go to the cinema, so I can watch fifteen minutes of trailers and commercials before the actual movie begins.

The economics of cinemas are such that they make no money on ticket sales (that money goes to the film distribution company) and they only really make money on drinks, snacks, and ads.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#149

Post by robertlagrant »

commmentator wrote: post #46
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.

> you're accessing content paid for by adverts, but you aren't contributing to that payment. If the content is paid for by adverts, then of course I am not contributing to that payment. Because I am not an advertising company, so by your own logic I didn't pay for the content. What's the problem?

Online advertising works based on number of impressions/views/clicks. If you're blocking that mechanism then the site doesn't get paid.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#150

Post by robertlagrant »

harry8 wrote: post #102
robertlagrant wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that it is unethical to block when having punches thrown at you as we are is just so incredibly ridiculous it's hard to see it other than facebrick google paid propaganda that you've taken to heart somehow. As I say, it doesn't need to be ethical. On your comment: of course, no one is throwing punches at you. It's just advertising. You don't have to go to the website that has it on.

You're actually serious? Advertising is designed to make you feel shit (inadequate) and does it so effectively people kill themselves with anorexia over it to cite but one example. It's like a prostitute saying their pimp doesn't /really/ hurt them when they get a beating. Your other option is not to just "not go to _the_ website" because you have no choice other than to unplug and live in a cave. Defending yourself…

I'm struggling to discern any genuine points from your bombastic writing. Have a great day.
Post reply on HN