Live data from Hacker News

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

utcc.utoronto.ca

171–180 of 227 posts

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

#171

"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the wo…

"Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours." That's an interesting conception of one's natural rights in a public space, given that basically nothing in a public space "gives you choice whether you see it or not" by the definition of "public space." The following does not sound different in principle from the quote: "Any member of the opposite sex (who with their looks i…

> I honestly don't see a difference except in degree (and hence in jail time I'd prefer to see resulting from actions based on each of the attitudes, roughly 15 days and 15 years, respectively.)

Except for that thing about human rights and dignity, the violation of which is fundamental to the reason why there's jail time for transgressing upon it.

Whereas ads are... really just ads, as long as we don't have anything equivalent for them.

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

#173

There is a huge irony in that fact that AdBlock's function of keeping ads away from our content will eventually do the opposite. The alternative to ads alongside my content is ads inside my content. Let's face it: paywalls don't work. The alternative on the horizon is native advertising. Buzzfeed is now famously refusing to host ads. Instead they sustain themselves by publishing content that subtly supports the agend…

> 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 even open access journals have business models of their own.

You can't survive on fees with a flood of mediocre content, but that doesn't invalidate the model for everything else.

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

#175

On a broad scale, we have moved from a culture of ads as info, to ads that push you to buy whatever the factory produces. This huge supply and false demand for things we don't really need has a huge impact of consumption culture, personal distress - an ongoing feeling that you always lack something, ecological waste and people wasting their hard earned dollars on things they don't really need. God bless ad blockers.

> things they don't really need Who gets to decide whether something is necessary or not? Maslow understood that humans "need" pathways to self-esteem and self-expression. An extensive collection of Marvel action figures could slip through that loophole. Francis of Assisi lived in abject poverty, and would be a much harsher judge than Maslow, and would probably criticize either of us for bothering to own any electron…

Extreme cases are never good examples for a general make sense rule. Most of the west ads induced consumption is not self expression purchase, but rather a desire to confirm to an imaginary false standard that ads present as something real. The aim is not self expression, but the bottom line of corp. xyz. The effect of the massive ads everywhere is found (IMHO) even in your comment: identifying self-esteem and self-expression with buying something. For a simple argument, consider all the things you buy and never used, the piles or garbage a typical western society produces.

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

#176
post #86

We would simply not have many of the greatest web companies today if it was not because of ads. It's one solution that works and works really well. To call it immoral is to ignore everything that it has given us. You can complain about the annoyances of it and rightly so, but if you are going to bring in morality, first you must consider and imagine an internet or world without some of the most beloved businesses in…

best parts of the internet are free

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is valid. If you rely on something that causes people harm that must be factored in when they seek to minimize their risk. I don't use ad blockers because I generally support your position. I do block flash because it is so annoying and especially noisy ads and downloading video I didn't ask for on my limited bandwidth. It seems to me it isn't 100% either way. There is an issue of being a free-riding meanie…

> I didn't ask for on my limited bandwidth. Your browser asked for it though. Maybe fix you browser so it isn't doing things you don't like? Of course with HTTP/2, websites will be able to send you stuff that even your browser didn't ask for.

I for one did, and its called Noscript. And waddayouknow, it blocks ads (as a side "benefit")...

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

#178
There seems to be a clear need for an ad blocker that doesn't block ads, just runs them in an invisble sandbox.

That way the site owner still gets paid, and you can still get your character test fix, and no one has to suffer through blinking autoplaying crap.

This strategic technology is a game changer that can disrupt online advertising! Remember where you heard it first!

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dread the day where the only content available is what artists can produce independently. Movies like Interstellar, or the TV show Lost, are by their nature very expensive, and it would be a great loss if this type of content could no longer recoup its expenses. I hope there's a place in the future for both indie work and expensive "blockbuster" content.

> I hope there's a place in the future for both indie work and expensive "blockbuster" content. Certainly. You'll note that as individual expenses go down, group expenses should go down as well since employers will no longer have to cover their employees cost of living. Prices of everything will continue to plummet (as they have been). If anything, they should be able to do more on the same budget. EDIT: You might th…

Gets me thinking about Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Where people are banding together to maintain Walt Disney World in a post scarcity society.

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

#180

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…

The ironic thing is that many of the same people who complain about ads also complain about paywalls.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN