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

201–210 of 249 posts

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#201

Post by Merovius »

Merovius wrote: post #200
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…

Your logic is flawed. Advertisers advertise to increase their share of the whole economy. Every single person could spend exactly the same amount of money and even on exactly the same kind of things as before and advertising would still make sense . I am not denying, that due to advertising we shift our buying habbits. But advertising is born out of competition , it is to take a share of the spending power of people…

And in regards to

> if these costs are being borne evenly, then it's complete societal waste.

that is exactly what is happening. Advertising is the classical real world example for the prisoners dilemma. It is literally the reason, why game theory exists. Every company can chose to advertise (defect) or not advertise (cooperate). If no one advertises, everyone is better off. But that is not a stable equilibrium, so instead everyone is advertising, even though it incurs some cost on social wellfare.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#202

Post by zzalpha »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #199
zzalpha wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point is something like if you "need" something horseshoe shaped for crafty project or whatever, now a days you download a .scad from thingiverse, run it thru openscad, run the .stl thru curaengine to get a .gcode, then feed the .gcode to octopi on your printer and pick up your shoe in a couple hours at a cost of about fifty cents of filament. You can't possibly be equating the manufacture of a simple physical…

Don't just assert that. I sincerely believe that most people overestimate (or pretend to overestimate) the value of journalism, and I'm curious about why you think it isn't so.

Alas, not to bring ageism into the discussion, but I'm gonna bet that probably just means you were born in, what, the late 90s or later?

Journalism serves a vital function. It's called the "fourth estate" for a reason, and should serve to enlighten the public on the goings on of the government and the world. Journalism is one of the forces counteracting government secrecy and surveillance. Hell, journalism is what brought the Snowden revelations to light to the general public.

To do that well, you need professional writers, researchers, and fact checkers. No, a casual blogger is not a journalist. Twitter is not journalism. Tumblr is not journalism. At best those are news. At worst, gossip.

Unfortunately, we now have an entire generation who doesn't understand what real journalism actually looks like. It's a damn shame... remember, journalism brought down Nixon and helped end the Vietnam war, among many other things. Real journalism can be immensely powerful as a medium.

It is not horseshoe manufacturing.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#203

Post by Merovius »

eevilspock wrote: post #125
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…

Dude, I've been trying to spread this exact understanding on HN for years[1]. You would think that this crowd would get that there is no free lunch. But cognitive dissonance is powerful: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair I've been tracking this debate (or, until recently, lack thereof) for years and no one is articulating thi…

> I've been tracking this debate (or, until recently, lack thereof) for years and no one is articulating this well, myself included. Specifically, no one is articulating how this doesn't even make sense from an economics perspective.

That sounds like very bad economics. Because a) Either the spending power of the population is constant. In that case, there is no cost (for consumers), because they don't spend more, they just spend differently. b) Or, spending power increases as a function of amount of ads. In that case, there is no cost (for consumers), because their increase in spending due to ads is precisely offset by the increase in spending power.

Unless you are somehow suggesting that people would just insanely accumulate wealth, instead of spend their income, if only there where no advertising.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#204

Post by mollerhoj »

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…

Advertising could also just make you aware of a product that you didn't know about, no? As far as I'm aware advertising can be a win for both the advertiser and the consumer.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#206

Post by Merovius »

eevilspock wrote: post #178
ryandvm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that nobody is asking the actual market value of their product. TechCrunch would probably want subscribers to pay north of $5/month. But the actual marketing value (in ad revenue) that they are currently able to extract from a single reader is probably closer to $0.50/year - if that. You solve the micropayment problem and then we can talk about what I'm willing to pay for content.

Mozilla Research put the entire web's advertising revenue at $12.70/month per user[1]. In other words, if they are right we are living with the consequences of advertising for a mere $13/month, $13 dollar they still get from us anyway because it's baked into the prices of the advertised products. > You solve the micropayment problem We hackers and technologists here at HN are the "You". "The best minds of my generati…

> In other words, if they are right we are living with the consequences of advertising for a mere $13/month, $13 dollar they still get from us anyway because it's baked into the prices of the advertised products.

I am sorry, but I can not understand what's the problem with that. I can put out my content for free, everyone, regardles of economic situation can consume it. Prices will increase accordingly, but it won't affect everyone equally. The food you need to put on your table to survive, your electricity and your water doesn't have as large a chunk in the advertising budget as the latest iPhone, Macbook or random technology product. So at the absolute worst, the people buying luxury products subsidize people who wouldn't be able to afford my content otherwise. What's so bad about that?

Another implicit assumption that is very questionable for me as a non-economist is: The overhead the advertising company gets doesn't disappear. In general money doesn't disappear. It gets spent on the employees of the ad-company, which increases spending power and is good for the economy (?). It's a bit like energy. The amount is mostly constant, it's the fact that we move it around that creates value. The absolut worst you can do with your money, is not spending it. Because it can't create value like that.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#207

Post by saint_fiasco »

zzalpha wrote: post #202
saint_fiasco wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't just assert that. I sincerely believe that most people overestimate (or pretend to overestimate) the value of journalism, and I'm curious about why you think it isn't so.

Alas, not to bring ageism into the discussion, but I'm gonna bet that probably just means you were born in, what, the late 90s or later? Journalism serves a vital function. It's called the "fourth estate" for a reason, and should serve to enlighten the public on the goings on of the government and the world. Journalism is one of the forces counteracting government secrecy and surveillance. Hell, journalism is what br…

Could twitter and random blogs have stopped Vietnam and Nixon too, if they had existed back then?

And if there is something unique to journalists that make them more proficient at stopping presidents and wars, why couldn't they stop the Iraq war?

Because the powers that be coopted that power. I read the "journalists" in the early 21st century and it was depressing.

Then again, the independent bloggers and twitters have also been rendered ineffective and powerless. Nothing much came from Occupy and the Arab Spring, fur example.

We need something different.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#208

Post by Merovius »

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.

I think what they meant was "This job is important. So we should pay it accordingly. It is kind of hollow claiming that a job is important, but at the same time not paying it".

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#209

Post by qopp »

fwn wrote: post #151
qopp wrote: post #57

"What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues." -- https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.... Kant 1st Imperative -- Violates -- If everyone used Adblock, many websites would shutdown. I.e. "Adblock is…

But all those reflexions on the issue are completely determined by the random assumptions you use in your examples. Kant 1. Imp: One could deny the disappearance or embrace it. One could see the new forces leading the web away from ads as something beneficial for society as a whole. Utilitarianism: There are many not quantifyable variables in a possible calculation. Just add seeing ads as exceedingly costly and your…

Ethics is always a subjective science, but these ethical models provide a fair and structured approach to looking at it.

Kant 1. Doesn't ask "what's best for society"? It asks about the "universalizability principle" i.e. "if everyone acts like me is there a contradiction?". And in this case there is, if you browse an ad-supported site that could only exist if some people view the ads is a contradiction. You have to agree that some sites would shut down if everyone used adblock, and thus the principal stands. It's not about what's best for society if the sites shut down, just pointing out the ethical contradiction that if everyone acted like you, everyone couldn't act like you (at least not always on all sites).

Utilitarianism. You just have to measure the obvious units of good vs units of bad. Again, it's not like a math proof but you can identify the units of good vs units of bad. Can you provide an alternate counter proof that is more obviously correct than my analysis?

Social Contract: I'm talking about the implicit social contract that exist today. Page owners don't freely upload their page knowing that the web is pull and users will select the resources displayed. Many page owners aren't even aware of adblock, at least not all of them.

Basically what you've said is: Movie theater owners free open their doors knowing that the world is navigable and users will select whether they want to visit the pay booth or not. Movie theater owners do open their theaters with this in mind, but they don't intend for their users to skip the pay booth if they simply don't want to pay. That's not the social contract you take on when you visit a theater.

In this case, the social contract is stated in actually stated in words you can read. Just read the terms of service on many websites. They specifically say you can view the site if you don't block the ads: "you are not permitted to block the display of ads" -- http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml

Virtue Ethics: I think this one is pretty verifyable :) Just find someone that owns a ad supported site and tell them to their face that you use ad block and you think it would be shameful not to. See how you feel ;)

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#210

Post by ksk »

marcosdumay wrote: post #139
ksk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a good argument to make. The corollary is that the telecom companies "own" their infrastructure. They can modify any packets sent from your computer to theirs, insert tracking, or peek at it or whatever. After all, YOU sent the packet to them.

Not to them, but through them. I'm paying them to take that data, and deliver it verbatim to some other party. They are reasonably free to refuse to take my money (they may have traded that freedom for some other gain, but then it's a different story), what they can't do is claim they are providing that service, while adulterating my data.

>Not to them, but through them.

To send it through them, you have to send it TO them. You know what I meant, lets not waste time on this.

> what they can't do is claim they are providing that service, while adulterating my data.

They can do anything they want, unless its against the law. (Or to be more specific, unless its proven in a court to be against the law).

The point is that we are relying on COMMONLY AGREED terms of what a service must provide. There is no explicit legal definition of what a routing service must do. The legal case, is not the same as the technical case.

I was replying to the person whose argument was - my computer, my rules. My point is the telecom can go - My router/infrastructure, my rules.

Post reply on HN