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

231–240 of 249 posts

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#231

Post by acdha »

loco5niner wrote: post #228
acdha wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Jobs which are truly considered to be important have respect and pay well Correction: Jobs that return a very positive cash flow (for someone) pay well. (Teachers, Cops, Firefighters vs Brokers, Singers, Pro Athletes)

I'm not sure those examples mean what you say – e.g. teachers are allegedly important but get paid far less than your other two examples, have increasingly regimented working conditions and are popularly blamed for circumstances outside of their control. In contrast, it's far less common for anyone to e.g. go after first responders’ pay or benefits or talk about how public safety depends on breaking their union.

Unsurprisingly, that respect gradient also tracks closely which jobs are stereotypically female-dominated. Even staying in education, school administrators - historically male – get more respect for comparable levels of education and are paid more for doing less work.

Again, the point is simply that our talk isn't backed up by our actions.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#232

Post by chrismcb »

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…

You make several assumptions. "We could pay X..." but we don't. How is it a complete societal waste? When someone purchases ad time they are essentially paying for your content. They do this in hopes of selling more product. It is essentially a win/win. You get a free product, and they get more sales. From a financial perspective the marketers aren't going to sell their product for less because they don't advertise. They are spending some money to make more money. So it makes sense for them to spend the money. As far as "we could pay X for the content..." Well that is essentially what we do today, we just do it through ads. Does it contribute to a "cycle of poverty" Not really. That kid will want those fancy new shoes whether he sees it in an ad, or sees it on his friends feet. And yeah, he is helping pay for your YouTube habit. But then so are you. Even if you don't watch ads, you are still purchasing the products that generate the ads.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#233

Post by chrismcb »

RodericDay wrote: post #76
chatmasta wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If these costs are being borne evenly, then it's complete societal waste. That doesn't make sense. You are saying because User reads Content, Advertiser pays Content, and User pays Advertiser, that the middle step of Advertiser paying Content is unnecessary, because User could pay Content. Simple counterexample: I like reading techcrunch, but would never pay for it. But I might see an ad for a new device that I lik…

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…

Product companies NEED advertising. Sure they could slice their prices (not in half) and not advertise. But then they would only grow by word of mouth. For some that is enough, but for most companies, it isn't enough.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#234

Post by qopp »

daviross wrote: post #221
qopp wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Fails to make the claim that many (but not all) websites shutting ) -- Not the intended claim. Kants 1 deals with "universalizability principle" (See other comment) Kant's 2nd Imperative -- Incorrect perspective. Analyzing whether adding ads to your site isn't the question we are analyzing here (that might also be unethical). Blocking ads is what we are looking at. Utilitarianism -- Incorrect perspective. Analyzing…

Fine, fine. Kant's 1st Imperative -- Back to universalizability: If everybody used Adblock, then many sites would shut down. That's universalizable. In fact, I'm encouraging the universalizing of this one, rather than what you're assuming, which is that I'm hiding within "It's alright if I do it, so long as the bulk of traffic doesn't". Kant's 2nd Imperative -- Blocking ads is the outcry, then. They have the basis of…

Thanks, this is much better/on topic. There's not much I can add in rebuttal without just re-iterating previous points.

One thing I was thinking about based on your points now and previous, is that wouldn't you want to block whole site that are ad-supported and not just the ads? You could have an ad-site-block that blacklists all sites that are ad-supported and removes links on pages to them.

This whole debate is like "I don't thinking paying movie theater tickers is a good business model, so I just bypass the pay stand. Let that business model die." It seems kinda immoral to me to gladly accept the services of a website and also hope for and contribute to its death.

I like to think programmers when they see grocery self-checkout lines just walk past them.

* They have malware that steals credit card numbers (See target)!

* There's nothing stopping them! They can chose where to walk and where to not walk.

* Grocery stores are an outdated business model and it should die. Use Amazon fresh! etc.

* They feel no shame. (Seriously. No shame here. I'll tell you to your face that I walk past self-checkout machines. If you proceed to block me from the store, that's entirely fair. At which point I can decide whether I think it's worth using the self-checkout to pay for one grocery item)

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#235

Post by chrismcb »

commentzorro wrote: post #129
imgabe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first case, you know you need some product, but not necessarily which one. You need a pair of shoes, but are you going to get Reeboks, Nike, Asics, or what? They all serve the need you originally had, advertising is just directing you towards one or the other.

I hate it when style items like shoes are used as an example. Once you're out of your teens shopping for shoes just isn't much of an issue in real life. Real life is more like, "I need a vacuum. It needs these properties: canister, quiet, light, and a beater brush." No ad is really going to give you this information. Any ad showing a vacuum is just wasting your time. You're going to go to an objective site to compare…

I need a vacuum cleaner. I know a couple of companies, I research their vacuums. Still not sure what I want, then I see an add for foobar vacuums... Never heard of them, let me go research them too. By the way, for YOU, shopping for shoes isn't much of an issue, but that isn't true for a lot of other people. The other thing is a lot of people don't spend their time "going to an objective site"

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#236

Post by jacquesm »

Merovius wrote: post #222
jacquesm wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning goes (and I have absolutely no idea if there is an element of truth to this or not so don't hold this against me) that advertising increases the velocity of the total amount spent and as such can actually increase the size of the total economy. So even if people do not insanely accumulate wealth it does leave their pockets faster essentially causing a decrease in total savings.

> So even if people do not insanely accumulate wealth it does leave their pockets faster essentially causing a decrease in total savings. That argument doesn't sound right to me. From an a priori standpoint (and I am happy to accept a posteriori arguments, i.e. studies), people will on average invest a fixed percentage of their income into long-term savings (i.e. pension) and the rest on various goods. I read your "p…

Given that people are going in debt to buy stuff they don't need I think there may actually be a point to the reduced savings. Advertising and cheap credit go hand in hand.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#237

Post by anc84 »

CodeCube wrote: post #205
anc84 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a centralised service. I want to pay "cash", I want my privacy. It is no one's business which things I give money to.

bitcoin! :)

Hahaha, and let everyone in the big wide world see all my transactions? Good joke!

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#238

Post by anc84 »

vetinari wrote: post #42
anc84 wrote: post #22

How come everyone is using the closed-source, ad-network friendly Ghostery instead of the open-source https://disconnect.me/ ?

Because actually stopping tracking requires premium (paid) version? Or because mobile version is not a browser plugin, but virtual vpn, so it doesn't work with your real vpn?

Huh, I had no idea. What a shame!

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#239

Post by tremon »

redml wrote: post #166
tremon wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also what the much-maligned EU cookiewall was intended to address: you inform visitors about your tracking /before/ you start tracking them. Though I don't know at which stage that incentive was bungled (other than: "doomed from the start, because people").

Correct me if I'm wrong (because I don't live in the EU and can't verify this), but to comply with the cookie law websites started just displaying "we use cookies" in the header somewhere and didn't actually change anything. Meaning its the same as browsing the internet everywhere else you just get told that this is happening.

No correction, that is what happened. But I don't know if that's because the law was naively constructed, naively interpreted or willfully misinterpreted because it's easier to implement.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#240

Post by reasonishy »

nightmiles wrote: post #27
reasonishy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buy magazines from the wholesaler. I rip out all the adverts. I then sell them to the public. Why wouldn't this be legal or ethical? What you choose to do with the mass of paper you just purchased is totally fine.

At the very least the magazine producer may get angry, and make it hard for you to buy the magazines.
Post reply on HN