The ethics of modern web ad-blocking • Hacker News Board

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#241

Post by fwn » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 12:34 PM UTC

qopp wrote: post #209

fwn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't get this "fair and structured approach" in those models. You'd normally start off with a normative claim and then provide a justification in every sheme available.

The normative claim is the core hypothesis and your protective belt are all assumptions needed to make it indisprovable.

The value of those concepts seems purely rhetoric to me.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#242

Post by gambiter » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

I really truly don't understand why people this this is an ethical issue at all.

I personally own 12 personal domains, all for various content that I personally put up. Some blogs, some game servers, etc, etc. I don't charge for my content, and I don't advertise. I'm not in it to make money, I'm in it to share things with people, and I do it all out of my own wallet.

Why is there this assumption that all content needs to be subsidized by the readers? I mean, I get it... there's certainly value in compensating content producers for their time, and even allowing them to do it full time... but there is SO much content out there that is basically put up out of the goodness of the creators' hearts. Why can't we keep it that way?

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#243

Post by abustamam » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 4:47 PM UTC

I think one of the big problems is that most end-users don't know everything that goes into displaying an ad (myself included).

Yes, we can say, "I consent to viewing an ad in order to receive X free service" in the same way that we consent to viewing a commercial when we watch TV or listening to an ad on the radio.

However, in those latter two examples, the information is one-way. Those advertisers don't collect any personal information (outside of perhaps our viewing/listening location).

When it comes to website ads, most consumers do not know/realize that a) the advertisers are collecting a WEALTH of your personal information and b) that information comes at a cost of your bandwidth (which, for many mobile users, is limited). There are probably many other things that happen between the end-user and the third-party that I am not aware of.

Sure, they may consent to viewing a free ad, but most of them do NOT consent to collection of information nor increased usage of bandwidth.

I am happy that many websites are now (at least trying to) put a visible cookie privacy policy, but I think even those little policies are getting banner blindness.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#244

Post by DavidNielsen » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 7:43 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #230

eevilspock wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well yes he does make most of his current income from ads - mostly from his podcast. But he made most of his wealth from his equity in Tumblr as the first developer. He also sold Instsgram to another company and makes money from the OverCast app.

He created Instapaper, not Instagram. He sold it to Betaworks.

They've been doing great work with it lately and have a solid subscription business model now.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#245

Post by nightmiles » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 8:02 PM UTC

reasonishy wrote: post #240

nightmiles wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And there's nothing wrong with either of those things happening, either.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#246

Post by touristtam » Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 3:03 AM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #175

The bigger issue, IMHO, is quality of advertising rather than its presence. People pay $15 for a theater ticket and sit through 10 minutes of ads, buy Vogue magazine and have 30%+ of pages be ads, buy The New York Times and be hit with ads all over the place, watch the Superbowl specifically to see the ads, and more. What people seem to really want are better ads or even ads that are entertainment or content in their…

Or a revamped pricing scheme for the website they might favor for their content. Seeing how the internet and computers allows for many more content to be published at a fraction of the cost of yesterday's system, there is a gap to be filled between the old pricing scheme of hard copies newspaper and all "free" content of the web.

$15 per month per website (like the NYT) seems a bit excessive when 10 or 20 other websites might offer the same news and at least a dozen direct competitors have similar offers. My father and his father might have had a subscription to a couple of newspaper/magazine, but I have the news at my finger tips.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#247

Post by aylons » Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 10:01 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #172

aylons wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your example, there are two possibilities: either you did want and need to buy the product before the advertisement or you didn't. In the first case, the advertisement was wasteful: the company that sold you the product has unnecessarily spent money, which goes to the product price. And this is not a small amount: big consumer companies spend billions on advertisement space/time alone, an amount comparable to thei…

For crying out loud. There's also a third option: you're researching similar products because of an existing need, and you haven't heard of $ADVERTISING_COMPANY before you saw the ad, and they turn out to have a better product than competitors. > You were hacked and exploited Yeah, that's not what either of those words mean.

> For crying out loud. There's also a third option: you're researching similar products because of an existing need, and you haven't heard of $ADVERTISING_COMPANY before you saw the ad, and they turn out to have a better product than competitors.

Actually, I did address that, as part of the second case:

"That may mean that you simply didn't know the product before and finding it was good for you"

>> You were hacked and exploited

>Yeah, that's not what either of those words mean.

Late response for the record: you think you're in control of your mind and how it works. But advertisers are very ingenious in developing ways to make your mind behave in a manner you (the admin) does not want it to, in a sneaky way. A very good metaphor for it is hacking.

Unfortunately, this is neither DefCon or a James Randi show, so they do not do it for fun. They explore this hack to take advantage from you (your system, if you will) for their profit and your damage. An exploit.

I did not use "literally", but I refrained from using a more strong indicator of a figure of speech (eg, using "virtually") because I though I could engage in a better debate here then this. I still think I was right, but there are always exceptions.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#248

Post by charles2013 » Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 11:07 PM UTC

charles2013 wrote: post #174

like OP, online ads (partially) put food on my table. but that's where the similarities stop: whereas OP mentions he's "never been tempted to run ad-blocking software before," i've blocked ads for years. and i don't just block ads myself, i advise my friends and family to block them, too. what most of my friends and family don't know is web ads represent, arguably, one of the most dangerous aspects of modern web UX.…

if i've written something that's factually wrong or misleading, offensive, or otherwise violates the comment guidelines, i would appreciate the opportunity to update my comment or delete it. and for that to happen i would need some feedback.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#249

Post by qu4z-2 » Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 9:22 PM UTC

savanaly wrote: post #168

eevilspock wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which do you think wins, low budget factually honest advertising or high budget advertising that builds consumer loyalty or craving using whatever psychological means necessary? I'm pretty certain the latter wins far more often than the former, in which case advertising hurts healthy competition. You may in fact have the better or cheaper product, but the establish company has the huge advertising budget by virtue of…

>and raise insurmountable barriers to new competition. Why do we assume that the dishonest and manipulative nature of advertising would be more effectively wielded by the companies already in the market than by new ones trying to break in to the market?

Primarily 'cause they have larger budgets. And sure, a new entry into the market might innovate on advertisement instead of product, but is that what we want?