Maybe if ads weren't such a malware cesspool people would have less reason to block them.
The people providing ads do a dirt-poor job curating them, so blocking ads isn't about convenience but about security.
The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
51–60 of 249 posts
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#52How is ad blocking an ethical issue? I get to control my computer, at least until some legislation passes that says I don't. Even if I don't control my computer entirely, how about my DNS? I have a lot of the more intrusive domains (tynt, doubleclick, etc) set up as 127.0.0.1 in my dnsmasq config. The "whose computer is it anyway" question seems key here. In order to make advertising possible, we have to take control…
How is downloading cracked software or stolen movies an ethical issue?
Primarily, it's a legal issue.
Although I genuinely wonder what came first - the discussion of ethics of "stealing" books or discussion of ethics of passed copyright laws.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#53I used to use ad-block and later disabled it to support websites that generate good content, but now I'm going back. What's driven me back to ad-blocking software is that ad tracking makes it nearly impossible to buy gifts for a spouse. If I want to buy my wife a pair of sunglasses and google "Ray Ban sunglasses", guess what she starts seeing ads for all over the web. We noticed this a while back and would do gift sh…
Do you have separate (client- and server-side) user accounts or browser profiles?
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is downloading cracked software or stolen movies an ethical issue?
Primarily, it's a legal issue. Although I genuinely wonder what came first - the discussion of ethics of "stealing" books or discussion of ethics of passed copyright laws.
So blocking ads is ethical because it's legal? That doesn't sound right.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#55How is ad blocking an ethical issue? I get to control my computer, at least until some legislation passes that says I don't. Even if I don't control my computer entirely, how about my DNS? I have a lot of the more intrusive domains (tynt, doubleclick, etc) set up as 127.0.0.1 in my dnsmasq config. The "whose computer is it anyway" question seems key here. In order to make advertising possible, we have to take control…
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.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#56Earlier 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?
As someone who uses ad-blockers, I am totally fine with sites blocking me for it. I will disable adblock for that site if I really value the content. Otherwise it makes it really easy for me to decide to never go back to a site again.
When a site asks nicely, I always disable my adblocker and reload. I did that today on a page and was met with a full-page video overlay ad, with a tiny X in the corner that opened a new tab to the target site anyway when I clicked it. After closing the ad and the new tab, I had to scroll down a page more of ads to find the start of the article and after a few seconds reading another overlay popped up, asking me to connect with facebook or at least enter my e-mail address.
It took them all of 10 seconds or so to convince me to turn uBlock back on and refresh again. If you want me to keep it off, you need to at least let me read the article!
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#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 okay because sites can still run if just some people do it" -- cannot be universally applied, contradiction
Kant 2st Imperative -- Violates -- You treat website developers as a means to an end -- to get content, instead of rational human beings who, given a sufficient outcry against their ads, could change their ad service or offer a different model.
Utilitarianism -- Violates -- Ad Revenue - Well being of site owner: -Site Costs / Visitors + Ad Revenue For just you. Well being of you: Site benefit - time wasted * time value. (Blocking "Ad will play for x seconds" in this specific ethical system might not violate)
Rule Utilitarianism -- Violates -- Well being of site owners: Cannot make ad supported sites, current ad supported sites -site cost. Well being of society: Less websites -- more inefficiency and less units of entertainment good.
Social Contract -- Violates -- People accept ads knowing that others will do this as well and this supports the site. Another: Site owners create sites relying on users's ability to see them and thus pay for site creation.
Virtue Ethics -- Violates -- You might feel more shame being in a room with someone who made a site supported by ads and showing them that you use adblock then if you were invisible to the site owner.
The systems above are the ethical systems allowed in the book "Ethics for the Information Age (6th Edition)" by Michael J. Quinn (the list is his, but not the theories themselves, just mentioning my source to show I'm not cherry-picking ethical systems)
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#58I never used an ad blocker until the last month or so. Ive made money with content and ads before and I know it's hard to do. Sadly, things have gotten absurd lately. Chrome basically slowed my computer to a halt on an almost daily basis. The performance improvement from using an ad blocker has been tremendous. So much difference I have a hard time believing it. As a side bonus I also don't have to deal with auto pla…
I just installed windows 10, and obviously had to quickly fire up "Edge" to get chrome/firefox etc.
My mind was blown when I googled a "how to" and went to a PC help page that started auto playing a video in the sidebar completely unrelated to the topic I was interested in - simultaneously kind of clashing with the music I was already listening to.
Seriously? People have been putting up with this? Some 10 minutes later I was all adblock'd/noscript'd and my internet experience had returned to normal. I literally haven't experienced that since the days of sodding myspace.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#59Tangentially related but:
I think the ethical way forward for ad-blocking extentions/software would be for it to self-identify [1].
That way if a website owner wants to block you or be more upfront about asking for donations, they don't have to resort to JS hacks to determine if you are using an adblocker.
If they don't want me to see their site ad-free [2] I can either move on or decide that the content is worth a few ads.
[1] I only know the basics about the http protocol but I'm guessing something in the header could be added. [2] Which is completely within their rights as virtual "land owners".
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#60How is ad blocking an ethical issue? I get to control my computer, at least until some legislation passes that says I don't. Even if I don't control my computer entirely, how about my DNS? I have a lot of the more intrusive domains (tynt, doubleclick, etc) set up as 127.0.0.1 in my dnsmasq config. The "whose computer is it anyway" question seems key here. In order to make advertising possible, we have to take control…
The ethical issue is with regards to people reading all the content supported by advertising, but then blanking out all the ads. Marco's taking the position that, given the risk, and the general intrusiveness and privacy violations associated with advertising, that it's entirely ethical to do so.
Don't you think the bigger ethical issue here is how content providers keep using ad networks that commonly serve as a delivery mechanism for malware?
Reading someone's content without looking at their ads seems like a relatively minor infraction in comparison.