Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#61

Post by concinds » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:43 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #29

concinds wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if she lied about her age when signing up to FB. I know I did, and most people I know did too (back when we actually used FB). I don't believe FB ever allowed users younger than 13 due to COPPA (passed in 2000) and she clearly used it before turning 13. For context FB always asked for users' birthday during signup.

FB can determining the approximate age of the user by the content they posted They give users tags like "rich, dumb, racist, likes watches, likes big cars". The reason they might not tag you "possible minor" is to deny they knew in case of something bad happening. Even if you lied that you are older then 13 years , did the Cam girls company paid FB to show that ad for ages between 13-18? Why? To prepare their minds f…

> Even if you lied that you are older then 13 years , did the Cam girls company paid FB to show that ad for ages between 13-18? Why? To prepare their minds for the future ?

From the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/26/children-lie-a...):

> The survey found that 83% of the 11 to 15 year olds whose internet usage was monitored registered on a social media site with a false age.

> Just over 40% of the children signed in stating they were over 18 years of age, with one even claiming to be 88.

--

> company that buys ads on FB you should know that FB will probably show ads to those children and you will pay for it because those super genius developers are too busy with more important projects like some new framework

That seems like a pretty cartoonish view of FB employees. They are trying to solve the problem. People who argue like you have rarely ever actually had experience running FB ads (more cutthroat than you'd think; FB isn't omniscient despite media reporting). The #1 priority at every large company is protecting their brand (see ex App Store review chief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJeEuxn9mug). Many people (like you) constantly condemn large corporations ("why don't they just...") due to a lack of empathy and inability to put yourself in these people's shoes. If all the people saying "why doesn't Apple put a headphone jack back in, it doesn't take that much space!" actually had to undergo the pressure of working for Apple's hardware design team, they'd understand the tradeoffs far better and spread less uninformed criticism.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/facebook-developing-...

> “We look at things like people wishing you a happy birthday and the age written in those messages. We also look at the age you shared with us on Facebook and apply it to our other apps where you have linked your accounts and vice versa. So if you share your birthday with us on Facebook, we’ll use the same for your linked account on Instagram,” Diwanji explained.

> The social network said that it is focused on using existing data to inform its artificial intelligence technology.

> “Where we do feel we need more information, we’re developing a menu of options for someone to prove their age. This is a work in progress and we’ll have more to share in time,” said Facebook. — IANS

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#62

Post by mcv » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:43 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #44

horsawlarway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site. But this isn't the fucking model. The model is: We created compelling content that draws lots of views, and companies will pay us to plaster their name/products on it. There is literally zero contract with the person being shown the ads at all. They can do as they please. If companies don't like that... move…

> move to a different model - stop showing your stuff for free. what if that model was a contract to the viewer, wherein the viewer agrees to see all adverts? Currently this contract is assumed, or implied, but not enforced. What if it changes in the future? For example, youtube could require that you have a webcam, and run a trusted-computing-module DRM code which forces your webcam to be on and recording your face…

It's not assumed or implied at all. Nobody has any inherent right to my attention. If a content producer gets advertisers to pay them, good for them, but that doesn't mean I have to look at those ads.

> youtube could require that you have a webcam

That would be the end of Youtube. But I'm pretty sure someone will write a plugin to work around that piece of dystopian hell.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#63

Post by robertlagrant » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #26

robertlagrant wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as blocking them as an ethical issue fundamentally commercial: you're accessing content paid for by adverts, but you aren't contributing to that payment. The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site.

Oh to HELL with that garbage. I don't get paid for 99.9% of the ads that infest my daily life. I get no say in it at all. There is no off switch. There is no block. There is no avoiding it. The logos are everywhere. The posters. The visual and audible noise. Advertising has infested my childhood memories FFS. I can recite more goddamn jingles from when I was under 10 than I can remember my friends and classmates name…

> The idea that it is unethical to block when having punches thrown at you as we are is just so incredibly ridiculous it's hard to see it other than facebrick google paid propaganda that you've taken to heart somehow.

As I say, it doesn't need to be ethical.

On your comment: of course, no one is throwing punches at you. It's just advertising. You don't have to go to the website that has it on.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#64

Post by mormegil » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #32

sushibowl wrote: post #7

I feel like any argument that starts with the idea that blocking ads is unethical would inevitably lead to that black mirror episode where the ad pauses if you close your eyes or look away, and you must pay to skip it. Closing your eyes is just another ad blocking measure, and the idea that that would be unethical ought to be utterly preposterous.

> that black mirror episode where the ad pauses if you close your eyes or look away, and you must pay to skip it. if you have sky TV it has a DVR that lets you record programmes but if you want to fast forward through the ads in programmes you have recorded you have to pay a monthly fee https://www.sky.com/help/articles/ad-skipping I expect the camera that tracks you leaving the room will be in the next generation

Watch out for patented technology! https://gizmodo.com/sony-wants-to-let-you-skip-commercials-b...

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#65

Post by colejohnson66 » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

throwaway22032 wrote: post #42

I find the idea that anyone, a single person, could consider blocking ads to be wrong to be hilarious. I've never met such a person. I can only imagine them to be barely human. What other bizarre opinions, internal or external, would they have? I don't think that I could trust them with literally anything.

> I've never met such a person. I can only imagine them to be barely human.

Well that’s why. When you refuse to even listen/consider their argument, no one is going to argue with you. In addition, saying such a thing here gets you downvoted to oblivion. Doesn’t stop people from doing it; Just look at some of the other comments here.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#66

Post by IvanK_net » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

RajT88 wrote: post #34

As long as malvertising campaigns are a thing, you should block ads. The online ad industry AFAIK still has not got their shit together.

I guess you always pay in cash. The amount of information which banks and card issuers collect about you is just tremendous. And unlike web ads, they know your real name, your address, your age ...

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#67

Post by jefftk » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:47 PM UTC

krageon wrote: post #57

jefftk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think running an ad blocker is freeloading, the same as using paywall-bypassing software. There are worse things people regularly do, but I do think it's minorly wrong and I don't run an ad blocker. I would be fine with ad blockers that only blocked ads, as long as publishers could chose to refuse service to users running ad blockers or ask them to turn their ad blocker off. But uBlock Origin etc don't just block a…

> I used to work in ads The fact that you admit to working in an industry that actively tries to take as much agency away from others as it can without (apparently) feeling bad about it is really terrible.

I don't think advertising is harmful in general, and I think an ad-funded web is likely much better than a paywall-funded web. More: https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#68

Post by timokoesters » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:47 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #45

If enough of us used ad blockers, it could help force a systemic shift away from the attention economy altogether It's worth putting serious thought into whether this would actually be a better web; I think it would likely be worse. Most sites today are supported by ads, and if that weren't an option we'd see some combination of paywalls, sponsored content, and sites shutting down. (I used to work on ads)

Paywalls are annoying because it forces you onto the few websites you pay for.

Maybe we need a platform where you pay some fixed amount of money per month and get access to many websites. At the end of the month you can decide how to split your money among the websites you used, defaulting to proportional to the amount of time you spent on the site.

The platform should be open so that anyone can add their website.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#69

Post by colejohnson66 » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:47 PM UTC

commmentator wrote: post #46

robertlagrant wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as blocking them as an ethical issue fundamentally commercial: you're accessing content paid for by adverts, but you aren't contributing to that payment. The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site.

> you're accessing content paid for by adverts, but you aren't contributing to that payment. If the content is paid for by adverts, then of course I am not contributing to that payment. Because I am not an advertising company, so by your own logic I didn't pay for the content. What's the problem?

You are paying for it. Just not directly. You’re paying the advertiser with your attention, who then pays the website for the privilege to do so. Whether you think that’s OK or not is a different issue, but you are paying, even if you’re not the customer.

Just because you don’t directly pay for something doesn’t mean you don’t do so indirectly. For example, Facebook makes almost all their revenue from ads, but advertisers won’t pay them if users don’t visit. So by visiting Facebook (if you do), you’re keeping them afloat.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#70

Post by BwackNinja » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 1:48 PM UTC

On an ad-supported site, you're not the customer. The advertiser is the customer, you're the product. Making that even worse is social media, where being good on a technical level is only meaningful when we're talking about handling scale -- the rest is if people you care about are using the platform.

If you want to see how bad it gets, look at how Facebook abuses CSS in order to have sponsored posts say "Sponsored" at the top while avoiding a straightforward place in the generated html that says "Sponsored" and could be matched by adblockers. It's nightmarish.