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

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#81

Post by ghshephard » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #60

ghshephard wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with Marco - I think the pendulum regarding security and privacy has swung too far, and it's entirely ethical to block such code from running on your system.

I think a form of ads that are entirely reasonable (though hard to scale), are the ones that Gruber sticks himself into his DF feed. and, ironically, they are extraordinarily effective - I can probably name, by heart, about 20 of his sponsors. And I've visited, and purchased products from many of them.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#82

Post by mikestew » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

LukeB_UK wrote: post #68

I have a question for everyone advocating the use of ad blockers: Do you just do a blanket block for all ads, ban the big networks with the trackers along with the malware serving ones or something else? I understand wanting to block the ones with the trackers for privacy reasons and the malware ones because nobody wants malware, but blanket blocking all ads tars everyone with the same brush. Edit: Personally, I used…

> Do you just do a blanket block for all ads, ban the big networks with the trackers along with the malware serving ones or something else?

Just because there might be a little fresh water in the cesspool doesn't mean I'm drinking from that tap. I block all of them. I'm not the one that pooped in the drinking water, so I'm not going to spend time sorting out the good from the bad.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#83

Post by andygates » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:11 PM UTC

aylons wrote: post #69

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…

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…

There's an amusing and relatively new third case where you already have bought the product, but ad servers are dumb and will spam you with ads for that product for months, because your trackers said you searched for that product once.

It's wasteful, but in an almost ironic novel way.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#84

Post by netrus » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:11 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #35

stdbrouw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe that the only reason "it's my car and I can run over whoever I like" is ethically wrong is because there's a law that says you can't run over people?

No, but it's my car so I can take off all the manufacturer and dealer badges.

Even if you got the car for free, because the manufacturer wants people to see you driving it? Sounds unethical to me.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#85

Post by RodericDay » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:12 PM UTC

aembleton wrote: post #79

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…

He might have had the need before seeing the ad but hadn't seen a solution. Adverts are at their basic level a way of informing end users about what they can purchase. They are also there to try and raise brand awareness. People are more likely to trust a brand that they have heard of rather than some unknown.

> People are more likely to trust a brand that they have heard of rather than some unknown.

Is this a good thing?

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#86

Post by arenaninja » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:12 PM UTC

I whitelist ads on websites now, and I wish I could do the same on my phone. I think someone here or on reddit mentioned, and I had the same experience, trying out IE Edge and it being a decent browser, but as soon as the autoplaying video ads start, I downloaded FF, added uBlock and didn't look back. I use the same browser setup on my phone, and now and then I use some apps that emulate a browser (like Reddit is Fun or HN app), and the experience is wholly broken. I was reading an article and it was miserable - the fixed header for the site plus fixed footer for the ads took up about 1/3rd of the real estate, not to mention they were jittery and I couldn't focus because I'd scroll too far, then the ads would load where I was reading.

There's no ethics involved with me. Poor experience? Get blocked. Decent experience? Welcome to the whitelist

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#87

Post by andygates » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

codezero wrote: post #64

SilasX wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, I've wondered why advertisers don't just change how they do the ads: if the ads are non-standard size, are non animated, and link back to a legit landing page from non/shady domain, what adblocker covers that? Wouldn't that just look like ordinary site content? Or do they really update them that quickly and narrowly?

Most ads are served by an ad network which requires third party involvement. Adblockers block those. It's not manageable to post individual ads.

I would expect to see a code snippet on host sites which does a bit of pass-through disguising, so that what used to be "iframe src=skeezy_virus_mill.ru" looks local. That seems consistent with the arms race in progress...

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#88

Post by tremon » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

eddd wrote: post #71

The average cost for displaying and ad is 0.005$. I am assuming that 30% of that goes to publisher. Would you pay 0.005*0.3 = 0.0015$ per page view? I would.

Not without a restitution possibility. I will not pay anything for domain parking or site rehashing (sedo, quorra, expertsexchange), but I would pay for e.g. stackexchange or eurekalert.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#89

Post by bachmeier » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

The current model can't work. The internet is becoming unusable due to ads. I am not sure how it will evolve, in terms of paying for content, but this is surely not the answer. I expect that we will be paying for content in some form. Perhaps a Spotify-type model where you pay a monthly fee and the fee is distributed to content providers.

On the issue of ethics, I'd say it's not ethical to spread out a small amount of content across six pages just to get more page views. It's bad for advertisers and for consumers.

Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking

#90

Post by netrus » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

edent wrote: post #19

Why is this becoming an issue now? I've been blocking adverts on-and-off for 10 years or so. Back then it was manually editing a HOSTS file - is it just in the news now because it's becoming slightly easier on iPhone?

It becomes mainstream. We are at a point where we get less content, because revenue for content-creators is impacted by blocking.