
The Rise of Adblock Shaming - jesperlang
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2018/07/12/the-rise-of-ad-shaming/
======
JohnTHaller
I've found that asking nicely without being intrusive gets better results. At
PortableApps.com, if you block ads, I have it set to show a single unobtrusive
message using the same fonts, colors, and backgrounds as the rest of the site
in the area where the first ad would appear. The message says "Please Help
Support Us: Please consider white-listing us or making a donation so we can
keep bringing you awesome apps. If you recently donated, thank you!" It's
designed so that when it appears after detecting that the ad isn't shown, it
doesn't make the page jump size/layout wise. In the text, 'white-listing us'
links to instructions to whitelist the site and 'making a donation' links to
our donations page. The detection script even cleans up the bits of background
from hiding the other ads so the page still looks clean.

It helps that I have the site setup to only show a single ad above the fold
for the majority of users and don't allow popovers, popunders, overlays,
sound, etc.

Eventually, I'd like to add an option to display a message for donation
accounts or something similar, but recurring payments and Drupal don't really
play well anymore. The only supported add-on in existence is now Recurly.
They're pricing was $1,200 a year but they switched it to "Ask for a Quote"
(aka expensive but we don't want to say), so it's not something we'd be able
to afford for the number of users.

~~~
tlavoie
Hi, and thanks for posting the content provider viewpoint. While you're here,
I have a question. I'd consider white-listing, but am not willing to white-
list ad networks and trackers since they also get misused as a malware vector.

Would you consider hosting your own ads? Is that still a thing? Trust isn't
transitive, so it's still a problem even if we're OK with you in particular.

~~~
stevesearer
At [https://officesnapshots.com](https://officesnapshots.com) we’ve sold and
hosted our own ads for the last 5 years. It seems to work well for all
involved (us, readers, advertisers).

~~~
kgwxd
And I see those ads with uBlock Origin installed, congratulations, you're
doing it right! I've seen this on one other site in probably the past 10
years. I think it was a custom furniture site I couldn't afford anything on
but I was so surprised to see ads and that they weren't tracking me, I emailed
just to cheer them on.

------
alkonaut
I’ll block everything with zero sense of shame until sites realize they have
to switch to non-tracking/invasive ads.

I have zero concern for whether sites think “dumb ads” is a viable business
model or not. Obviously I also don’t mind if a big fraction of sites just go
under because of it. If your day job is to do work for a company that is
funded in any way involving modern “adtech” at any stage, I’m not very sorry
for your job loss.

I don’t mind ads covering 75% of the page, ads bloating downloads etc. I mind
ads that invade my privacy and ads masquerading as non-ads

~~~
listenallyall
> I’ll block everything

Except the content, of course -- that, you expect to consume for free.

This is the digital equivalent of saying to a musician, or film actor: because
of the existence of a technology that allows me to consume your content for
free (Napster / torrents / pirate bay / ad-blockers), I will shed all of my
ethics and freely consume all of your music / movies, while at the same time I
hope you never get paid and further, I hope the record label / movie studio
you work for, goes out of business, all because you dared to show me an ad.

Instead, you're saying it to a reporter, journalist or author. But the message
is the same.

And your final sentence is nonsensical. Generally, ads don't pretend they
aren't ads. It's content that "masquerades" as a non-ad.
[http://brandsandfilms.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/HouseOf...](http://brandsandfilms.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/HouseOfCards3_Apple.jpg) Heck, HN is an ad for
YCombinator masquerading as a news site / discussion forum.

~~~
prepend
There's plenty of content available for "free." There's also plenty of music
available for free by musicians who play or donate. There's an assumption in
your comment that all content requires some sort of compensation and I don't
think that's true, and certainly not necessary for a strong society.

I think this may influence your other assumption that it's unethical to freely
consume content. The article author uses the example of walking through a city
and refusing to look at billboards, but still taking in the view of beautiful
architecture. Do you abandon ethics to view architecture?

Imagine if the business models of all the businesses in those buildings
depended on you looking at the ads. Would you abandon ethics to walk down the
street?

I think there are some people who are ambivalent if every record label and
movie studio shuts down. I don't really care as there is lots of art that is
created by people who like giving it away for free. Ever since the start of
the net, I've structured my livelihood to specifically avoid being in the
business of extracting income from IP. So I think I'm pretty well hedged
against people going against their behavior to pay for my IP.

I think reporters can be compensated in much better ways than ads, and I
actually think that journalism will be better off if not ad supported. Part of
the problem we have now is because ads and truth aren't really aligned with
the same incentives so I see lots of news sites going more toward ads.

~~~
listenallyall
a) Plenty of free content? I assume you won't ever be watching another feature
film or television show. Free concerts do exist, but they are pretty few and
far between (and highly financed via ads and commercial sponsors -- the
stagehands and techs don't work for free).

b) Billboard analogy is invalid because you cannot "not see" a billboard. Of
course you don't have to act upon it, and can try to ignore it, but the
billboard did make an impression in your brain, like it or not. With ad-
blocking, it never has the opportunity to make the impression.

>> lots of art that is created by people who like giving it away for free c)
doubt it, people sometimes HAVE to give their work away for free -- to get
attention, publicity, an audience -- but they would almost always prefer to be
paid.

------
pan69
To content publishers; It's not the ads I have a problem with, it's the spy-
ware tracking behaviour associated with the ads you show is the reason why I'm
using an "ad" blocker.

~~~
flashman
Oh, for me it's totally the ads I have a problem with. They're distracting and
I didn't visit the site to see them. I'm not surprised that publishers have
resorted to moral appeals to support the business model they've chosen, but
I'm not swayed by those appeals either.

------
onyva
What is the value of content offered on a site that would not have existed if
not for AdTech life support?

AdTech made it possible and easy revenu has become the main reason to publish
online. Publish anything and generate revenue through click baiting, content
farms etc.

AFAIC there’s no problem if these types of sites will go under, including
sites I visit regularly like huffpost, thedailybeast and haartez - which mix
some quality content with huge amount of fluff and spam.

This model does not work. I’m not going to buy a subscription in order to have
adfree experience while being served sponsored content and law quality
translations (haaretz has a horrible reputation in that respect) or
intentionally provocative content meant to incite rather that encourage debate
(again, haaretz.co.il is really shameless in that respect).

------
Animats
When a site whines about being adblocked, I just go to a competing site. Few
sites are special snowflakes.

~~~
scarface74
And the site you left has no reason to care. If you're not paying them and
you're not looking at ads, you're not a customer.

~~~
Crosseye_Jack
They may never get a chance to convert the visiter into a customer again.
Personally I’ve noted in my head sites that for example give no option to
disable tracking cookies. So now when I see news articles from such domains I
don’t even bother clicking.

Bit of a silly analogy but think about it like a brick and mortar store
getting pissed off at you for not looking at the display company X are paying
them for.

If they can not prove that enough customers are interacting with the display
though sales or information requests they won’t be able to sell the space for
as much next time. So the B&M has an incentive to get you to engage with the
display and you just walk right on past it... Shame on you...

So you manager of the store says that you can not browse the rest of his store
until you agree to looking at the display.

Dunno about you but I wouldn’t want to visit that store again.

My point is instead of trying to turn them into customers you are turning them
away at the front door without given them a chance to become customers. Sure
some (most) won’t actually buy anything and just browse around but putting up
such a barrier will make sure they won’t become a customer.

~~~
scarface74
_They may never get a chance to convert the visiter into a customer again._

If they don’t turn into a subscription website and remain advertiser based,
how will they ever “convert” you? Would you ever be convinced to whitelist
their site?

~~~
Crosseye_Jack
Sites like Amazon and other webstores run ad's on their sites. Forums and the
like have often had a "turn ads off" payment option without killing access to
adblockers or the free users. Many Content creators also have merch and other
rev income streams other than just ad's.

------
pavel_lishin
> _It’s not that online advertising is inherently good or bad_

That's definitely an opinion one is entitled to.

------
olodus
I see it as consumers telling the companies that they went too far. They let
the ads take over too much of every page, let them be way too much in your
face and let Spyware and other shit in. You simply used up your good-will and
need to build it up again if you want to use this as an business model.

The only place I've ever seen ads actually work and not be too annoying is in
podcasts. They are more personal there and still isn't too much in the way.
I've genuinely followed up on some companies podcasts I trust has had ads for.
I have no idea how to make that work on the internet though.

------
Sir_Substance
There are, in order of importance to me, exactly three reasons why I run an ad
blocker:

1\. Compromised ad networks are one of the most common ways malware is
delivered these days. There's been at least one major ad network compromised a
year every year for the last 5 years. I don't trust ad network providers to
secure their software, which means I cannot trust any website which uses the
ad networks.

2\. Ads are as much about tracking as they are about promoting. A specific
website may get minimal tracking information but the ad networks above the
sites are following me around the internet, and the websites are enabling the
ad networks by buying into a centralized tracking system. This shows a
disdainful and disrespectful attitude towards my privacy. By ignoring this
downside to their revenue model, websites are downstreaming their revenue
problems onto random passers-by.

3\. Most websites really are taking the piss with the amount of ads they show,
and it makes their websites load slowly and look like poop, especially on
phones.

Website owners are starting to focus on #3 and that's nice, but if 2 and 1
aren't dealt with it doesn't matter. Solve the security problem, solve the
panopticon problem and solve the aesthetics problem, and then we can talk.
Until then, I'm blocking all ads and no amount of shaming will make be care
about the problems this causes to people relying on shitty business models.

And by the way, solve it as a group. There are _billions_ of websites out
there, I don't have enough care in me to bother maintaining a list of good-
acting sites and periodically audit them to make sure they haven't relapsed.
Obviously I'm just going to block all ads universally, you're a very entitled
person if you think I should find enough time in the day to do otherwise. If
you're running a site that meets these criteria then great, you're now a
community leader. Go put pressure on your peers until enough of them change
that I can feel comfortable uninstalling my addons globally.

------
alpaca128
What I find just as bad are autoplaying videos popping up somewhere at the
side or sometimes even staying at the edge of the screen when you scroll. They
usually don't get blocked by adblockers and are just as annoying as pop-up ads
with sound.

I installed a domain block addon just for ensuring I never accidentally visit
one of these sites again. There are 1000+ other sites reporting about the same
news, I can live without a couple of them.

~~~
MrMember
This is extra annoying on mobile. Often a quarter of the screen is taken up by
a persistent menu bar that I'll never use, half by an autoplaying video that
I'll never watch, leaving just a quarter of the screen space for the actual
content I was looking for.

------
GW150914
It doesn’t come off as shaming to me, but rather as begging. Like begging, but
without the human element to engender empathy or pity, so you’re just left
with disgust. The internet, from “please give us a buck so we can stay up!” to
endless crowdfunding resembles nothing quite so much as a collection of
beggars rattling their cups and with their stories written on cardboard.

If that’s your “business model” then good luck with that, but I don’t feel
shame or pity. I’d like to unblock sites, but white listing only makes sense
if you can trust whatever they use to serve ads. Unless they’re hostinf their
own ads, I’m disinclined to trust their third party providers and trackers,
even if I like and trust the site.

~~~
egypturnash
I submit that it more resembles a collection of street entertainers. Each
performs their art for anyone who cares to pay attention, and puts out a tip
jar, hoping to make enough money to make it worth continuing to do this
instead of giving up and getting a job denying insurance claims or whatever.

~~~
FussyZeus
With the added element of, if you happen to toss a quarter into said jar, it
might fire it back and break your laptop.

No thanks.

~~~
egypturnash
I turned off ads once Patreon was a thing. Haven’t looked back since.

------
happybuy
Based upon what our users have said from developing our own ad blocking
product; most people actually aren't against ads, what they are against are:

\- Slowness in web page loading, rendering and UI responsiveness due to
excessive ad embeds and excessive usage of Javascript

\- Losing their privacy by being tracked by ad networks and analytics code;
especially across sites and across devices

\- Auto-playing videos and animations which are excessive and distract from
the actual content

It's likely that if the adtech industry had self-regulated earlier and shown
some restraint then adblockers would never have become popular.

For those interested, our adblock product is available for iOS and macOS from
[https://www.magiclasso.co/](https://www.magiclasso.co/)

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
Interesting. Two questions:

Why are iOS adblockers for Safari so rare? The major ones (uBlock and ABP)
don’t support Safari.

Why do I have to enable notifications to use the app? The explanation given by
the welcome screen doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Edit: it looks like ABP does in fact support iOS safari now

~~~
happybuy
Safari/iOS adblockers need to use a specific Safari content blocking format
which is different from the classic ABP format. Presumably the extra work to
support this format (and the content blocking extension API) discourages some
vendors.

Notifications are required as it is the only way to notify the app, and users,
when we release updates to our ad blocking rules. Otherwise we would need to
release an app update every time a blocking rule needs to change. We update
the ad blocking rules generally weekly.

------
drivingmenuts
Well, i got them beat, I’m not ashamed at all.

That said, if I visit a site often, then I’ll consider unblocking. But if it’s
a one-time visit, nope, gonna block.

------
bsg75
If a site takes to something I perceive as "shaming" or pestering, its more of
an incentive to leave the site - not to disable the ad/tracking blocker.

I don't disagree that content providers need ways to monetize, and that
hosting and bandwidth expenses become problematic them costs exceed revenue,
but its interesting that this particular business segment seems to use
techniques that most other online businesses would consider toxic to
_conversions_.

After all, in a time where the end user has some level of control over how
their eyeballs can be monitored (however limited), any shaming of potential
revenue sources seems counterintuitive.

------
8bitsrule
If only some Big Bank would create a secure micropayment experiment, we could
experimentally determine whether that could supplant the tracking&ads regime.
(At least, for those users that despise ads ... targeted or not.)

If the potential rewards for hackers could be kept minimal, it'd not attract
interest.

The NYTimes has kept their site reasonable, but I don't want to subscribe. I
like the idea of paying per-item, not bulk. That lets users encourage the kind
of content (and authors) they want to see more of, while generating revenue
for the content that Big Papers must provide (regardless of popular interest).

WHY this topic is always off-the-radar mystifies me.

~~~
diggernet
I had hopes for Millicent back around the turn of the century (man I sound
old), and my employer at the time had me working on setting it up as a payment
system for mp3 downloads. But it just kind of vanished. It's astonishing that
all these years later there is still no widely used fractional-cent
micropayment system.

------
yuhong
I did mention ad blocking in the essay. In general, the current economy is
fundamentally based on extracting more dollars from "consumers".

------
JeanMarcS
One of the french IT news website I read detects adblockers and replace the
space of the ad with a message saying, basically, « This space was supposed to
be an ad. We respect the fact you block it, consider making a donation » (or
something like that, it’s not showing on my phone right now so I guess it’s
for the desktop version)

I find this very smart. Not intrusive and a bit incentive.

~~~
sleavey
I don't think they detect the ad blocker here - they just put that image
underneath the image/iframe of the ad, so that if the top image is blocked,
the bottom image is visible.

------
kup0
One of many of the comments on the article itself absolutely nails it:

"The real failure of adblock shaming is that, on the occasions where I've
complied, I then rediscover why I use adblock -- and turn it back on
immediately."

------
Vaslo
Is there a way to hide adblocking from the site so they don’t even know you’re
using it?

~~~
elorant
Not with current technology because all ad blocking does is blocking hosts. So
a site can tell if parts of the code have loaded/executed or not. In order to
go completely stealth you'd have to let the page load everything and then just
don't show it. But that's way more complicated and besides a bit pointless
because part of the reason for ad blocking is to make sites load faster by
removing all that bloatware. That, or we move ad blocking out of the browser
and into the OS where sites have absolutely no access whatsoever.

~~~
navbaker
>That, or we move ad blocking out of the browser and into the OS where sites
have absolutely no access whatsoever.

Interesting concept. Asking as a layman: is this possible? Is the browser
sandboxed enough away from the OS that this is a difficult problem? Is that
why we haven’t seen solutions that implement this approach?

~~~
elorant
Possible yes, probable not so much. Building extensions is simpler than
building desktop apps. For one you need only JavaScript. While if you move in
the OS you'd have to support different versions of systems (you have Windows,
OSX, Android, IOS, Linux) and it is much more cumbersome than in the browser.

------
User23
I don’t mind sites that detect my adblocker and refuse to load. It’s their
right to control access to their system based on user behavior. I also don’t
mind not accessing their content. There are plenty of alternatives.

------
anotherevan
They are not ad blockers, they are HTML firewalls.

------
your_solution
Recently, I encountered arguments to let websites access around one percent of
your CPU resources to mine a cryptocurrency, obviously in the users consent. I
think this might be a reasonable solution to the "uncreative capitalist". In
my situation, I know I could easily spare one percent in exchange for no ads,
but I'm sure not everyone would be in that situation.

~~~
sleavey
Diminished mobile phone battery life and environmental concerns are the
standard counter-arguments to this approach.

~~~
thinkingemote
It's also applicable for blocking ads on mobile phones too. They use too much
bandwith and CPU, collectively.

------
UncleEntity
> It is a socialist cudgel—something that forces otherwise lazy capitalists to
> find new and inventive ways to make their creations sustainable.

Umm, yeah...

Other than pure rent-seeking every single thing under the sun could be
considered a "socialist cudgel" by this logic.

I honestly don't understand how they are trying to further their argument by
using this quote in the article.

~~~
wild_preference
I don’t even get it.

HNers complain about having to subscribe to both Netflix and Hulu. What
options does my 10 year old collaborative writing forum for mostly teens have?

Now that my ad revenue has died over the years, all that’s left is the charity
of me paying out of my pocket. Then we’ll be left with centralized sites like
Reddit.

I guess is the utopia that HNers envision.

