
Ask HN: How do you feel about ad blockers? - slsii
Are they an valid form of consumer protectionism? Or are we experiencing a textbook example of the tragedy of the commons? Something in between?
======
seren
I only realized very recently what makes me uneasy with web advertising. (This
week from a HN comment)

If you see a billboard in the street or an ad in paper journal, you are
exposed to the brand name for a few seconds and that's it.

If you are exposed to a web ad, you are exposed to the brand name for a few
seconds AND your actions, the fact you have visited the page, from which IP at
which time of the day, with which browser is recorded in a database for later
use (and is certainly going to be sold or replicated by multiple entities).

So it is not so much the advertising part that his annoying but rather the
"tracking". The fact that advertising network (or social buttons) are
pervasive through many sites makes the matter worse.

The biggest lie is to still call that "advertising", this has nothing to do
with old school advertising.

~~~
duiker101
I have a different view, I might be a very special case but that type of
tracking doesn't bother me much, actually if it helps me suggest better ads
that suit me, I almost welcome it.

What bothers me, borrowing from your example of the billboard, is that they
don't block your content and make you wait in line. Ads on a video, popups,
interstitial, they all slow me down and annoy me.

~~~
halviti
What about when it was revealed that facebook was using their like buttons as
a way to build dossiers on people?

You could have never have even visited facebook.com and have never had a
profile, but still this company was using its cookies to build a profile of
you on the internet. All of the articles you read on the internet, the sites
you visit, all being collected and tallied by some faceless internet behemoth.

That sort of thing doesn't bother you?

~~~
mackwic
> That sort of thing doesn't bother you? He just said that this doesn't bother
> _him_. The key element here is _the choice_. The choice to be tracked, or
> not to.

The systematic tacking and profiling of all users of the web is disturbing and
I am against it, but honestly, I still prefer Google at the commands rather
that any government I can think of. Not that it justify in any way the
tracking. It's a dangerous weapon.

~~~
rnovak
With every Snowden leak that has come out, you don't think the Government has
access to ALL of google's tracking data? Even if they didn't, all it would
take is the mere _thought_ that you might doing something wrong, and they'll
subpoena it/get a warrant.

------
MichaelGG
My device, my rendering rules. Without adblock things are hard to read and
sites load even more slowly. Plus I despise the constant attention grabs and
view that as bad for my health. (Same reason I won't sit in a restaurant with
a TV visible.)

Even Google is out there making it worse. On mobile I get flashing yellow ads
telling me I have a virus or need to clean or speed my phone.

------
jordanpg
A future web with unavoidable, ubiquitous advertising is a grotesque thing
that I want no part of. Advertising and marketing represents the _worst_ of
what capitalism has to offer.

The point is that we must stop the momentum associated with the advertising-
fueled web _now_ , because it's too late.

We -- the technologists behind it -- need to stop taking it for granted what
the future of the web is going to look like, and to think of other ways to
obtain that revenue.

I do and will forever use adblockers (until they are circumvented) for these
reasons.

------
mindslight
We're definitely experiencing a textbook tragedy of the commons - parasitic
advertisers make pennies by causing significant damage to everybody's
reasoning and psyche.

Installing an ad blocker is similar to any other vaccination - reduce the
spread of intellectual disease and hopefully create a herd immunity.

------
mc32
I think they symptomatic of an immature system. That's to say one which isn't
well regulated.

They are the result of site owners trying to make their sites sustaining or
profitable and we have some trying very annoying ways of monetizing, and on
the other hand we have users wanting free access to everything.

The result is site operators getting more desperate using more invasive
techniques driving more users to use ad blockers and siding by default with
people who want everything free.

In the end, the piper needs to get paid. Will micropayments be the answer or
will only businesses for whom the www is essentially branding and marketing
survive? I don't know. Certainly hope it's not public radio donation style
funding.

That said, paid content masquerading as journalism is the worst.

~~~
jeffmould
I couldn't agree more. Major media outlets are more and more using invasive
ads that completely detract from the user experience in general. I can't count
the number of times I have quickly closed a tab because a video ad started
autoplaying, or the times when I am a 1/3 of the way into an article and
suddenly the javascript loads and the page drops down or an interstatial
popups up.

It's a catch-22. Media outlets see they can make money off ads so they use
more invasive techniques, viewers leave the site because of these techniques
causing a drop in revenue, the media outlet steps it up a notch to more
profitable, more invasive ads because of lost viewers from the first round of
ads.

------
runjake
I love ad blockers. In the rare cases where the site is useful _AND_ the ads
aren't distraction or evil, I exempt them (duckduckgo.com being one example).

------
Mz
I recently moved most of my sites to a tip jar only and removed the ads. I
have always done better via tips or donations than via ad money.

This is only a tragedy of the commons if we find no other means to fund things
we value and expect to have access to online. The Internet is here to stay.
You are only an asshole if you hate ads, use adblocker and are _also_
unwilling to fund the sites you use via some other means. There is nothing
inherently evil about hating ads and choosing to block them. But if you expect
to get all online content and services for free, then you de facto desire to
treat someone, somewhere as your slave in some sense.

So if you use ad blockers and want services you value to stick around, please,
out of enlightened self interest, support and promote alternate funding models
that you find more palatable. And if your answer really boils down to "I
expect everything for free!" then, yeah, go die in a fire.

------
Someone1234
I don't run one because I choose to support the free content I receive (be it
articles, videos, or similar). Without ads either they would have to charge,
the quality would go down, or the content simply would stop existing.

That being said, I understand why others do. Adverts remain a source of
privacy violations, legitimate security issues, and slow down a lot of
websites.

I do run Flash click-to-play, and have EFF's HTTPS Everywhere installed. Those
both negatively impact ads, but it is inadvertent and unavoidable. Both are
set to improve security, if ads require an insecure connection or flash then
more fool them.

------
underscoremark
I wish I could ad-block YouTube ads that don't let me "skip" in 5 seconds
(that seems to be a good measure of my tolerance). The ads I do remember, and
maybe the most effective, are the ones that only run for 5 seconds.
"Tropicana" ran a 5 seconds ad for it's juice: very effective; I still
remember it, I like their juice. There is a lot of content I'll not even
bother to watch because I can't stand the pre-advertisement.

I love YouTube for catching up on the late night talk shows, checking out the
latest Cyanide and Happiness shorts, or watching cool documentary; I used to
spend hours watching content. Lately, however, I can't stand to stay for one
or two videos, because the ads are so offensive. I'll close the app/website
and find something else to do.

A few years ago I cut my satellite service, and now I refuse to subscribe to
cable/satellite again. I have local, over-the-air channels, but I don't watch
them anymore either. After being a few years without that kind of TV
advertising, I realise how obnoxious advertising really is. It's a total
assault on the senses! Advertising on the Internet is heading this way, and
I'm equally disgusted.

Anyway... You asked how I feel. Yay ad-blockers!

------
gravypod
In reality it does not matter if it is right or wrong; people will do it
anyway.

In my opinion, a billboard does not make my car move slower, and I don't have
to pay to pay to see it.

------
draw_down
Once, years ago, I did not see a bug on the site of the company I worked for,
because the ad blocker I was using with my browser masked the bug. Further, I
reasoned that since we made part of our money from ads, I should not use an ad
blocker and I stopped. Plus I thought I should see the web "as it really is".

Now I think those are really dumb ideas, plus I don't work for a company that
makes money from ads. It's basically an arms race now, websites do insane
things because their stupid fucking A/B tests ticked up .001 percent. Then the
rest of them throw up modals (and whatever other garbage) because everyone
else is doing it.

The real, actual web, as it really is, it's a disaster now. Sometimes I open a
web page and forget about it, then minutes later it just begins blaring audio
for some video ad that I can't even see because it's been scrolled offscreen.
Toilet world.

------
Zelmor
I have not seen web advertisement in years, and I am happy to have it that
way. Why? Because I don't want any of your flashing javascript animations in
my face, neither your code running on my computer.

If I would run for a mayor's position, I would do similar as they did in Sao
Paulo and clean up the city.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa)

I find it troubling that companies get to tell me how incomplete I am on the
streets every day and try to sell me workout pants and whatnot. It is utterly
unethical, and we should rally to remove demeaning advertisement such as half-
naked women on trucks selling refrigerators.

Have forums for these kind of things, much alike porn magazines and porn
sites.

------
rhino369
I am upset my free riding will come to an end. I hate ads on the internet and
run an ad blocker, but I also really want free content.

It'll be interesting to see how the internet evolves. If ad blockers are used
by a lot of people, but not all, I expect to see the quality of content
continue to fall lower and lower. The Buzzfeed crowd will be the last to adopt
ad blockers.

I think it would be better if browsers just turned on ad blocking as a
default. Force the web to find a new model sooner rather than later.

I wonder if Google and facebook have contingency plans for such an event.

If Microsoft wasn't so afraid of antitrust laws, I'd suggest they just
introduce an adblocker built into windows and turned on as default. They could
KO google in a quarter or two.

------
egypturnash
I've been using ad blockers for years.

I currently do webcomics, an area whose most effective business model has
historically been founded on ads.

I don't run ads on my comic. I used to but I decided to make 'no ads' as a
goal on Patreon; I reached it and now my stuff is ad-free. A prominent
cartoonist offered to sponsor my entry into a profitable collective and its ad
network, and I'm not entirely sure I want to take this offer. Because then I'd
be going back to ads.

On the other hand, part of how I grew the audience that lets me make enough
money off of my comic to turn off ads is by running ads elsewhere. Not having
them on my comic feels kind of hypocritical. I dunno.

------
eevilspock
_> Or are we experiencing a textbook example of the tragedy of the commons?_

We sure are. But advertising, not ad-blocking, is precipitating this tragedy:

1\. The commons in this case is a healthy marketplace where the users are the
customers and thus vote with their dollars. _The invisible hand_ depends on
this.

2\. But then a competitor comes in and offers something for "free". This is a
trick, a lie. The other important principle of the free market is that _there
is no free lunch._ [1] The advertisers pay the website with money that is
added to the cost of the products they are selling. Guess who buys those?

3\. Here's where the tragedy comes in: Consumers are fooled by this. You've
undercut the straight up competitors that charge for their product by fooling
consumers into thinking you're offering what the other guy is offering, but
for free. Come on, who could turn down that? The straight-up businesses that
want to compete the honest way can't. They either have to cave and switch to
ads, or die.

4\. The tragedy continues: Since we are now the products not the customers,
businesses don't compete for a dollars by producing a product we are willing
to pay for. Instead, they compete for our clicks (what they're selling to the
advertisers). Competing for clicks, as most of us see every day, yields
horrible products for us.[2] But of course, we are not the customer.

5\. And like every tragedy of the commons, what we are left with is a misused
and polluted[3] precious resource, the web.

I haven't even got into the harm advertising itself cause to society, nor how
it distorts the free market, suppressing innovation and true competition.

-

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10049494](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10049494)

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10047706](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10047706)

~~~
punee
Let me get this straight.

Your contention is that if companies did not have to buy advertising to sell
their products, they would subtract the advertising cost from their sales
price?

You have a very unusual definition of being "fooled". Paying for something you
can get for free is what most people would recognize as being a fool.

That companies decide to choose a different business model to offer for free
what their competitors make you pay for is just innovation. It has zilch to do
with being "honest" or "straight up".

Here's an interesting question: how come people buy bottled water when they
could just drink tap water? I mean, shouldn't people be "fooled" by all the
"free" water? How come the "straight up", "honest" water bottle company that
sells its product at a price manages not to die? (Hint: it's not because
they're not advertising).

------
detaro
Necessity for users because of over-reaching sites and security issues,
reasonable site owners get punished as a bad side-effect. Difficult to predict
what the way out is going to be.

~~~
autotune
Security issues is the number one reason to have adblocker installed. You
shouldn't have to worry about a malicious site inserting some cryptolocker
variant into a malicious ad.

------
shockzzz
Ditto with not wanting to be tracked by "targeted advertising." It's like, the
one thing the Snapchat CEO believes that I agree with - it's just plain
creepy.

------
VT_Drew
Depends on what context. ISPs should not block ads, unless they are offering
it as an extra service (i.e. optional that a customer must opt into). ISPs
need to treat any and all traffic exactly the same by default. Home users and
business have the right to block any content they don't want to receive(either
by plugin or proxy server).

------
Nadya
Advertisers are assholes [0] and by extension anyone willing to do business
with assholes is, themselves, an asshole. Find a better business model -
because I don't do business with assholes.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re5DgTJE0S4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re5DgTJE0S4)

------
yellowapple
I feel that they're useful. Neither modern advertising methods nor the
circumvention thereof fall cleanly into "moral" v. "immoral", so I prefer to
judge such things based on their utility and effectiveness - things which
adblockers achieve better than modern advertisements, at least in the web
space.

------
throwaway1967
I use adblockers. The next annoying thing to tackle is doing away with the
emotional manipulations: "We detected that you're using an ad blocker; we
understand that, we don't like ads either! but we need money etc etc".

We now need a guilt-trip blocker. If you need money from your visitors, charge
them.

------
wingerlang
Only time I get frustrated enough to care is the youtube advertisements that
keep playing no matter how often I press skip. If I have pressed skip on this
ad the last 10 videos, show me something else for gods sake.

Other than that, I've turned my ad blockers off since quite a while.

------
tmaly
I like ad blockers simply because the format of most ads are horrible. Popups
and modals make the site horrible for the mobile platform.

I would prefer some inline ad served by the site that is part of the page and
has some sponsored by type feel to it.

------
loumf
I think blocking JavaScript trackers is pretty uncontroversial (almost
necessary).

------
bpicolo
Even when I'm not using ad block, I pay attention to pretty much no
advertisement. They probably need a better way to appeal to this sort of crowd
regardless.

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

------
J_Darnley
A god send. A glorious boon to privacy and a security necessity.

------
enkiv2
The deluge of invasive advertising in web content (along with tracking and
various shades of borderline-malware) is symptomatic of late capitalism
optimizing for profit: the web is almost unusable without ad-blockers, and yet
alternative monetization models are not being seriously persued, because
Google has no reason to optimize for anything other than ads even though they
are never being seen. People pay for advertising despite it being almost
completely ineffective (advertising, as far as we can tell, is slightly more
effective than priming -- in other words, it is effective only in the highly
suggestible, and then only slightly and only when it's well-targeted), and
middle-men build infrastructure for distributing advertising content that at
best will clog up the tubes and be ignored but that in the average case will
be explicitly blocked (before or after loading). No party involved has a
really good reason to move to something effective -- those doing the
advertising are not doing it because they believe it to be effective but
because they are expected to, and sites that display the ads do so because
they have nothing to lose and a few cents to gain per page-load on whichever
users happen to not be running adblock.

There are real alternatives. Micropayments based on reuse (much like
publishing royalties), for instance, could simultaneously produce a good
income source for creatives and an incentive to invert the chilling effects on
transformative reuse created by the automatic conservative enforcement of DMCA
safe-harbor policies; a nuanced model for this kind of system is described in
several places as 'transcopyright'. Schneier's street-artist model has been
adapted into the model used by Patreon, but is remarkably rare in practice for
an idea by a major thinker that was published 20 years ago. And, of course,
there's stuff like crowdfunding and selling t-shirts -- both of which have
issues of their own (kickstarter-style crowdfunding is more sensitive to bad
actors than either the street-artist model or Patreon's hybrid version that
turns crowdfunding into a subscription model; hawking merch can turn off
certain communities and may not be useful outside of communities with a strong
and coherent identity with symbol-sets that uniquely identify it).

Advertising was jumped on as a monetization model because it's, at small-
scale, low-effort. Google makes their money by keeping the effort the same for
the other two parties (the ad-seller and the ad-buyer) while improving
targeting. However, the targeting hasn't really scaled well, despite the
amount of tracking going up. And, we've hit the point where the tracking
intended to improve the targeting has gotten so resource-heavy that end-users
would rather cut it off entirely than benefit from well-targeted ads -- we've
hit a scaling limit. The effort of targeting the advertising has been pushed
off to Google and to the end user in terms of bandwidth. So, unless everybody
gets fiber and significantly faster computers suddenly, we have time to back-
track and find something that doesn't clog the pipes with surreptitiously-
collected data worth on the order of one cent per megabyte.

