

What’s Wrong With Blocking Ads? - miles
http://blog.mises.org/?p=007149

======
houseabsolute
> There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with an ad-blocker.

Haha, that is a huge, unbacked assertion in this article.

Maybe under some ethical systems it's not wrong. However, some of us recognize
the concept of a social contract where there is an implicit agreement that if
you want to use someone else's resources and they ask payment for it, you are
obligated to either

1\. Pay them the way they ask (including by viewing the ads they ask you to).

or

2\. Not use their resources.

Option three, which is to circumvent paying them by some means, does not
become ethical merely because it's easy.

You could also look at this through the lens of the categorical imperative. We
haven't yet devised a means through which people can pay for things
efficiently over the internet. Ads are the only current viable way to conduct
business in situations that call for many small payments for small pieces of
content. If everyone blocks ads, this business model becomes impossible,
creating a detrimental reality. Thus, according to the categorical imperative,
ad blocking is immoral.

> It is no different than using any other technology to filter language or
> explicit content.

This is incorrect. On typical webpages the author of the content is not being
compensated for your hearing curse words or the possibility of your hearing
them.

> No one is being harmed.

Not in a direct sense, but in a statistical and economic sense they are.

Basically, this entire article-let is a big instance of begging the question.
It reduces to "nothing is wrong with blocking ads because there's nothing
unethical about blocking ads," with no correct support. Or, to put it even
more ridiculously (but, I think, still being fair to the actual logical
content of the article): "nothing is wrong with blocking ads because nothing
is wrong with blocking ads."

~~~
Tichy
It's the internet, though. Am I not free to maybe even switch off JavaScript
as a whole, or use a browser that can only display text? I thought the general
understanding is that you may watch internet sites with whatever browser you
like. Unless the site specifically implements restrictions (IE only, for
example).

But in general, sorry, but it can't be unethical to switch off JavaScript. And
the ethics of pushing ads into people's faces are also debatable.

~~~
houseabsolute
If your browser lacks a certain capability for reasons other than avoiding
paying content providers for their content you consume, it's their
responsibility to work around that weakness, or else forbid you from using the
site. If they do neither, then it's a tacit agreement that in your special
case they are willing to provide the content for free.

------
sz
An ironic point is that blocking ads actually raises the probability that I
will buy the advertisers' product. Example: whenever I see the word "Netflix"
now I am conditioned to want to punch a hole through the nearest computer
screen. Had I blocked all their ads I may have eventually considered using
them. Now I just think of them as the giant annoying red box that inserts
itself between me and content I'm interested in.

~~~
sunir
It's not ironic. It's statistics. Advertising works on a percentage basis
across a population. Over all, it sells more products. If it didn't, people
would stop doing it.

You may happen to fit within a percentage of the population that will not buy
the product after seeing an ad, but that segment is far, far smaller than the
percentage of the population that will go out and buy a product after seeing
an ad.

~~~
pedrocr
Then assuming the people that block ads are the same that have adverse
reactions to them advertisers should like ad blockers.

------
axod
Here's a simple detect function if you want to show adblock users a big
paywall, which could be good if you have enough of them.

    
    
      function detect(cb) {
        var tt = document.createElement("div");
        tt.style.display = "none";
        document.body.appendChild(tt);
        var i = document.createElement("iframe");
        i.src = "http://adv.foo.com/ads/-adspace?ad_id=&affiliate=&advert=678";
        var foo = i.style.cssText;
        tt.appendChild(i);
        window.setTimeout(function() {
            cb(foo!=i.style.cssText);
        }, 200);
      }
    

the callback 'cb' will be called with true if adblock is installed.

~~~
jimmyjim
Sounds like a very small phase in a cat-and-mouse chase. The people who use
AdBlock are pretty technically savvy, they'll jump on another plug-in that
bypasses the hack you've just mentioned in no time. And the hack doesn't work
anyway for some existing popular adblock extensions.

Perhaps it would be more worthwhile to move to a different model altogether.

~~~
radu_floricica
Many technical minded people tend to think that if something will eventually
fail, it's not worth doing.

There's an old joke about a horse trainer who was ordered by his king, under
penalty of death, to teach his horse to speak. So he very methodically starts
to do just that. When asked why he's trying to do the impossible, he answers:
"Teaching takes a long time. Maybe the king dies. Maybe the horse dies. Or
maybe the horse learns to talk."

~~~
jrockway
Maybe Adblock is updated the next day, and you basically wasted your
afternoon. Time you will never get back, all for nothing.

------
ndl
I at least somewhat believe that ad-blocking is a symptom rather than a
problem. Some advertising legitimately alerts me to things I find interesting,
and I avoid blocking ads in general for this reason. Most, however, are
repulsive and inconveniencing - I rarely watch enough of an advertisement to
see what it actually sells. I generally like ad-supported content models,
however, and usually am willing to let the banners ads have their place if it
keeps a valuable site in business.

What offends me is the new class of ad that comes with built-in audio. I may
add your site to my blocklist/spamlist for doing this. This kind of ad causes
awkward social situations and trouble in the office - someone's computer
randomly starts blaring out noise in what should be a quiet and focused
environment. This is not a social contract - this is a trap.

I think this debate exists for stupid reasons. Advertisers and webmasters have
apparently forgotten that ads are supposed to sell something to a customer. If
potential customers run away from your ad, then it's time to fire the ad
agency and question product-market fit.

------
vaksel
Frankly I think what all sites should do is offer ad-free option.

And I'm not talking about the greedy...let's charge $4.99 a month for ad-free
service. No, I mean charge users what you are likely to see from them over a
year $1-2 one-time micropayment.

This way you still get to make money off ads, you show the passers by...but
your core users, can opt out for a small fee. You win, by earning the $$$
you'd ever see from them in a single period. And they win, by not having ads
on a site they use all the time.

------
Batsu
I take it this is somehow related to the other post about blocking ads.

This post is from 2007, and this quote...

>>And in short, due to the fact that tools like this exist, several webmasters
are now refusing to allow netizens to access their respective websites via a
Firefox browser.

... seems incredibly off base.

I'm hoping there's something I'm missing that made this post interesting.

~~~
doron
Back in 2007 a blogger named Danny Carlton blocked Firefox due to the use of
adblock. some back story can be found here <http://adblockplus.org/blog/ads-
dont-generate-money>.

For myself, i user adblock and it is very hard for me to imagine my internet
experience without it, i eagerly await Fennec on the android platform so i can
block ads on my cell browser, it is especially painful there

------
metamemetics
I was thinking about this recently. My idea was to integrate advertisers as
regular users into my web app.

Advantages: Ads are ordinary pictures hosted from my site\domain without
javascript so not blockable. No annoying animations for my visitors. Manually
targetted ads with a much higher click through rate. No middle man. Could
maybe come up with some sort of market algorithm to change price to advertise
based on demand rather than negotiating every deal.

Disadvantage: Would probably have to roll my own tracking system? Wouldn't be
able to implement as many statistics for advertisers. Increased liability.
Harder for small sites.

Does anyone know what the state of "off-the-shelf" advertising systems is for
big sites that want to sell ads directly rather than rely on adsense/3rd
parties? If anyone wants to hash out some ideas\code for a plug-n-play ad
system that sites can drop on there server, gives advertisers dynamic quotes,
handles payments/uploads hit me up at dhllndr at gmail, or aim redfoxbeatbox.
Could be a good seperate product to monetize.

------
ErrantX
I think dubbing ad-blockers as stealing is, clearly, idiotic.

But I think it's a fair assertion that your depriving the displaying site of
revenue for their content. If everyone used ad blockers would big news
agencies offer free services like they currently do?

But then adverts can be a big annoyance.

Both sides have a clear point here. The problem is that the ad blockers hold
all the cards - if sites put up a paywall for ad blockers they lose custom. If
they circumvent the blockers they just draw fire. If they denounce the
blockers they get berated.

Lets at least be a bit ethical: ad blockers are cool. But if you like a site
and it's contents and your a regular visitor consider unblocking their ads :)
this is what I do and I dont begrudge them it (I will still block some of the
more "in your face" ads on a case by case basis)

------
motters
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with blocking ads, especially if you find
them offensive. Some of the worst examples feature rapidly flashing
animations. To someone like me they're just an irritant to be eliminated as
quickly as possible. To someone with epilepsy the situation could be more
serious. This sort of disrespectful advertising is what we don't want to see
on the web. I'm not against advertising online, but I think there need to be
changes in the way ads are served/approved/regulated - perhaps with an
industry-wide code of conduct being adopted. Ads are subject to regulation
when they're shown on television, and maybe there needs to be some similar
process for the internet.

------
jrockway
_And in short, due to the fact that tools like this exist, several webmasters
are now refusing to allow netizens to access their respective websites via a
Firefox browser._

LOL, using user-supplied data as an access control method? Sure, keep doing
that, it works great!

I also recommend replacing the locks on your house with a sign that says,
"Authorized personnel only."

