

It’s not the reader’s responsibility to subject themselves to your advertising - Adrock
http://tumblr.quisby.net/post/700811683

======
apowell
If the ad-blocking crusaders succeed in eliminating all discrete advertising
from the web, then what we're left with is (1) very little content (2) lots of
paywalls and/or (3) a web supported by paid placement. If users don't allow
the ads alongside the content, then the ads will become the content.

On the other hand, if you choose to block ads and recognize that your decision
to block ads and enjoy the web as it exists today wouldn't be sustainable if
everyone did it; just accept that you're freeloading and move on.

------
natrius
Writing off the effects your actions have on the future production of things
you like is plainly irrational. If a site you like has created a hostile
viewing experience, let them know. If they continue with their misguided
efforts, go ahead and block ads, but you should try to ensure that they are
profitable by making an effort proportional to your enjoyment of the site. Try
harder to get your message across. Send them money. Do _something_. Doing
nothing but harming their revenue stream harms yourself.

If you block ads based on a broad, generic filter set, you're hurting the
sites you enjoy reading, and you make no sense to me.

~~~
derefr
I don't know what kind of surfing habits you have, but for 99% of the sites I
visit, I don't have an "enjoyment of the site" to push me into being
sympathetic for their financial needs. I find individual, useful bits of
websites through Google or Reddit, take what I want or need from those bits,
and then ignore the rest. Websites, in this way, are commodities; necessary
evils to transmitting information or entertainment. I don't maintain
"relationships" with these websites as if they were bands or political
parties; they're more like one-night-stands. I think this is the way many
people see the Internet as a whole, and that is why so many are amenable to
unilateral ad blocking.

There are a few websites I _do_ visit over and over (HN, for example), and I
don't block ads on those—but I wouldn't _start_ a long-term relationship with
a site like that if its ads were obnoxious.

~~~
natrius
Those bits of information exist because they have revenue-earning potential.
If you block all ads, you're making providing information less profitable,
which will make it harder to find information in the future. Block ads on a
site after you get annoyed by them. If it's a site you rarely visit, there's
probably not much use in going further out of your way to help them out.

~~~
derefr
I do agree with you in _principle_ —but it's not pragmatic, and you can't
expect users to go out of their way to first look at ads, and then decide
whether or not to block them. It's much more work on their part than either
allowing, or blocking, everything (consider web-surfing like a flow state in
programming, where having to decide whether to block an ad is an interruption
that breaks flow. It's a tiny mental speed-bump that, when occurring often
enough, greatly reduces overall mental velocity.)

And besides it being more work, it's also _annoying_ , like you said; choosing
to block everything removes the "annoyance factor" altogether. If you have a
blanket-policy ad-blocker on, you never see the really, really bad ads that
animate and have sound and make you hunt through your opened-in-the-background
tabs to murder them. People don't like to be annoyed, and anything they can
use to prevent themselves from getting annoyed in the first place will
automatically be liked, even at the expense of the ability to find information
in the future.

I'm not saying it's moral, or ideal, or anything like that—I'm just saying
that webmasters will have to deal with (and work around) the fact that people
_like_ ad-blockers, for the same reason that people like eating fruit: it's a
purely parasitic relationship where you take what you want, and the "victim,"
seemingly static in relation to you, can't do anything about it.

~~~
natrius
You're right that I'm probably fighting a losing battle, but I'd expect a
group of people with a demonstrated proficiency in critical thinking to not
take actions that make themselves worse off.

------
bdickason
Unfortunately, the author's point about "toxic" advertising such as popups,
popunders, etc. doesn't have anything to do with YOUR advertising. Ad blockers
are generally turned on after a very negative ad experience with something
like a popup-riddled site.

It's usually not the publisher who's creating great content that's delivering
those horrible ad experiences. They are generally fighting their ad networks
to police the bad ads because they hate them as much as you do.

------
tptacek
If you don't like the manner in which an author chooses to support their work,
don't partake of that author's otherwise free material.

If you're going to block their advertisements or otherwise transform their
work, I'm not going to have a temper tantrum. Doing so seems objectively
unethical, but in an "epsilon from jaywalking" sense, plus or minus. Even I
block Flash.

There is no Board of Governors that decides what is or isn't "cheating" when
it comes to laying out pages for advertising. The ethical response to a site
that crosses the line isn't "now I get all your stuff with no ads". It's "now
I'm not going to visit your site anymore."

Getting self-righteous about the reader's "right" to block advertising seems
myopic. Yes, even when the advertising is unbelievably annoying. You can't
have this one both ways. You're always going to be able to block ads, but
you're not going to get to claim to be taking the high road when you do so.

~~~
gte910h
So if you don't sit through the commercials on TV, by say, taking a leak,
you're a thief? What about tivo?

I think your theory has some holes in it.

~~~
natrius
Nobody said anything about theft. This is just about cause and effect. If your
actions will cause less of the things you like to be produced, you probably
shouldn't do them. No one knows if you went to the bathroom, nor does anyone
know if you're using Tivo unless you have a Nielsen box. Do whatever you want.
However, if they're selling an ad-free, timeshiftable version of the show
you're Tivoing, you will be better off if you make their business viable by
paying for it.

Product placement is making that less of an issue for television. If the
entire show is a Subway advertisement, you're probably doing your part by just
watching it.

~~~
orangecat
_If your actions will cause less of the things you like to be produced, you
probably shouldn't do them._

So I shouldn't pay off my credit card before it accumulates interest.

 _However, if they're selling an ad-free, timeshiftable version of the show
you're Tivoing, you will be better off if you make their business viable by
paying for it._

And public libraries are evil.

~~~
natrius
> _So I shouldn't pay off my credit card before it accumulates interest._

I trust that you're aware of the absurdity of this comparison.

> _And public libraries are evil._

That's better. If you like an author's previous works, you should probably buy
her next book instead of checking it out from the library. Using libraries for
discovery or reading older works won't have much of a negative effect on your
own future enjoyment. Spending money for works by long-dead authors won't do
much to incentivize new high-quality works, nor will purchasing books of
uncertain quality.

~~~
CaptainZapp
>> So I shouldn't pay off my credit card before it accumulates interest. >I
trust that you're aware of the absurdity of this comparison.

You're aware what the credit card companies call card holders that pay off
their invoices in full, every month?

That's right: Freeloaders or Deadbeats.

I don't think the analogy is really absurd, but I do think you're trying to
defend a right for profit. Which, I dare say, nobody has.

~~~
natrius
Nothing I've said could be interpreted as a "right for profit". All I've said
is that if you want things you like to exist in the future, it is rational to
make an effort to make them profitable.

The credit card comparison is absurd because people who pay off their invoices
in full probably don't get much value out of the card. If they had to pay
interest, they'd just stop using it. Plus, credit card companies make plenty
of money from the merchants I buy things from. Again, I'm not saying there's a
right to profit. I'm just saying that you should evaluate the value you get
from goods and services, and take action proportional to that value in order
to increase the chances of those things existing in the future.

------
sprout
I find the color scheme of his blog somewhat ironic. It looks fine in
grayscale but it is absolutely painful to read that red on that yellow.
Textbook case for built-in readability if I ever saw one.

~~~
tobiassteele
Came here to comment on that - it may not be your responsibility to look at
the author's ads, but its the author's responsibility to help you read what he
wants you to read.

