

Is Ad blocking the next legal battleground? - billirvine
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/opinion-is-ad-blocking-the-next-legal-battleground
I know a significant number of Hacker News readers use ad-blocking options, which is why I thought of making this my first submission to HN.<p>My confession:
(1) I'm a publisher that relies on advertising as my only viable revenue model
(2) Before that, I ran the digital department of an ad agency that managed millions in online campaigns<p>So my opinions will be predictable.<p>But I'm going to (hopefully) sway the conversation into an area few think about -- the "independent web" exists because of advertising. There are thousands of websites that gain either significant viewership (and thus expense) or require significant time investments whereby online advertising makes the effort worth it for those involved. If "ad blocking" and "do not track" increase in popularity, the independent web will be in serious jeopardy. As a publisher of one such site, I know first hand.<p>And beyond just those important websites that provide thought and opinion which may be contrary to the "mainstream," are a host of other pure information sites on cooking, building, etc. that many of us find useful from time to tim.<p>And extending further, the massive ecosystem of hosting companies and their employees would also be at risk if their clients are no longer able to pay bills.<p>The unintended consequences of stifling the only currently viable revenue model for thousands of websites is far reaching.<p>Yes. Lots of ads do indeed suck (I made good ones!). And there continue to be unscrupulous ad networks that do bad things (though significantly less than 3 years ago). As imperfect as it is, it's the only option.<p>So -- brains of HN -- if you feel blocking ads is important, and realize that broader use endangers a great deal if important content online -- what's the alternative?
======
iamdave
* Trade practices / commercial laws: it could be claimed that the use of third party software to remove paid advertising constitutes interference with contractual relations, eg an advertiser and a website have entered into a contract whereby the site will display an advertisement in return for a fee or commission*

Yeah? And this is my problem as a consumer how? The website upheld their
obligation and met the specifications of the contract, I just made the
conscious decision to use property I purchased (A 2010 Macbook Pro enabled
with Google Chrome and AdBlock) to prevent these ads from going into my
eyeball, through the optical nerves and into the part of the brain that causes
me to twitch and mutter obscenities under my breath whenever an ad starts
playing sound on its own.

If any government sides with content producers and decides to make ad blocking
an issue just so some company can save face/revenue I hope people bitch-en
masse-about the ridiculous nature of it. That there hasn't been a deeper
inquiry into the absurd nature advertisers are going to in order to get our
eyeballs on flashing banners and ridiculous audio clips played from unwelcome
sources is frustrating.

~~~
billirvine
Yeah?

You just made the conscious decision to use the paid property they purchased
(bandwidth) to deliver you content that came at some expense. If the content
is worth your time, the only revenue model available to sustain the content is
not?

Self-entitled madness.

~~~
Evbn
This little tagline gimmick was done before it started.

~~~
billirvine
A one-line drive-by snipe. HN has indeed fallen low of late.

~~~
Toshio
Men of straw need not apply.

------
billirvine
I know a significant number of Hacker News readers use ad-blocking options,
which is why I thought of making this my first submission to HN.

My confession: (1) I'm a publisher that relies on advertising as my only
viable revenue model (2) Before that, I ran the digital department of an ad
agency that managed millions in online campaigns

So my opinions will be predictable.

But I'm going to (hopefully) sway the conversation into an area few think
about -- the "independent web" exists because of advertising. There are
thousands of websites that gain either significant viewership (and thus
expense) or require significant time investments whereby online advertising
makes the effort worth it for those involved. If "ad blocking" and "do not
track" increase in popularity, the independent web will be in serious
jeopardy. As a publisher of one such site, I know first hand.

And beyond just those important websites that provide thought and opinion
which may be contrary to the "mainstream," are a host of other pure
information sites on cooking, building, etc. that many of us find useful from
time to tim.

And extending further, the massive ecosystem of hosting companies and their
employees would also be at risk if their clients are no longer able to pay
bills.

The unintended consequences of stifling the only currently viable revenue
model for thousands of websites is far reaching.

Yes. Lots of ads do indeed suck (I made good ones!). And there continue to be
unscrupulous ad networks that do bad things (though significantly less than 3
years ago). As imperfect as it is, it's the only option.

So -- brains of HN -- if you feel blocking ads is important, and realize that
broader use endangers a great deal if important content online -- what's the
alternative?

~~~
mooism2
Ad blocking is an arms race. The more ad revenue that's lost to ad blockers,
the harder the ad networks will work to make their ads unblockable. (Startup
idea: a combination ad network / cdn, so that ad blockers can't block the ads
from your site without also blocking your graphics/css/js.) Eventually ad
blocking becomes AI-complete.

~~~
gpgemini
Good idea, ClarityRay has already solved the problem - www.clarityray.com

------
koenigdavidmj
My thought would be that blocking the software itself, or the filter lists,
probably falls under the First Amendment in the US, as was shown in the
Bernstein and Junger cases.

But...making it illegal to present something different than what is sent?
Well, that really sucks for the maker of that Flash ad I didn't see because I
don't have Flash installed.

And what about the blind guy who uses Lynx to surf? Or the non-blind guy?

~~~
billirvine
> And what about the blind guy who uses Lynx to surf? Or the non-blind guy?

Men of straw need not apply.

What about the struggling blogger (Brand Friedman?) unable to sustain his
important and vital efforts on donations alone, who must turn to ads in order
to eek out some revenue in order to continue?

------
ChrisNorstrom
Advertising ruins every communication medium it touches because it knows no
limits.

✓ Email (spam). ✓ Telephones (telemarketing). ✓ Social Media Tools (farmville
spam). ✓ Craigslist (spammers who collect emails). ✓ Websites (overlays, auto
video, intrusive trackers, higher load times) . ✓ Video (30 second ad for 10
second video).

Anytime a page contains the word media player or tool, there are ads all over
the place disguised as "Download Now" or "Play" buttons to try to deceive you.
This is going too far. Out of fear that my parents might accidentally click an
ad disguised as a play/download button (which are all over the place) and
installing malware on the family laptop. I just installed ad blockers on every
computer.

I had enough.

~~~
billirvine
> Advertising ruins every communication medium

Bull.

Without the revenue of advertising, you'd not have the live broadcast of the
activities of Apollo 11 on the moon.

I could cite dozens (if not thousands) of important events of which the public
was made aware because advertising sustained news papers, radio, TV, and the
Internet.

Self-entitled madness.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
Sorry, here's the politically correct version:

I Chris Norstrom have an opinion where I personally believe that there might
be a chance that advertising negatively affects in some way the communication
mediums that it uses to spread it's message in such a way that it might
substantially or not discourage people from using or watching or engaging with
that medium.

~~~
billirvine
Except that, your opinion can't be substantiated.

How did advertising substantially discourage people from engaging with
television? There were times when a major portion of the country was all
watching I Love Lucy at the same time.

I just don't see how you can logically defend that opinion.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
\- People are fleeing TV and running towards netflix and bittorent, using DVRs
to record their favorite shows and skip through commercials, and changing
channels during commercials.

\- Email is universally loathed and spam protection is standard, it's gotten
so bad that the government had to make a law that forces all email
solicitations to have an unsubscribe option and the name and address of the
company sending the solicitation.

~~~
billirvine
Hi Chris...

"Fleeing TV" -- indeed, a shift is being observed. However, the medium exists
because of advertising. Also, the audience segment that time-shifts is not yet
at a critical mass, though rising. And, live event TV (sports) is still doing
exceptionally well because of advertising.

Email is another matter. Being a former advertising executive would you
believe I never did an email campaign? (Probably not) Email spam
(simultaneously posted advertising message) has always been more considered a
path to malicious exploit than legitimate advertising.

I'm not denying that an increasing segment of users are becoming frustrated
with ads, only stating advertising is the best method we have _now_ for
monetizing content that costs some degree of expense to obtain and
disseminate.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
Ok I think there's been a miscommunication. I said advertising ruins things
because it knows no limits, it doesn't know when to stop and overdoes itself.
You are correct in saying that advertising is necessary to sustain free
services. We wouldn't have radio, tv, content, free apps, search engines,
etc... without it.

~~~
billirvine
"Limits" in terms of advertising are relative and often moving targets. As a
new product or service, it's hard to get noticed without testing where a
certain limit may be. GoDaddy -- loathed by many, but not by most -- would not
be the large firm it is now without having tested those limits. For better or
worse, it worked, and some nice people have jobs (their campus is less than 2
miles from us).

I serve on the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) mobile committee. As a
newish member, we don't have much influence... but I can confirm lots of
"limit testing" is on the way. It's hard to monetize mobile, and ad
delivery/targeting firms are in a panic.

------
tomelders
No.

~~~
smoyer
I agree ... though not for any of the reasons stated (so far). I'm paying for
my bandwidth and the current trend is that bandwidth may become metered. No
one can therefore force me to provide them with bandwidth to advertise to me.
It seems to me that it's analogous to the fact that telemarketers aren't
allowed to call my cell phone.

~~~
billirvine
> I'm paying for my bandwidth

Publishers pay for bandwidth also. And as a publisher, if I go over my 6,000
GB/month (which I have), I pay more. Very few home users are metered.

