
The Ethical Ad Blocker - carapace
http://tinysubversions.com/notes/ethical-ad-blocker/
======
marssaxman
Any ad blocker I choose to run is ethical. I am under no obligation to load
links suggested by the creator of some web page I happen to be looking at. If
I choose to configure my user-agent in such a way that it fetches the targets
of some links but not others, that is my business and mine alone.

The advertiser may have a contract with the publisher agreeing to pay for the
placement of such links in the publisher's pages, but I am not a party to that
contract and am under no obligation to follow up on these suggestions.

~~~
ketralnis
> The advertiser may have a contract with the publisher agreeing to pay for
> the placement of such links in the publisher's pages, but I am not a party
> to that contract

What you've described is it being _legal_ to run an ad blocker, not it being
ethical. It's legal to walk into a bank and drink the coffee they have out for
their customers, but it's not ethical.

I do think that it's ethical to run an ad blocker, but this certainly isn't
the way to convince people.

~~~
adultSwim
I find it a tricky balance personally. My view is that most advertising is
inherently unethical. However that can be an easy copout. Certainly the fact
that I enjoy (or at least use) the web sites so much can cloud my judgment.

If it wasn't something I rely on so heavily, I would go straight for the
reasoning in your coffee/bank example.

------
etjossem
Advertisers and content providers are always free to negotiate the price of an
ad impression. Because of Adblock, many "impressions" now go (measurably!)
unseen. So ad prices will drop - and in response, ad volume will go up.

But advertising budgets haven't changed! The world's marketing departments
still have $X to spend on web ads, and the world's content providers get $X.
The only thing that's changed is that they're now exclusively targeting the
segment of people who don't use Adblock: customers who view web ads as
useful/relevant and convert via that method more often.

There's nothing unethical about blocking ads. Nor will it be unethical when
content providers introduce subscription models, or when advertisers buy up
half the page. It's simply a big structural change in the market: ads are no
longer deliverable to all users.

Eventually we'll all realize that web content _is_ excludable (e.g. Netflix),
and I suspect a lot more sites will move towards a hybrid model to capture
revenue from ad-haters as well.

------
gorena
What is unethical about choosing which software to use to interpret an HTTP
response in a manner of your choice? Is Lynx unethical now? Or disabling
Flash?

If you don't want to show content... don't return a 2XX.

~~~
maqr
I don't think you should be downvoted for this. The server chooses what to
send me, and I choose if and how to display it.

Is it also considered unethical not to install that bundled spyware with your
favorite freeware app?

Or how about that trojan installer tried to download automatically when you
somehow landed on their page? After all, you used up some of their computing
resources by serving you the page, you owe them the installation of their
malware.

------
feld
If a 500MB data plan costs $50 and your website has 50MB of ads, you've just
cost the user $10 to load your page

And then you made money off them too

Not to mention the extra wear on their batteries

Now who is unethical?

I'm OK with ads as long as they are

    
    
      1) unobtrusive: don't get in the way of the content I'm trying to reach
      2) policed to ensure they will not deliver malware to anyone
      3) as few requests and as small (data-wise) as possible so
         they don't interrupt my experience (eg, slow down page load)
      4) no tracking of users
    

You know, like a billboard.

~~~
explorigin
> unobtrusive: don't get in the way of the content I'm trying to reach > You
> know, like a billboard.

There are people that think billboards are the worst kind of advertisement
because they only block pretty views of nature rather than coming along side
content that you want to see.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Beautification_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Beautification_Act)

~~~
feld
I've never been angry at a billboard, but then again I've never lived in a
hellscape where they are the only thing in sight. And if I did I'd probably
move away. And the advertisers would have to deal with it.

edit: maybe more accurately "a billboard has never obstructed my use of the
highway, reduced my MPG, tampered with my car, or increased my cost of
traveling in any measurable way"

------
tinalumfoil
I'm getting really sick of whatever ridiculous justifications people make for
using adblockers. People use adblockers because it's more convenient for them.
If most crimes were as easy to commit as an adblocker is to install, we would
have a lot more crime. When installing an adblocker nobody is actually
thinking about all the revenue sites they visit get. None of these arguments
are going to have any effect on adblock usage.

As for all those sites that exist because of ads, they'll either find a way to
make ads unblockable (not hard if the ads are served from the same server as
the content, making it impossible to differentiate them), find a different way
to profit, or go bankrupt.

And, as long as I'm ranting, please stop saying "I disable my adblocker for
sites that deserve it" as though there's something charitable about it.
Companies aren't charities. If you don't let them go out of business, the
thousands of others who don't care enough to disable their adblockers for them
will.

~~~
ionised
The onus isn't on the person using the AdBlocker.

It's on you. Adapt or lose out.

AdBlock users don't need to justify anything to you. It's not going to be
illegal to use them. Ever.

------
nautical
Ads can lead to "MISGUIDED Information" , they can actually totally lie , is
the website owner going to take responsibility in those cases ? Do website
owners go to the extent to make sure that their viewers are not scammed or
given any wrong directions by the AD code they have copy pasted to track their
users ? Is that not unethical and irresponsible ? I am completely in agreement
with ad blockers , they are forcing people to think of alternate sources of
revenue , even small businesses and bloggers .

This Cynide and happiness cartoon summarizes it all :) :)

[http://files.explosm.net/comics/Dave/adblocker2.png](http://files.explosm.net/comics/Dave/adblocker2.png)
[BAD LANGUAGE USED]

~~~
adultSwim
Opting out of sites that rely on ads would force them to change as well.

Just because they are doing something wrong doesn't give us license to as
well. That logic just isn't acceptable in most situations. adaAs the old adage
goes, two wrongs..

------
lacker
Is it unethical to uninstall the crapware that comes preinstalled on Windows
machines? That's the main way the manufacturer makes money, after all.

------
drdeca
Wait, does this load the full webpage first? It seems like it from the how it
works explanation.

Because, in that case I'm not sure it does fit the criteria it proposes.

Instead, what it should do is keep a list of domains which are known to be ad
supported, and then when the browser would send a page request for a page on
that site, would instead not do that.

Why are you downloading the page if you aren't contributing towards the
hosting costs by viewing the ads?

That is stealing just as much as you would be if you had any other adblocker
running!*

No, it should /detect/ that the page is ad supported, but load it anyway the
first time, and then block subsequent requests to the page all subsequent
times!

* i.e. : not.

note: I don't run any adblock software other than a flashblock thing. If
enough ads go to html5 video I might do something else though. Like only use
webpages which don't use an unethical ad network.

------
andygates
"Let's fix this broken thing by breaking more things!" \-- said no successful
project, ever.

The problem isn't unethical browsing, it's unethical advertising. Until the
industry shows an interest in cleaning up its act, it can bite my shiny metal
ass.*

* Gleem-o Ass Polish available in aisle 4!

------
foxyv
I remember my first Ad Blocker. It was called Spybot. It modified the hosts
file on my computer to block websites that were known to provide Spyware
(Mostly third party Advertisers).

I really don't care that much about advertisements, I'm really good at
blocking those the old way; mainly by ignoring them. It's an ability honed by
living through 90s television and internet. What I do care about is the fact
that sites allow unethical third party sites to execute code on my computer
and spy on me.

Ad-Blocking is nice when using Ghostery and AdBlocker; they make sites load
faster and my screen less cluttered. But, for the most part I run them so I
can stop allowing advertisers to damage my computer, make me vulnerable to
fraudsters, and violate my privacy. In fact, more often than not they degrade
my experience when I realize some functionality of a site won't run without
some third party advertising platform.

Before we worry about implementing ethical ad-blocking we should talk about
ethical advertising. With ethical advertisements I'm pretty sure the problem
of ad-blocking will solve itself. Sure this will cut some revenue streams from
companies, but the same goes for the restrictions on tobacco and alcohol ads.

------
adultSwim
While I may disagree with the author about blocking ads, I'm disappointed that
so often we choose personal convenience/enjoyment over ethical concern (even
when situations have great cost to others). I think it's a legitimate argument
that you should quit Youtube if you aren't willing to be bombarded with ads.

For instance few would quit smoking weed even though a huge portion of it is
supplied by cartels (who enact horrific violence). Same for eating meat,
polluting, etc. These are just my pet examples (and can be debated) but the
principle is there. Most are unwilling to go beyond buying something slightly
different much less make any (even temporary) sacrifice.

I would love to see more willing to give up something they enjoy because it's
hurting others.

