
Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers - soundsop
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2015/10/10/ad-blocking-a-sign-that-web-publishers-dont-care-about-readers/
======
Animats
The Mozilla Foundation has come out against ad blocking:

"Content blocking software should focus on addressing potential user needs
(such as on performance, security, and privacy) instead of blocking specific
types of content (such as advertising)."[1]

This is sad. Their slogan used to be "Work for mankind, not for the man". But
the Mozilla Foundation is ad-funded. They currently have a deal with Yahoo to
make Yahoo Search their preferred search engine. Before that, it was Google.
Those deals bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. So they can't
afford to bite the hand that feeds them.

This places them in conflict with Apple. Apple makes their money selling stuff
to end users at a high markup. They can be very anti-advertiser if they
choose. Apple could block all ads on their devices and market that as a
feature.

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/10/07/proposed-
principles...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/10/07/proposed-principles-
for-content-blocking/)

~~~
icebraining
Well, as someone who doesn't earn money from ads, I'm on their side.

I agree with the arguments against ads, but I also remember what it was like
to not have a CC or money to spend, and ads work as a redistribution
mechanism; until someone can make a good argument why the poor won't be left
out of the brave new world of paid-for content, I still won't use an ad-
blocker.

~~~
jalfresi
Here's a counter argument; just because you can throw clickbait articles up
onto a website doesn't give you the right to rape my personal details for your
personal profit.

Quite simply, produce something of value and you won't have a problem
financing it. The worlds smallest violin plays for those websites producing
garbage to feed the never ending stream of garbage that comes through the data
pipe that I pay for. No one owes you anything.

~~~
icebraining
_Here 's a counter argument; just because you can throw clickbait articles up
onto a website doesn't give you the right to rape my personal details for your
personal profit._

But that's Mozilla's argument: block tracking, not ads.

Google Analytics and other services are not ads, but still track.

Project Wonderful, on the other hand, has ads but doesn't track.

Shouldn't we block the former, and not latter?

By the way, have I pointed out that I make absolutely no money on ads? I work
for a B2B startup that charges for its services. No ads at all.

------
striking
It was inevitable that this would happen. I remember when Opera first added
pop-up blocking and plenty of people got mad. This is the same thing: ads are
burning energy, bandwidth, and our time.

Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just
blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are.

~~~
wutbrodo
> Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just
> blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are.

Not really; they're blocking all ads except the ones that are unblockable: ads
masquerading as content (sponsored posts, etc). It's inevitable to a degree;
most people are willing to whine loudly and pretend they have the moral high
ground about things that are immediately visible, but unable to think more
than one step ahead about the consequences of their actions.

Paid content is, by and large, a miserable failure[1] (just look at the
history of paid apps relative to ad-supported and IAP), and ad-blocking is on
the rise as well. This is just pushing publishers to break one of the oldest
rules (and for good reason), and break down the wall between ads and content.

[1] With minor exceptions like publications that have established a very
strong brand with people of relatively high net worth. It's not a coincidence
that the only publications I read regularly that moved to paywalls happen to
be over a hundred years old (NYT, WSJ, Economist)

~~~
striking
Paid content is not always awful. Take this tasteful, sponsored Ashens video:

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

There is a clear disclosure (no misleading marketing!) and he presents a new
and interesting version of his usual show while incorporating the product.

It's not selling out, and it's fairly enjoyable (as evidenced by the rating
counter on the video, as well as the comments).

If I must be advertised to, I prefer this method. Having watched the video, I
would actually like to purchase the device mentioned. Not because it was
shoved down my throat, but because it is relevant to me and I find it
interesting.

The video merely brought it to my attention.

~~~
wutbrodo
Sure, but as usual, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much[1]. I'm sure I can
point you to traditional display ads that I've seen on the Web that are
tasteful, useful, and unobtrusive. Does that obviate all the complaints people
have about display ads overall? Of course not. Similarly, the amount of times
I've heard a podcast say "this episode sponsored by blahblah, [explanation of
blahblah]" doesn't erase the amount of examples I've seen of an article with a
tiny "sponsored by X" at the top. And as is inevitable when financial pressure
is great enough, you end up with even well-respected publishers resorting to
stuff like this: [http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-shrinks-
labeling-n...](http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-shrinks-labeling-
natives-ads/294473/)

[1] I'm aware that you're explicitly providing a counter-example, so I'm not
disagreeing with your comment. Just saying that it doesn't really address my
point.

------
njitram
From a business model perspective, the reader is not the 'customer', but the
advertisers. The content is just the bait to get traffic, and then a publisher
has to monetize the traffic, most of the time by using ads to divert some of
the traffic to an advertiser. So a publisher has to walk a very fine line
between not anoying the reader too much but at the same time still have value
for the advertiser. No wonder that some publishers go (way) too far and only
focus on advertisers and almost forget the reader.

Doesn't help that the ads are most of the time outside the control of the
publisher, but are controlled by big advertising networks of course.

------
hiphopyo
> _Look at New Yorker, for example. The ads are generally interesting and
> feature great photography._

Wish Google would introduce some sort of minimum design requirements for their
AdSense image ads.

I also wish they'd give publishers full control over the appearance of their
text ads. Right now, these ads look horrible, and only premium publishers (ie.
websites with millions users) are given this sort of control.

~~~
dogma1138
The downside of that is that it makes harder to distinguish advertisement from
actual content.

Some sites are quite good ad hiding sponsored links and there is way too much
advertisement masquerading as editorials already.

~~~
daviross
This is where stronger protections against this sort of deception would be
useful. I'm (sometimes) fine with sponsored articles. I've seen some sites use
it well. But it has to be honest, clearly marked.

------
sparkzilla
I'm fairly sure that if publishers removed popups (ads and subscription
forms), ads that move the text while you're reading it, and autoplay video or
audio ads, then most people would be happy. As it stands, readers are
bombarded with ads that ruin the actual reading experience.

~~~
elorant
No, that wouldn't be enough. The real problem is profiling. It's spooky and
most tech-savvy people dissent it. And they (aka we) are the ones that
influence the general public as to adopting ad blocking technologies.

It's one thing having Google serving me personalized ads which I know come
from my search history, and a whole other having the same thing happening from
various ad-serving companies with which I have no affiliation at all. Where
the hell do they get my profile from? And who regulates that market?

~~~
dogma1138
Most tech-savvy users aren't the problem, ad-blockers aren't popular because
some people don't want to be tracked, they are popular because most people
don't like being annoyed and spammed with obnoxiously loud advertisements.

~~~
elorant
I beg to differ. Ad blocking has been around for almost a decade, AdBlock Plus
was first published in 2006. But if you take a look at historical usage [1] of
ad blocking technologies you’ll see that it started spiking after 2012, right
when profiling was widely adopted by the digital advertising marked due to the
usage of programmatic advertising. Also it’s tech related sites that are
taking the biggest toll [2] (although that could also be attributed to
adoption of video ads). I also don’t think it’s irrelevant that ad blocking
usage in European countries is twice that in US [2]. Generally speaking I
think Europeans are more concerned for their privacy.

Just to be clear, I won’t argue that ads are annoying and that makes a lot of
users willing to use something to block them. I just have the impression that
it was after the adoption of profiling technologies that ad blocking usage
boomed.

[1] [http://www.mondaynote.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/347_adb...](http://www.mondaynote.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/347_adblock_1c.png)

[2] [http://digiday.com/publishers/global-rise-ad-
blocking-4-char...](http://digiday.com/publishers/global-rise-ad-
blocking-4-charts/)

~~~
dogma1138
Exactly with almost no impact, only in the past 1-2 years did it became a
major issue as more and more people were installing them and now with Apple
and the likes actively promoting them it became a common knowledge.

As for the European part, as a European I would not agree to that statement at
all most people here do not show any more insight into technical privacy than
who I know in the US.

VPN is also quite common here in Europe and not for any privacy concern but
because regional blocking of content is a plague here. And it's not only to
access US content Europe is a nightmare when it comes to distribution rights
for IP since even tho we have a unified market every country still has it's
own distributors.

So if a Belgian user wants to access French content they more often than not
have to use a VPN to get a French IP because otherwise no streaming for them,
same goes for an Austrian or a Swiss user who wants to consume German content.
And that's before going into the insanity of regional content for the likes of
Netflix.

You also forget that Europe has adopted Chrome much faster than in the US
because from 2010 to 2014 they had to have the browser choice menu for all
versions of windows which were shipped in the EU upon installation (You can
also see a short spike in IE users once that directive expired in dec 2014,
presumably just to get Chrome/FF again ;)) which meant that they had the
ability to install free adblockers (adblock for IE costs money, and is a shite
reverse proxy).

------
Puts
I think we are missing one key thing in this debate. Ads and ad-blocking is
just a symptom of the fact that you cannot make money in this industry.

The only ones making money on IT are companies who's main thing is not
technology, but who can utilize technology to make there business more
efficient. A good example is logistic companies who have a business that's
been around for ever, but smart algorithms allows them to cut costs and work
more effectively. But the money it selves comes from shipping things.

~~~
jalfresi
A thousand times this; if your business model relies on advertising, you don't
have a business model.

------
Kenji
I'll be honest, I hate all ads, regardless of how good they are. I think it's
creepy and fills my mind with things I do not want it to be filled with. For
me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what
appears. I think it barely matters how good the ads are. I've only seen one
single website that did ads right (they were perfectly embedded into a mosaic
pattern of site functionality, things like a little tile with the coca cola
writing). (EDIT: Okay, news.ycombinator.com also does it well with its inline
job ads. See, I didn't even think of it as an ad, that's how nicely it's
embedded.) The problem is that people used to use the internet to exchange
files and information that was then locally stored on each PC. Now, you go to
youtube, listen to a song, and 20 minutes later you download the entire video
again if you listen to it (if you closed the tab inbetween). That stuff adds
up and of course everyone is reluctant to pay that bill. The solution is going
back to a decentralized download-culture like it was in the 90's. Storage
space is incredibly cheap. Nobody has to pay that bill of transferring the
same things over and over and over again.

~~~
bitmapbrother
>For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what
appears

What a silly statement. Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio?
You are visiting a site that gives you content for free in return for viewing
their ads. If you don't like that contract then don't visit the site and limit
your browsing to sites that adhere to your personal contract.

~~~
acheron
"Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio?"

Yes? Or are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to change the station during a
commercial?

~~~
bitmapbrother
No, but you do allow the presence of advertising on your TV or radio so why
should web pages be different? That's the contract you agree to.

~~~
douche
Ad-blocking is exactly the same thing as turning the volume off during
commercial breaks. Or perhaps turning the TV/radio off, and then back on again
afterwards might be the better analogy, since then you are not consuming the
"bandwidth".

If I wanted to hurt advertising, I'd create an extension that would fire a
thousand click-throughs on their stupid ad, and vacuum up all their AdSense
budget. Get a few million people world-wide doing that, and companies would
quickly realize that they are spending an even more ridiculous amount of money
on advertisements, and they would stop spending.

~~~
bitmapbrother
Not really as you're constantly having to turn the volume off and on when the
show resumes. So you're interacting with the actual ad and subconsciously
you've acknowledged what they're advertising.

As for hurting advertising by your click though scheme - do you really think
you're the first one to have thought of this? They have measures in place to
identify and disregard this.

------
gglitch
In my opinion, a lot of the discussion about ads and ad-blocking leaves a very
key factor undiscussed: that, as with US healthcare, the consumer cannot make
an informed decision about whether a given piece of content justifies the
loading of a given piece of 3rd party code, because the terms of use of that
code are undisclosed. The whole notion of "implied consent" seems laughable to
me - about as laughable as the idea of going into a car dealership and buying
a car sight unseen and for an unknown price that can be redefined by the
seller at any point in the future. [Edited for cell phone typos]

------
hiou
This site is an ad and no one is blocking it. Many Instagram feeds are ads.
This ad blocking debate is taking a very dated and narrow minded view of what
an advertisement is.

------
timbits
Ethical ad blockers should let the web page know that they are blocking ads so
that the web page can chose to not display the content, or offer a paid
option. It will avoid a stupid arm race between the two parties, and it's
transparent.

~~~
makeitsuckless
Yes, violating a user's privacy is really ethical...

------
api
Of course they don't. Readers don't pay.

~~~
acdha
The New York Times has a million digital-only subscribers who might disagree:

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/05/business/the-n...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/05/business/the-
new-york-times-reaches-1-million-digital-subscribers.html)

~~~
hughperkins
Yeah, I signed up for that. But they still show me ads :-P So, then I
installed RequestPolicy et al, and have a guilt-free, ad-free existence :-)

~~~
dogma1138
On the anecdotal side their certificate expired a month ago.

[https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=requestpolicy...](https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=requestpolicy.com&latest)

------
bitmapbrother
Ads will never go away and these ad blockers will soon become worthless if the
advertising companies ever think they're a threat. There are so many easy ways
to defeat ad blocking. This is why I despise Apple for trying to publicize web
ad blocking while letting their ads be displayed in their little gated
community. Apple is essentially ruining it for the people that do use ad
blockers because we're going to reach a point where the ad blockers are unable
to block ads due to the myriad of ways publishers will use to foil them. It's
only a matter of time before this happens and I hope Apple is paid back for
this move in spades.

~~~
teddyh
> _Ads will never go away_

Sure they could. Look at São Paulo, for instance.

[http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-
kic...](http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-kick-ads-ban-
urban-billboards)

~~~
bitmapbrother
I was referring to web ads. The elimination of public display ads is
irrelevant in this context. I'm preventing the provider of the content I'm
consuming from earning a paycheck by blocking their ads. If the city of São
Paulo received a revenue share from public advertising, to put towards
government funding and reduce their taxation on the public, I'm sure they
would change their mind very quickly.

