
Ask HN: Should ad blockers be limited? - VertexRed
It&#x27;s hard accurately measure how many users that are actively blocking ads, but it&#x27;s estimated that nearly a third of all computers are currently blocking ads [1].  This is a big number and it&#x27;s steadily growing.<p>There is no doubt that this has affected the revenue for website owners negatively regardless of the size of the website.  This could be damaging the web, especially for the smaller sites that receive less traffic.  It&#x27;s likely that we would see an increase in quality and variety of content across the web if it was more rewarding.<p>It&#x27;s understandable that users don&#x27;t want to be bombarded with ads or tracked across the web, but there should be a global list with acceptable and simple ads (banner or animation and a link) that should be enforced by all ad blockers and controlled by each add-on platform.<p>One might argue that AdBlock Plus implemented a list of &quot;acceptable ads&quot;, but this is a bizarre scheme made to generate ridiculous amounts for their organization with the explanation that the fee is set due to the &quot;significant effort&quot; of maintaining the whitelist [2].<p>Do you think that ad blockers are reducing the quality of the web and should they be limited?<p>1: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.globalwebindex.com&#x2F;reports&#x2F;global-ad-blocking-behavior<p>2: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;adblockplus.org&#x2F;acceptable-ads-agreements
======
DoreenMichele
_It 's likely that we would see an increase in quality and variety of content
across the web if it was more rewarding._

I have removed ads from most of my websites. I have a Patreon account and I
take tips.

It's a problem space I've studied and thought about for years. Ads pay very
little and can introduce a conflict of interest.

For example, trying to write about alternative health tends to attract ads for
products like colloidal silver. I am not for the use of colloidal silver, but
my audience may not realize that. They may see the ad on my site and infer
that I am advocating for its use.

Alternately, making money off a product I do advocate for can be
misinterpreted as a conflict of interest. People may be suspicious of a
product I actually think is genuinely a good product because its sale makes me
money.

The solution to both problems is the same: If my audience supports my work by
paying me to create good information, then I don't need to be a shill for some
product or other while my audience wonders why I really suggested it.

Ad blockers are here to stay. You don't need to combat them to help foster
good, independent content. There are other ways to pay content creators that
have additional benefits, such as combating conflict of interest.

------
bediger4000
What!?! Why? This is dangerously close to mandating that I spend my money on
what you choose. I do not see this as anything like a "free market" solution.
I do not see this as anything approaching an ethical solution. It puts
incentives in incredibly wrong places, much like USSR-style managed economies
did.

Until ad blockers are outlawed, I will block as many ads as I can, in as many
ways that I can. After that, I will mock advertising as bitterly as I can, and
engage advertisers to let them know how un-american they are.

------
MildlySerious
I think instead of trying to fix advertising, we should continue to work
towards better monetization strategies.

Fixing advertising is an uphill battle, and while I do think there is such a
thing as positive advertising, I see that way too rarely to justify all the
downsides of advertising. Targeted ads are still bad 95% of the time, which is
hardly better than content based ads, if not worse.

The current alternative is, for the most part, subscription services. The
problem with these is that the number of websites I visit within a given month
is just massive compared to the tiny fraction of sites I use frequently enough
to warrant at least considering paying $5 a month or whatever.

That leaves efforts like Brave/BAT that look to create an automated solution
to get the best of both worlds, which can be a step in the right direction, if
done right.

There is also the option to use site A to onboard people for site/service B in
a natural manner. The Backblaze reports which regularly make it to the front
page of HN being one example of that. Merch shops from Youtubers and streamers
being another. Obviously, that is not applicable for most websites.

Coming up with better strategies really is the only long term solution to
improve the situation.

------
ThrowawayR2
The question is meaningless. In the age of BitTorrent, even making adblockers
straight-up illegal wouldn't stop them and whichever underground adblocker
that did what the user wants (i.e. no ads at all) would win out over any
adblocker coalition agreeing to a whitelist scheme.

Whether they reduce the quality of the web or not, they are here to stay.

------
oil25
> Do you think that ad blockers are reducing the quality of the web

Not my concern as a user.

> should they be limited?

How and by whom would they be limited? Ad blockers - essentially user agents -
are already open source and freely available to use, modify and redistribute.
The proverbial cat is out of the bag, and you're not getting him back in.

~~~
VertexRed
> Not my concern as a user.

It's affecting the quality of the web that you, as a user, are browsing.

> The proverbial cat is out of the bag, and you're not getting him back in.

The proposed solution is to maintain a global whitelist that each ad blocker
is forced to respect.

~~~
MiddTech
> It's affecting the quality of the web that you, as a user, are browsing.

Any numbers to back this up?

(also while I'm asking for numbers how about "There is no doubt that this has
affected the revenue for website owners negatively regardless of the size of
the website." ?)

>The proposed solution is to maintain a global whitelist that each ad blocker
is forced to respect.

I personally can't think of an effective way this could be achieved. Getting
even a small proportion of the world to agree on a single whitelist would be
difficult if not impossible; who would maintain it, who would decide what was
whitelisted and what was blocked? not to mention any actual legal issues
across any sort of jurisdiction.

But assuming you could, what mechanism could be used to stop people loading
extensions and apps into their browser? Then, for the more technically savvy
users, how do you propose to block the use of something like a pihole
([https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)) or equivalents ?

This all assumes that blocking the ads is even a problem (for the quality and
stability of the web) in the first place and without a solid range of evidence
to back it up, it's anecdotal at best.

Pure conjecture, but i'd guess there is probably evidence to support declining
advertising revenue that might _possibly_ be partially attributed to
adblockers, but I doubt its the only factor( or even the biggest ).

------
rolph
you can take my screenspace when you pry it from my cold dead browser cache.

------
rs23296008n1
Adblockers are a symptom of poor ethics on the part of web site owners and
advertisers.

Given how obnoxious a lot of ads can be and how various site owners deploy
them, I'm of the opinion that advertisers should be demanding basic standards
of conduct. Quickly. Or risk completely losing any credibility. Trust has to
be re-established. Your web site's continued existence is not part of the
journey towards re-establishing that trust. Don't bother: you and your
industry have committed unethical behaviour. You don't get to quote declining
earnings now. You've caused massive trust issues and your declining
advertising revenues are just a symptom.

Ever been to a download site and seen ads with big fake download buttons?
Especially near the actual download link? That's unethical behaviour. Its also
why I feel completely at ease if I simply block all ads from that page in the
name of basic security. Nothing anyone can say would convince me to re-enable
ads on that page. I am allowed to know which button is real. Simple as that.
Its a real shame the site owner tolerates such ads. Their unethical behaviour
means I must now defend against a deliberate attack. They could easily not put
fake download links on there. But they didn't. Do you see the problem now?
Advertisements are now associated with bad and/or deceptive behaviour.

What does all this mean? Simply put, I can now justifiably treat ads on
websites with a basic level of suspicion. They are privacy nightmares and
cannot be trusted to be benign. They aren't just "show this ad to eyeballs for
awareness and generate leads for sales". They are now actively designed with
fingerprinting, targeting, logging, tracking, identification. Some of them
have defences to reestablish tracking in the face of adblocking such that
fingerprinting involves more than cookies or other straightforward means. They
are intended to follow site visitors around the internet like some creepy
stalker. The extent to which this tracking goes simply demonstrates how
desperate the need is to associate, track and identify every little aspect.
This is the opposite of benign.

I'm now at the stage of almost considering ads as a form of malware. That is
how bad the advertising companies have let things go. This is advertisers
fault. Don't complain about losing revenue when even one straightforward
example is so pointlessly deceptive to be indefensible. There are plenty of
other examples I'm sure.

It's a pity you can't just put ads on websites. But, no, you have to make it
as creepy as possible. The distance between creepy and criminal isn't that
far. People are noticing and they don't like what they find. You think it's
bad now but wait until it really takes off. Adblocking may well become the
least of your worries.

