Loading malicious content certainly is unethical. I'm not disputing that, I run an ad-blocker and I advocate to everyone that they should.
However, that isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about blocking ads as a concept. It is pretty indisputably unethical as it breaks the social contract of the service delivery.
The fact that is easy to do, has no punishment, and is incredibly low stakes doesn't make it ethical.
Ads aren’t neutral, informative pieces of information. Most are there to manipulate you, often subconsciously. Eg, all the product placement in tv and movies is subliminal advertising, or the car ads meant to make you think something is high status without ever using a logical argument. Looks what ads have done to our culture over the last 30 years, and the environmental and financial consequences connected to it
Problem is, ads now are trackers. Of course, there are few ads that are not. I also won't mind if the ads are static images (that are not generated from/linked to 3rd-party/trackers) and unable to click on. Thing is, those are just rare, and in practice blockers can't block them by default, because they are not distinguishable with other contents. So in general, those are not blocked, and blocking "ads" (the ads that are trackers) is still ethical to me.
And just FYI, blockers have the rule that don't block self-promotions (self-advertisements) by default.
> It is pretty indisputably unethical as it breaks the social contract of the service delivery.
I would dispute that there is such a social contract, any more than there is a social contract that if you download a patch to fix DRM, you are implicitly agreeing to install the virus it comes with.
Ad-funded businesses are engaging in market dumping, subsidizing their offerings by poisoning the minds of billions of people, and creating anxiety, insecurity, and dissatisfaction in the process. If someone gives you something for free covered in lead dust, and you accept it but clean the dust off first before touching it, I don't see the ethical quandary. Particularly when you know their widget cost them a fraction of a penny, and they were being paid to give you the poison.
Like Bill Hicks said, these people are Satan's little helpers. Engaging with Satan and undermining him may be unwise, but it's not unethical.
As others have pointed out, these people also have a level of stalking going on that I don't think the average person (or even a relatively informed person) can grasp, and so there's no possibility for a social contract to exist there.
There is a supermarket that at the checkout has a bowl of candy that operates on the honour system.
If you push a button next to the bowl of candy an ad will play and you can take a piece of candy. The candy itself costs a fraction of a cent to the business and the business doesn't care to put anyone in place to monitor compliance with button pushing.
This system is known by everyone and operating in this way for decades so there is no deception towards the person at the supermarket.
Is it ethical to take a piece of candy without pushing the button?
In the supermarket analogy, it's more like saying you forgot your shoppers card and having the checkout person scan one for you, or using 867-5309 as your phone number. And no, it's still not unethical. The unethical actor here is Kroger buying every major grocery chain, and adding 20% to your bill if you don't agree to be tracked. Normal humans in the loop, employees included, will happily support you undermining their system.
No, it isn't. In practice no human will care whether you push the button. The social understanding is that it's fine to just take the free candy. In fact, the employees probably don't want to hear the ad again, so it is an ethical imperative to not push the button and subject them to that.
There is probably some human who sold the ad space to somebody, and who is monitoring how many button presses there are. And they will probably put pressure on the supermarket to make sure customers are reminded that they have to push the button if they want candy.
Sure, the employees are probably sick of the ad, but the people who don't have to hear the ad don't care about them :)
I'd take the candy without watching the ad, for the same reason I refuse to use loyalty cards. Both the ads and loyalty cards are worth more to the supermarket than they are to me. They're basically ripping me off while pretending to give me something gratis.
(Actually, in reality I'd ignore the candy since I don't need more sugar.)
i think eipi10_hn's point is that from the very beginning of designing/imagining the web, those involved wanted to make it a user-controlled experience. so the disconnect here is between two views: a) there is an obligation to support sites by watching ads or b) content providers should know defining principles of this medium dictate that users can block/change/etc so they support content with blockable ads at their own risk. Under b) users blocking ads is ethical whereas sites trying to circumvent ad-blocking are acting unethically. Both stances have merits it seems to me.
In this glorious 21st century where privacy is dead and big govt and tech have the right to monitor and monetize you as they please, Bill Hicks' take on marketing is the only correct one.
I wouldn't have this opinion if user-hostile web advertising and tracking hadn't driven me to it.
Loading malicious content certainly is unethical. I'm not disputing that, I run an ad-blocker and I advocate to everyone that they should.
However, that isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about blocking ads as a concept. It is pretty indisputably unethical as it breaks the social contract of the service delivery.
The fact that is easy to do, has no punishment, and is incredibly low stakes doesn't make it ethical.