Ethics of AdBlock

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:43 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:How is neuromarketing different from fast food companies doing the exact same thing to determine the combinations of grease substitutes and salt to bring maximum pleasure to your think bladder when you cram your noise hole?

I'm not arguing that McDonald's is ethical.

And besides, while theoretically possible I highly doubt we've actually reached the point where we even can use MRI scans to determine advertising. For starters, MRI's don't measure brain activity; they measure blood flow. They notice that during activity X, region A of the brain gets more blood. It's not particularly accurate for any but the largest of sample sizes, and it just means that activity X causes region A to activate, doesn't mean you get the response you want out of your consumer-creatures.

An action taken with intent to deprive agency doesn't have to succeed to still be considered unethical.

And how is that morally different from using hundreds of focus groups to determine the ad that does the same thing? Using the flavorist example, the old method was using thousands of random combinations of spices and ingredients to hope for what makes the best panini, versus the new method of using computer models to determine the exact amount of ingredients and spice for the perfect panini.

Again, I'm not arguing that that's ethical.

I don't really care whether you're literally operating on the consumer's brain with a scalpel, or merely printing a flyer with specific wording. I believe that using intrusive behavior that, if an individual did it would be considered harassment, to manipulate someone else into doing something is unethical. That's not necessarily equivalent to "advertising" -- like I said, it's possible to just put your message out there, be honest with consumers, and not try to mislead them through lies of omission, employing logical fallacies, or simply spouting falsehoods.

But it would be foolish to pretend that deceitful and manipulative advertising is not very much the norm.

This. It's not mind control in any real sense. It's...a very small amount of feedback. And calling it industry standard is a little much. It exists. It's not as if every ad agency has a pile of folks around to test endlessly. Merely designing more effective ads does not amount to mind control. Yes, everyone wants their ads to be more effective. They always have. Even the dude hawking stuff on a street corner is going to adapt his pitch. Or the charity asking for donations, or whatever. Everything is trying to evolve to be more effective all of the time. That is utterly normal for life.

Specifically using MRI? Sure, that's rarer. Employing psychologists, neurobiologists, and scientists of addiction (not sure what term is) to try and figure out exactly how to exploit how people think? Very much standard.

The phrase "mind control" implies a loss of agency for the one being controlled. This isn't the case. Determining what someone wants is wildly different from forcing him to do something.

And determining what words are needed to exploit the imperfection of how human's interpret the world around them is very different than "determining what someone wants". For heaven's sake, man, a large fraction of big money advertising is designed with how to make the product or service addictive. A large fraction is figuring out just how close you can skirt fraud laws, or whether the payout would be worth the later fines anyway.

I'm not accusing a mom and pop store who put their contact info in the yellow pages of being shadow illuminati, but COME ON.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby morriswalters » Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:47 pm UTC

They don't need to control your mind. They just need to understand you better than you do. If they do than they can convince enough people to buy the product that they want without needing to actually control you. Control is a waste of effort for them. The herd can be run over a cliff if you know how to lead them. But they can and do manipulate your reality. And you don't have the agency that you believe that you do.

hppavilion1
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:00 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby hppavilion1 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:02 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:I have family who immediately mute the TV or leave the room once commercials start. Should this be considered unethical?

I'm sure someone has already said this, but I'd like to point out that TV doesn't (or at least used to not) have any way to tell if you mute the TV on the commercials. Historically, though it's probably not so much like this any more, TV was just outgoing signals, no signals leaving. It obviously is different now, but still... I'm pretty sure the TV channels still get paid if you mute the TV.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:42 am UTC

hppavilion1 wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:I have family who immediately mute the TV or leave the room once commercials start. Should this be considered unethical?

I'm sure someone has already said this, but I'd like to point out that TV doesn't (or at least used to not) have any way to tell if you mute the TV on the commercials. Historically, though it's probably not so much like this any more, TV was just outgoing signals, no signals leaving. It obviously is different now, but still... I'm pretty sure the TV channels still get paid if you mute the TV.

Sure, but the contracts that the site producers choose to make with the advertisers doesn't modify my rights or obligations as an audient.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

duodecimus
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby duodecimus » Tue May 19, 2015 12:32 pm UTC

On the topic of Adblock and hurting the people who make stuff we like...

Is it possible/legal/detectable to use an Adblock-esqe program that would mark the ads as viewed/clicked?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby CorruptUser » Fri May 22, 2015 5:18 pm UTC

If you are referring to the cookies that 'advertisers' use to claim they redirected you to a company and get paid in spite of not providing anything of worth? Unethical, and I think recently ruled illegal. If you are referring to a method where you can visit a website and the ads will think you saw them when you didn't, no more unethical than going to the bathroom during tv commercials.

User avatar
Anti Spiral
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:55 am UTC
Location: Space.

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Anti Spiral » Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:40 am UTC

As someone who works for a company that creates and places adverts on websites I should probably feel even worst for using Adblocks, more than normal web users anyway. But I don't, adverts are irritating and browsing without ads in much more enjoyable. Luckily there are enough users that do browse without adblock. The internet without adblock wouldn't be sustainable (in it's current form).

I would argue that those who do browse with adblock are less likely to improve ctr of adverts anyway.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 809
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby MartianInvader » Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:40 pm UTC

Using AdBlock has a "tradgedy of the commons" feel - each individual user doesn't change the overall ecosystem much, and improves their own personal experience. However, as more and more people use it, we're getting closer and closer to a day when an ad-supported internet is no longer sustainable - meaning we would all have to start paying for subscriptions or something to search the web, see our friends' posts, or watch online video. And that would suck for everybody.

And make no mistake, if you look at the numbers ad blocker use is increasing steadily over the years, so I don't think it's that far-fetched that we'll one day see a paid-only internet.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:44 pm UTC

Or the sites will instead be supported by donations or through merchandise, or virtually every site I use anyway?

Webcomics
Wikipedia and clones
Moar webcomics
Pron -ok, not sure how that gets funded
Gaming support

commodorejohn
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Aug 25, 2015 12:01 am UTC

Even aside from the ethical considerations, there's the way ad services are frequently used as a distribution center for malware injections...
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby ahammel » Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:17 am UTC

The end game I'm hoping for is an internet supported by ads which are a) not frequent malware vectors and b) designed so as not to annoy potential customers so much that they go out of their way to block them.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:00 am UTC

The holy grail of internet advertising are ads that convince you they are part of the website so you accidentally click on them. The worst of the worst are the fake downloads. So, less annoying? Hardly. I don't think I've EVER clicked on an ad intentionally.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby elasto » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:56 am UTC

I think the way Youtube does adverts is pretty much perfect:

- Interstitial ads that you can usually click to close after a few seconds (giving Google and the advertiser valuable information that their ad wasn't interesting/engaging enough)
- Small unobtrusive ads in the corner of the screen that you can ignore or close (ditto)

I wouldn't block those ads even if I could.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby ucim » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:59 am UTC

elasto wrote:I think the way Youtube does adverts is pretty much perfect:
It may be the videographer and not youtube, but the ads that pop up ON TOP OF the thing I'm watching, with a big CLICK HERE and a tiny (x) you have to hunt for, are extremely annoying. They take me away from what I'm watching, and if I miss the (x) they take me to some other website I didn't want to go to.

No. Not perfect by any means. Those ads are a punch in the face. I'd block them in a flash if I could.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby elasto » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:04 am UTC

Yeah, that's the videographer, not Youtube. I just won't watch that person's videos any more. Though I suppose Youtube is partly at fault for including the technology that let's people add those annoying overlays.

I don't browse Youtube for random videos anyhow. Mostly I use it for music videos and film trailers, and occasionally search for tv shows like ones showing poker. More often than not, the links I get offered are actually interesting and relevant...

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Lucrece » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:59 am UTC

Many good sites have taken a hit.


The glbtq project was founded in 2000 by Publisher Wik Wikholm to create the world's largest encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer culture and history and to deliver it online. The contents of the encyclopedia were formed and overseen by General Editor Claude Summers, Copy Editor Ted-Larry Pebworth, and Assistant to the Editor Linda Rapp. After more than two years of work, the site launched in 2003.

The site grew to become the largest glbtq encyclopedia ever created thanks to the work of its editors and more than 350 contributors. The website also included a variety of essays, a few interviews with contemporary figures, and, during its last few years of operation, a blog written by Claude Summers. Claude Summers' blog is archived at the ONE Institute in Los Angeles.

The project also produced three books: The Queer Encyclopedia of the Visual Arts (2004); The Queer Encyclopedia of Music, Dance, and Musical Theater (2004); and The Queer Encyclopedia of Film and Television (2005), all published by Cleis Press.

The website closed on August 1, 2015 because of the collapse of the online advertising business model that had supported it.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby elasto » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:51 am UTC

But if users refuse to subscribe, and refuse to donate, and refuse to whitelist it, how is that really the fault of a service like adblock? Wikipedia survives ad-free. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

As worthy as any site might be, if people refuse to support it either directly or indirectly, and no government grant or charity will step in, in any world that site is gonna fold.

I mean, was there really no glbtq charity that could have stepped in and put in the funds to keep it running? If none of them felt it was worth it to do so, maybe it wasn't such a great site after all..? Maybe there are other great sites out there also meeting the need..?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:33 am UTC

Ads are passive. Whitelisting a site is active. Most people will not bother to go out of their way to whitelist a site even if they use it regularly.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby elasto » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:27 pm UTC

Sure, but if the site in question puts up a banner saying 'hey, unless you guys donate to our bandwidth fund or buy a couple of our books - or at least whitelist us and click on a couple of ads - we're gonna have to close down' and noone does - did anyone really care about the site very much to begin with?

Randall clearly makes enough money to sustain this board; If he can do it year on year without any ads, why can't they?

My conclusion is that the visitors to that site just didn't care enough to keep it open - most likely because there are other resources and sites out there of equivalent quality.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:50 pm UTC

I've only whitelisted a few sites, and I enjoy about 20 or so. Mostly webcomics, a news site, and a couple wikis. The news is BBC, and I'm tired of seeing links to other BS stories on any news site, so I'll never whitelist them even though I like the site. The wikis don't have ads, other than "please donate" of course. The webcomics vary. I mean, I really should whitelist SMBC, but Zach gets over $100k/yr from Patreon alone on top of all the merchandise sales and so forth, so I don't think theres a risk of it going under without advertising revenue. I've whitelisted MGDMT (and her other website and her boyfriend's GRG), Gunnerkrigg Court, and a couple others. It also depends how many ads are blocked; if I see adblock is removing one or two ads, sure, but if I see 5+ on one page, not a chance.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:35 pm UTC

Honestly, ads don't provide a ton of revenue to begin with. A single impression is worth a tiny fraction of a penny, generally speaking. If anything. Often, only clicks are worth anything, and click through ratios are often terribly low.

I dabbled with this back in the day, and say, getting an article slashdotted with a reasonable number of ads would get you maybe $10 or so. Weee. I think I made about $60 total before giving it up as not worth the time.

I'm not even sure that ads are worth it at their present cost, given how widely they're ignored, and the fact that most ads probably only get clicked by accident.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Isaac Hill » Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:46 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Honestly, ads don't provide a ton of revenue to begin with. A single impression is worth a tiny fraction of a penny, generally speaking. If anything. Often, only clicks are worth anything, and click through ratios are often terribly low.
Only caring if people click the ad when they see it sounds like an unreasonable expectation on the advertiser's part. Other forms of advertising don't judge their success by whether you to drop what you're doing to check out the product immediately. When I see a Ford ad on TV, Ford is not expecting me to stop watching the show and head down to my local dealership.

The internet is a nigh infinite font of information, entertainment, and pornography. The possibility of anyone choosing to ignore all this in favor of Microsoft's promises to have their OS fixed by the time these babies are grown is so remote as to be negligible. Just because the clickthrough metric is easy to measure doesn't make it any good.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:45 pm UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Honestly, ads don't provide a ton of revenue to begin with. A single impression is worth a tiny fraction of a penny, generally speaking. If anything. Often, only clicks are worth anything, and click through ratios are often terribly low.
Only caring if people click the ad when they see it sounds like an unreasonable expectation on the advertiser's part. Other forms of advertising don't judge their success by whether you to drop what you're doing to check out the product immediately. When I see a Ford ad on TV, Ford is not expecting me to stop watching the show and head down to my local dealership.


Yeah, they are. Usually, there's some form of tracking for most advertisements. They're advertising the new model that just came out. Or a deal that lasts for a limited time. And they track how many people are buying in relationship to the ad.

Now, there are exceptions, such as branding, etc(coke would be the go-to example), but advertising is inherently sales centric. The entire purpose is to make you buy, or at least visit and consider buying.

Also, online ads don't work terribly well for branding. A commercial before the movie in the theater? They don't have a ton else to focus on. It's just the ad in front of you at that time. Online ads, almost by definition, are not the central focus. And when they are forced into focus, people mostly hate them because they're disruptive.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby elasto » Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Also, online ads don't work terribly well for branding. A commercial before the movie in the theater? They don't have a ton else to focus on. It's just the ad in front of you at that time. Online ads, almost by definition, are not the central focus. And when they are forced into focus, people mostly hate them because they're disruptive.

Yeah. Another example of advertising done well, I feel, is the model some freemium games use:

Need some gold? Click on the 'play me an ad' button. The ad plays though and you get some in-game currency. Otherwise you never see an ad anywhere ever.

Ok, so the person could just click the button and turn away - and many times they probably do - but by virtue of the fact it's a full-screen ad with nothing else to focus on, many people are going to watch it just for the sake of stimulation.

Dunno how well it could work to pay for a website though: Maybe playing an ad could get you 'supporter points' that give you better badges by your username when you post or something? Or maybe unlock custom avatars or custom emoticons? Is obviously going to have a different mechanic in different situations.

User avatar
notzeb
Without Warning
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:44 am UTC
Location: a series of tubes

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby notzeb » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:29 pm UTC

Would you call someone who chooses not to get a free flu shot during flu season unethical? What if you had a friend who was paid ten dollars every time he infected someone with the flu, and chose to support him by letting him infect you with the flu - would that be unethical?

If so, I would argue that not using AdBlock (or some equivalent) is unethical. Getting infected by malware doesn't just affect you, if your computer becomes part of a botnet.
Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­Z

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Azrael » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:30 pm UTC

notzeb wrote:If so, I would argue that not using AdBlock (or some equivalent) is unethical. Getting infected by malware doesn't just affect you, if your computer becomes part of a botnet.

Malware protection exists, entirely independent of whether it also blocks ads.

Trying to prove the ethics of removing all advertising content by arguing that operating without malware is unethical is bad logic/rhetoric, and you should feel bad.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:01 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Also, online ads don't work terribly well for branding. A commercial before the movie in the theater? They don't have a ton else to focus on. It's just the ad in front of you at that time. Online ads, almost by definition, are not the central focus. And when they are forced into focus, people mostly hate them because they're disruptive.

Yeah. Another example of advertising done well, I feel, is the model some freemium games use:

Need some gold? Click on the 'play me an ad' button. The ad plays though and you get some in-game currency. Otherwise you never see an ad anywhere ever.

Ok, so the person could just click the button and turn away - and many times they probably do - but by virtue of the fact it's a full-screen ad with nothing else to focus on, many people are going to watch it just for the sake of stimulation.

Dunno how well it could work to pay for a website though: Maybe playing an ad could get you 'supporter points' that give you better badges by your username when you post or something? Or maybe unlock custom avatars or custom emoticons? Is obviously going to have a different mechanic in different situations.


Yeah, it works well for games, sure. Pop-over ads on websites are usually fairly obnoxious, though. Some do the ad-supported free model with a paid subscription, some put paywalls around various bits of content. Usually all of these are disliked by a goodly bit of the audience. Which doesn't make them inherently bad or anything, it's just a tradeoff.

Azrael wrote:
notzeb wrote:If so, I would argue that not using AdBlock (or some equivalent) is unethical. Getting infected by malware doesn't just affect you, if your computer becomes part of a botnet.

Malware protection exists, entirely independent of whether it also blocks ads.

Trying to prove the ethics of removing all advertising content by arguing that operating without malware is unethical is bad logic/rhetoric, and you should feel bad.


Agreed. Avoiding malware is fine and dandy, but a ton of ads are not significant threats, and plenty of other threat vectors exist. I feel like it's ethically safer to just avoid sites you know to be risky altogether. I'd rather give pageviews/dollars/whatever to stable, trustworthy sites as a rule.

User avatar
notzeb
Without Warning
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:44 am UTC
Location: a series of tubes

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby notzeb » Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:20 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
notzeb wrote:If so, I would argue that not using AdBlock (or some equivalent) is unethical. Getting infected by malware doesn't just affect you, if your computer becomes part of a botnet.

Malware protection exists, entirely independent of whether it also blocks ads.

Trying to prove the ethics of removing all advertising content by arguing that operating without malware is unethical is bad logic/rhetoric, and you should feel bad.
I'm not convinced that effective malware protection does exist, currently. I've always been convinced that most code is buggy as hell, including security code, and that that isn't going to change any time soon. Based on articles like this one and several pieces of anecdotal evidence, even ads on trusted websites can be dangerous. But maybe I'm just exposing my ignorance here.

Regardless, there is certainly no such thing as malware protection for the brain. This is a much weaker argument, but I'd still rather not live in a world where my friends are influenced to do stupid things (I'm thinking of things like cigarette commercials here).
Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­Z

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:31 pm UTC

notzeb wrote:I'm not convinced that effective malware protection does exist, currently. I've always been convinced that most code is buggy as hell, including security code, and that that isn't going to change any time soon. Based on articles like this one and several pieces of anecdotal evidence, even ads on trusted websites can be dangerous. But maybe I'm just exposing my ignorance here.


There is a difference between effective and perfectly effective. Very, very few things are perfectly effective.

And of course, this is also true of ad-blockers with regards to preventing malware.

Regardless, there is certainly no such thing as malware protection for the brain. This is a much weaker argument, but I'd still rather not live in a world where my friends are influenced to do stupid things (I'm thinking of things like cigarette commercials here).


People are influenced to do stupid things by more than just commercials, and the effect/value of commercials is actually apparently pretty small. That said, if you feel strongly about avoiding commercials, pay alternatives do usually exist.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:People are influenced to do stupid things by more than just commercials, and the effect/value of commercials is actually apparently pretty small. That said, if you feel strongly about avoiding commercials, pay alternatives do usually exist.

Or you can, y'know, just ignore the commercials, which is all ad-block is.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby brenok » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:59 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Or you can, y'know, just ignore the commercials, which is all ad-block is.

Ignoring commercials doesn't deprive content-creators of income.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby ucim » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:25 am UTC

brenok wrote:Ignoring commercials doesn't deprive content-creators of income.
Well, actually it does, indirectly. More specifically, leaving the room when a TV ad is being broadcast, if you are a (randomly selected) Nielson's rating participant, directly deprives them of income by affecting the ad's ratings. If you are not a Nielson's rating, this isn't the case, but then, if your behavior changes depending on which it is, then you are gaming the system. So, if you do not game the system, and you walk away from the TV when an ad is playing, then you are depriving the advertiser of revenue, above and beyond the fact that you have prevented yourself from being subject to their message.

The question is whether one is obligated to subject themselves to the influences of ads.

I say no.

And as a consequence, I say it's fine to walk away from ads, and to use ad block, and to employ any means you wish in order to avoid advertising. And if the adveriser suffers, them's the breaks. You have no responsibility to support advertisers.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby elasto » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:40 am UTC

I concur. Your only obligation (in the loosest possible sense) is to the website owner whose content you are consuming.

But it's his responsibility to find a way to monetize his site whether that's just to break-even or to turn a profit - and advertising is only one of a whole host of ways he could do it (charity, grant, patreon, donations, adverts, merchandising etc.)

And if noone is willing to fund him through any of those routes - is his website really worth the electronic ink it is written on?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:27 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:People are influenced to do stupid things by more than just commercials, and the effect/value of commercials is actually apparently pretty small. That said, if you feel strongly about avoiding commercials, pay alternatives do usually exist.

Or you can, y'know, just ignore the commercials, which is all ad-block is.


The deal is, essentially, "free content if you watch commercials". Now, expectations of actual attention paid to commercials are low, but above "technically blocked from appearing at all". In short, you're really not holding up your end of the deal with regards to consuming content. Now, if you opt to pay to avoid ads, cool, whatever, that's an alternative deal.

And, if a whole bunch of people block ads, then websites are going to find it more difficult to monetize things in that manner. They'll turn to donations, or paywalls, or whatever else. If you're embracing those other things, fine. If you're not, you're essentially just a free rider, relying on other people to subsidize your content.

You don't HAVE to watch ads. Watching ads is just one way to support people who make things you like.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:02 pm UTC

So is it then unethical to tape a TV show and fast-forward through the commercial breaks?

Really this entire discussion is reminiscent of what people were saying when VCRs came out...
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:01 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:So is it then unethical to tape a TV show and fast-forward through the commercial breaks?

Really this entire discussion is reminiscent of what people were saying when VCRs came out...


Fast forward? Nah. You're still being exposed to them, just not giving them much attention. That's pretty much in line with expectations.

But if you recorded it, trimmed all the commercials out, and started handing out copies, you're pretty clearly breaking the social contract there. Leaving aside legal concerns, that's kind of doing things because you can, not because there's any intent to support the show, or provide compensation for use.

Removing something entirely is different from not giving it your full attention.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:11 pm UTC

Who's handing out copies? In this analogy, if I'm editing them out, it's only for my own personal use.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:17 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Who's handing out copies? In this analogy, if I'm editing them out, it's only for my own personal use.


If a robot is removing all the ads out before you ever see them, that's probably a little much. If they're there for you to see, but you don't care about them...whatever. The implied content provider/consumer agreement is only that you'll take the ads to get the stuff you want. Not that you'll care about/focus on the ads. That's on the maker of the ads to worry about.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby ucim » Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:10 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The deal is, essentially, "free content if you watch commercials".
No, that's not true at all.

That may be the expectation on the part of the content provider, but there is no "deal" in place at all.

It's "free content with commercials." I have no obligation to watch or pay attention to any part of this free content, including commercials.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Ethics of AdBlock

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:30 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The deal is, essentially, "free content if you watch commercials".
No, that's not true at all.

That may be the expectation on the part of the content provider, but there is no "deal" in place at all.

It's "free content with commercials." I have no obligation to watch or pay attention to any part of this free content, including commercials.

Jose


It isn't an explicit contract, no. But oftentimes in social arrangements, there's an implicit agreement as to how things are done. We're not talking legality here, we're talking ethics. "I haven't signed an agreement to the contrary" doesn't make everything moral.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests