[bediger4000]

How is ad blocking an ethical issue? I get to control my computer, at least until some legislation passes that says I don't.

Even if I don't control my computer entirely, how about my DNS? I have a lot of the more intrusive domains (tynt, doubleclick, etc) set up as 127.0.0.1 in my dnsmasq config.

The "whose computer is it anyway" question seems key here. In order to make advertising possible, we have to take control away from owners. That seems like a generally bad outcome.

[philh]

You get to control your computer, but there are some things which it's unethical to control your computer to do.

It would be unethical to prevent people from blocking ads, but that doesn't mean it's ethical for people to block ads.

(I'm not saying it's not ethical for people to block ads, just that I don't think your argument works.)

[ghshephard]

The ethical issue is with regards to people reading all the content supported by advertising, but then blanking out all the ads. Marco's taking the position that, given the risk, and the general intrusiveness and privacy violations associated with advertising, that it's entirely ethical to do so.

[WorldWideWayne]

Don't you think the bigger ethical issue here is how content providers keep using ad networks that commonly serve as a delivery mechanism for malware?

Reading someone's content without looking at their ads seems like a relatively minor infraction in comparison.

[ghshephard]

I agree with Marco - I think the pendulum regarding security and privacy has swung too far, and it's entirely ethical to block such code from running on your system.

I think a form of ads that are entirely reasonable (though hard to scale), are the ones that Gruber sticks himself into his DF feed. and, ironically, they are extraordinarily effective - I can probably name, by heart, about 20 of his sponsors. And I've visited, and purchased products from many of them.

[hsod]

The ethical argument, which is briefly considered in this article, is that by blocking ads you are violating an implied agreement with the site owners.

Legality and technology are irrelevant, it's simply a question of whether or not such an implied agreement exists and whether or not it is ethical to break it.

My opinion is that such an agreement does exist, and that it is a (very minor) unethical act to break it, and that it is a much larger unethical act to brag gleefully about breaking it as many are doing in this thread.

The virtuous way to respond to an untenable agreement is to avoid it altogether, not to take the parts that benefit you and violate the parts that don't.

[flavor8]

Are there any analagous "implied agreements" that lend weight to your opinion, or are we breaking new ground with this?

And as a counterpoint, I would suggest that the "implied agreement" respects the user to whom ads are being served. Sites like gawker, huffington, techcrunch who attempt to sell my behavior to 6-10 ad networks are stepping over that line.

[njharman]

You're making the wrong argument. You get to control what you are subjected to. If you don't want to be bombarded by psychologically manipulative propaganda, it is just, correct, ethical, and legal(for now) not to be.

If you produce ad burdened content hoping that I will allow myself to be advertised to. I'm glad to crush that hope. You can charge for your content, stop producing it, etc. What you can't do is demand I endure you're fucking advertising.

[bediger4000]

Thank you. I was indeed making the wrong argument. Your argument is much better, and takes the ethical high ground.

[zzalpha]

How is ad blocking an ethical issue? I get to control my computer, at least until some legislation passes that says I don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

No one said it's a black-and-white ethical issue. It's unquestionably a dilemma. And as a user of ad blocking software, one I myself wrestle with.

[danielweber]

"It can't be unethical because it's not illegal" is question-begging.

[bediger4000]

But we see the "You have to do this (possibly) unethical thing because it's the law" (capital punishment, imprisonment for victimless crimes, etc) all the time. Why not the opposite of "it's ethical because it's the law"?

[minimaxir]

> How is ad blocking an ethical issue?

Many people rely on ads for a livelihood without charging for content; ad-blocking would deprive of their livelihood. This was a contentious issue for niche video content creators (e.g. the nostalgic review craze that happened a few years ago)

Most of these content creators have switched to Patreon/Kickstarter.

[ksk]

That is not a good argument to make. The corollary is that the telecom companies "own" their infrastructure. They can modify any packets sent from your computer to theirs, insert tracking, or peek at it or whatever. After all, YOU sent the packet to them.

[codezero]

They actually do this. Adding unique identifiers to headers.

The U.S. Government also use the fact that telco owns the lines to justify mass surveillance since you are communicating on lines you don't own.

[marcosdumay]

Not to them, but through them.

I'm paying them to take that data, and deliver it verbatim to some other party.

They are reasonably free to refuse to take my money (they may have traded that freedom for some other gain, but then it's a different story), what they can't do is claim they are providing that service, while adulterating my data.

[ksk]

>Not to them, but through them.

To send it through them, you have to send it TO them. You know what I meant, lets not waste time on this.

> what they can't do is claim they are providing that service, while adulterating my data.

They can do anything they want, unless its against the law. (Or to be more specific, unless its proven in a court to be against the law).

The point is that we are relying on COMMONLY AGREED terms of what a service must provide. There is no explicit legal definition of what a routing service must do. The legal case, is not the same as the technical case.

I was replying to the person whose argument was - my computer, my rules. My point is the telecom can go - My router/infrastructure, my rules.

[stdbrouw]

Do you really believe that the only reason "it's my car and I can run over whoever I like" is ethically wrong is because there's a law that says you can't run over people?

[Spivak]

No, but it's my car so I can take off all the manufacturer and dealer badges.

[netrus]

Even if you got the car for free, because the manufacturer wants people to see you driving it? Sounds unethical to me.

[bediger4000]

That's quite a bit different - there's probably a contractual (legal) obligation there.

I use my bandwidth to retrieve the web page, and my CPU/GPU time to render it. Arguably, my computer is doing some of the work for the "content creator" in any case. If we're going the Car Analogy Route, then I think the situation is more like you've bought some blueprints and chunks of metal. You machined the chunks of metal into parts, and then assembled a car. Does Ford or VW or GM get to demand that you put their badges/plates/etc on it?

This is to point out that physical analogies are slippery at best.

[h3st]

The assembly / bandwidth / cpu / etc argument really shines for limited platforms. E.g. if you're on metered internet, loading ads costs you money. If you're on a small device, playing ads costs you power, meaning you have to find a charger sooner.

Computer ads aren't free for the people subjected to them, since we're the ones that have to do the work of displaying them. Compare that to paper / magazine ads add a few grams of weight and a bit of volume, but rarely in noticeable amounts, and billboard ads that don't cost the recipient any resources by being there (except maybe having to step around them).

[pdkl95]

> paper / magazine ads add a few grams of weight and a bit of volume, but rarely in noticeable amounts

Have you even seen dead-tree magazines in the lase ~decade? They are often half (or more!) ads. I hardly call >50% of the volume/mass to be "rarely noticeable".

I'm sure there are counterexamples of saner magazines, but they are certainly not the common experience.

[pdkl95]

How many car manufacturers do you know that give away cars for free - which are build pre-packaged with advertising - without fist getting you to sign a contract that stipulates the terms of that arrangement? Only with that contract can they prevent you from modifying the product they gave you.

That is the entire point of the "first-sale doctrine"[1]. You can only control your product up until the point you hand it over to the first customer, and what they do with it after that point - provided[2] they stay within the law - is up to them.

The big problem with "blocking ads is unethical" is that it presumes that the relationship between the website and client is covered by some sort of contract. It absolutely is not. Far too many people think they can unilaterally generate a contract of adhesion[3] and then proceed as if it was agreed to simply because they wish it was so or they listed some fine print in the ToS/etc.

Bonus: I don't think the people who push this kind of "pseudo-contract by ultimatum" have really thought about the full mutually-assured-destruction consequences of this kind of scam becoming acceptable to society. Imagine this HTTP header, which has the advantage of being presented before the transaction has been completed, which leaves the server free to decline the offer:

    X-CLIENT-ADVIEW-PRICES: each_image=0.05@USD each_video=5.00@USD:max_time=2m30s
    X-CLIENT-ADVIEW-PAYMENTS: some_type_of_payment_routing_number

Would the "content producers" like it if that was enforcable? How about the reverse: mandating zero-cost for a subscription site? If you think this is ridiculous: good - it is ridiculous. Just like when the advertisers do it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

[2] Other laws like copyright are, of course, still apply.

[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_o...

[eli]

How is downloading cracked software or stolen movies an ethical issue?

[drdaeman]

Primarily, it's a legal issue.

Although I genuinely wonder what came first - the discussion of ethics of "stealing" books or discussion of ethics of passed copyright laws.

[eli]

So blocking ads is ethical because it's legal? That doesn't sound right.

[drdaeman]

As for ads - I suppose if there is an ongoing ethics discussion already (and I believe there is), then it's ethical issue. Not sure, though.

It's comparison that's didn't sound right to me. I'm just not sure it's well-comparable, because I suppose the major ethical debate about copyright infringement came from the existence of copyright laws. Which is not the case for ad-blocking.

[reasonishy]

OK, so the equivalent would be this:

I buy magazines from the wholesaler. I rip out all the adverts. I then sell them to the public.

I'm acting as a lovely "ad-blocker" for magazines. Is what I'm doing legal or ethical?

Another argument would be is it ethical to block people who have adblock installed. In such an arms race, who will win?

[markbnj]

I don't think that analogy holds up, since the viewer of a web page is not reselling the content (which would be the unethical part). It would be more accurate to ask whether removing the ad pages in magazines you keep for your own use was ethical. The obvious answer would be: of course.

[Retra]

It's even ok to hire someone to rip the ads out for you beforehand.

[jgrowl]

As someone who uses ad-blockers, I am totally fine with sites blocking me for it. I will disable adblock for that site if I really value the content. Otherwise it makes it really easy for me to decide to never go back to a site again.

[red_admiral]

When a site asks nicely, I always disable my adblocker and reload. I did that today on a page and was met with a full-page video overlay ad, with a tiny X in the corner that opened a new tab to the target site anyway when I clicked it. After closing the ad and the new tab, I had to scroll down a page more of ads to find the start of the article and after a few seconds reading another overlay popped up, asking me to connect with facebook or at least enter my e-mail address.

It took them all of 10 seconds or so to convince me to turn uBlock back on and refresh again. If you want me to keep it off, you need to at least let me read the article!

[nightmiles]

> I buy magazines from the wholesaler. I rip out all the adverts. I then sell them to the public.

Why wouldn't this be legal or ethical? What you choose to do with the mass of paper you just purchased is totally fine.

[reasonishy]

At the very least the magazine producer may get angry, and make it hard for you to buy the magazines.

[nightmiles]

And there's nothing wrong with either of those things happening, either.

[JD557]

I think magazines is the wrong analogy here, as you paid for them.

A better example would be doing the same to free newspapers.