[enjo]

The point still holds.

If you don't like it, don't consume the resources of the site serving the adds. This idea that your entitled to the content, without actually 'paying' for it (you pay by giving up a bit of privacy to heighten the value of the ads) is just wrong in my world view.

It's not stealing. It's not piracy. It's just the wrong thing to do.

[Willie_Dynamite]

Pft, that gentleman's agreement was broken when they sold my privacy down the river.

[ErrantX]

They are not selling your privacy, don't be dramatic.

[djcapelis]

Given that they are in fact exchanging his privacy for money, I'm not sure your assertion holds... perhaps the poster is being over-dramatic about it, but I don't see how they're not selling privacy to some extent.

Selling people's privacy is part of an ad company's revenue stream. Ad networks pay sites to post ads. Sites make money, in part, from selling their user's privacy.

One can quibble whether or not this is a big deal, but I don't think one can say it simply doesn't happen.

[ErrantX]

It doesn't really happen though; to sell privacy you have to remove a portion of it to sell.

Now we can argue the semantics of whether the act of visiting a website is considered private knowledge. I'd argue not - it's like walking into a shop, the shop has the right to say "hey you know who was here earlier?". But at the end of the day "they are selling my privacy" is over dramatizing what is happening. By visiting any website you run the risk - how do you know they are not selling the IP logs directly etc.

Visiting websites is just, within reason, public knowledge.

I also wonder how many advertisers actually use the data to target ads - and how much of it is used simply for numbers tracking (I dont know either way but it would be interested to see). I mention this because, when I run w/o ad blockers I don't really see anything actively targeted at me.

This incessant use of the word "privacy" in contexts where it doesn't really apply frustrates me: because it dumbs down situations where privacy is actually affected.

[BrandonM]

The point is not a single visit to a single site. When you have a large ad network advertising all across the web, they are serving you ads on all kinds of sites. A big enough ad provider (think doubleclick or google) gets to see every site you visit and what order you visit them in. They know what times and what days you browse. If that's not an invasion of privacy, then it's at least akin to stalking.

Regardless of what you call it I'm not comfortable with it, and I'm not going to disable my ad blocker any time soon. The only reason I even went to ars technica was to read this article; I'll be happy to not return.

[prodigal_erik]

In fact there is an entire sub-industry of behavioral targeting information brokers out there, reselling your history to ad networks who don't have enough data about you in their own logs.

[slig]

The privacy police is there. If you don't agree, move on.

[rimantas]

  If you don't like it, don't consume the resources of the
  site serving the adds

Wow, if you don't like your resources being consumed—don't put that on the web.

[enjo]

Just because it's technically feasible doesn't make it right. Consuming resources without contributing anything back makes you a leech, nothing more. That the internet is involved is merely semantics.

[rythie]

Many of the adverts are in Flash, if I don't have Flash installed am I stealing too?

[RK]

My crazy phone doesn't even support flash for some reason...

[ximeng]

A lot of people don't think it's wrong. Ars politely asking has apparently persuaded some people that using an ad blocker is wrong. People caring about whether you are making money comes after you've established a relationship with them, not before. More will continue using an ad blocker I'm sure, despite Ars' entreaties. The problem is the people that don't love sites like Ars.

I suspect part of the problem is for sites like this is that when your top story for the week is the new Ubuntu colour-scheme, then your users probably are not going to pay for your information and analysis.

p.s. For the avoidance of doubt this comment is free to view and unencumbered.

[trevelyan]

A lot of people running premium/freemium sites compete in some capacity for advertising space on totally free, advertising-funded sites. More user blocking of major advertising networks means lower prices for advertisers who place directly. It also deals a blow to parasitic SEO sites that do nothing but serve out adverts, taking up space in SERPs that would otherwise go to actual content providers. Huzzah!

[lucifer]

No, this is precisely how we can force them to rethink their approach. I don't want Google to know my every move on the net. Its that simple. Beyond that, I couldn't care less if someone wants to stick useless bits on their content to make money; I generally ignore it.