[jwise0]

Well, the royal "we", perhaps :-)

I started blocking ads because they dramatically slowed down my browsing experience. But I keep blocking ads because, fundamentally, I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me.

The old Sean Tejaratchi quote - popularized by Banksy - applies here, I think - http://www.readingfrenzy.com/ledger/2012/03/taking_the_piss

[bargl]

I just want to go out there and say, they don't have the right to poison you, but you don't have the right to their content...

I fall in this weird spot with ads. I don't like them, they slow down the experience, they can have PORN on them (this happened to my brother the other day), they have little oversight and track you. Many things I do not approve of.

What I DO approve of is paying content creators. And unless you are paying to remove ads through google or something else then you aren't paying the content creators and this is how we get paywalls. Which I personally don't like and even worse, plagiarized articles from pay-walled articles so that we can see them on sites where we can just block ads.

I'm not saying I think ad blockers are bad. I just think we shouldn't feel that we have a right to content without ads if they are done properly. I.E. Not tracking, no malware in ads, etc. etc. If we get ads that server all 3 parties (consumer, ad companies, and content creators) so that consumers don't have to pay then I think we should be ready to get back on board.

[chii]

> you don't have the right to their content...

if they allow the public to view their content, they cannot dictate how the content is viewed. There's ways to block people from viewing content if ads are blocked - but a lot of sites don't do that, because they deem the traffic more important.

[pmoriarty]

Forbes has started blocking their content if their site detects the use of an ad-blocker.

Interestingly, their content is still viewable (though in raw form) when viewing the page source, at least for now, and there are extensions allowing you to view it anyway.

The content-blocking / anti-content-blocking arms race has begun.

[etatoby]

Forbes started by asking nicely for people to disable ad blocking on their site, stating that their ads were not obnoxious nor dangerous.

I complied, just to find myself overwhelmed by some of the most obnoxious, heavy, and dangerous ads around.

The solution? STOP VISITING FORBES. It's that simple.

It also shows that you can't trust the publishers themselves to rate their own ads, and that's why an initiative like ABP's one is a good thing.

[lamontcg]

> STOP VISITING FORBES.

that was my solution. i've never found an article on forbes that was really critical to my life that i couldn't live without. generally its some clickbaity headline that i'm only very mildly interested in knowing what they have to say, and i'm happy to find some other source of basically the same information if i actually care. the only thing that forbes offers over their competition is that they wind up at the top of google results because all that ad revenue must get poured into hiring SEO optimization experts...

[Grishnakh]

Yes, but viewing the source or using extra extensions is more work. Is it really worth all that trouble to view Forbes articles?

Here's what I did: when Forbes asked me to disable my ad-blocker, I politely ignored the request. When it demanded that I disable my ad-blocker, and actively prevented me from viewing the articles, I simply went elsewhere. Problem solved: they made it too difficult to see their site while blocking ads, so I stopped going to their site.

Every site which really believes that ad-blocking is "theft" should do the same. But as long as they happily allow me to see the site while blocking ads, I have no problem doing so. I'm merely politely declining to view the ads, just as I politely decline the extra warranty when buying stuff, or I might not bother showing up early enough to see the ads in a theater before a movie, or I don't bother looking at billboards on the highway, or I muted the TV and/or went to the bathroom during commercial breaks back in the days when I watched TV.

If you really want people to look at your ads, you need to enforce that, instead of just whining about it. But if you enforce it, you might drive some people away, but there's nothing you can do about that. You can't have it both ways.

[themartorana]

"...if they allow the public to view their content, they cannot dictate how the content is viewed..."

You could not be more wrong. I am having a hard time imagining any art installation, public park, etc., that does not have rules about how you use and consume it. Offering something to the public does not mean the method of consumption is suddenly a free-for-all.

This is a ridiculous assumption that gets played out here a lot. There is an agreed-upon trade taking place - you get to consume content, they get to advertise to you. If you don't like the terms, you should avoid engaging in the transaction.

I do believe that tracking your activity borders on an illegal invasion of privacy, and so I support blocking trackers. If trackers come disguised as ads, they should be blocked. That said, trackers are most often invisible, and a person is unable to make a decision about the agreement at hand. There, the transaction is unfair. Ads however, are immediately clear, and make the value proposition very easy to understand.

Take movies, for example. You used to buy a ticket, and watch a movie. Then theaters started running commercials (not previews) before a film. I stopped going to theaters that run commercials. I understand that previews are also commercials, but I've made an informed decision about which types of transactions I'm willing to engage in with theaters.

The same should go for websites. I'm very happy to be passively advertised to in exchange for content. (Same happens on TV while watching football on the weekends - I've accepted the transaction.) Ads that auto-play videos with audio turned on? Absolutely not. And so sites that do that have become sites I don't visit.

So, I am all for sites refusing to provide content without a value exchange. I remain against illicit collection of private information without consent.

Edit: the down-votes are silly. Try engaging in conversation instead.

[thatswrong0]

> I understand that previews are also commercials, but I've made an informed decision about which types of transactions I'm willing to engage in with theaters.

You could also choose to "block" those ads by coming to movies late. That's what I do.. how is that different from blocking ads on the web? The theater is giving me advertisements + content, and I have the ability to ignore / block whatever I want by leaving / entering the theater. Until theaters stop allowing me into movies late and force my eyes open Lasik-style so that I _have_ to watch ads, I'm going to keep engaging in this perfectly ethical behavior.

[themartorana]

It's a loophole, but you're also not getting to see a movie for free. You paid actual money.

You could also resize your browser to block ads in a side column, but it's not the same thing.

[thatswrong0]

Let's assume movie tickets are free. Unless the ticket explicitly says, "You must watch the ads for this ticket to be valid", you're under no obligation to watch the ads before a movie, even if the theater's business model is dependent on your eyeballs actually seeing the ads. If that business model starts to fail because more and more people are realizing they don't have to watch the ads before a movie, you can't blame the people, you have to blame the business model. There's no reason to have a moral obligation to abide by some implicit non-legally binding contract, especially when that contract involves the invasion of my privacy and subjects me to potential violence.

[hnbroseph]

ads during football cannot potentially harm people like ads on websites can, have and will continue doing. you can also change the channel or use a recording device to omit ads.

also, i think the person you replied to was speaking more in terms of technical capability rather than some notion of quid pro quo.

[chris_7]

Besides non-direct harm like Quicken's "let's do the 2008 mortgage thing again" ad from last year's Super Bowl, a television ad can cause direct physical harm through flashing light (epilepsy) or excessive volume.

[blakeyrat]

If you eat a meal at a restaurant, they also cannot dictate that you must tip the waitstaff. But if you don't, you're a jackass.

[mikeash]

That's only because it's a nearly universal social convention in places where tipping is expected. We don't tip because the business is set up to expect it, we tip because society expects it. Businesses are set up to expect it because that's the universal social convention, not the other way around.

If suddenly a big social movement arose that condemned tipping, the landscape would shift, restaurants would stop accepting tips and start paying their staff more, and life would go on. It doesn't happen only because people are happy with the status quo.

That's not the case with advertising. There is no social expectation that you must watch ads. Quite the opposite, in fact: virtually everyone avoids ads when they can do so, with some interesting exceptions like movie trailers.

If you set up a business whose viability depends on your customers doing something they don't want to do, with no social convention to back you up, then you're going to have a bad time. And that's your fault, not your customers'.

[blakeyrat]

In most places in the US, that is not true. The minimum wage of someone who receives tips is lower than the normal minimum wage, specifically because "the business" is set up to expect tips.

Now I don't know where you live, but. I was speaking from the US perspective.

[fl0wenol]

Except some restaurants choose to include it anyway (especially for large parties).

And if you don't tip then employees at that establishment may not meet federal minimum wage. While businesses are supposed to make up the difference, in practice they don't. So there is considerable social pressure to tip because of this situation, and because many of us have worked in the restaurant business and appreciate how hard it is or know someone who has struggled there.

There is no such social obligation or shared experience when it comes to web content authoring and site maintenance.

Everyone I know who makes web content is doing it for free or even paying for hosting because they are pursuing it as a hobby. They all make money in other industries. Or they do web development in a traditional business for internal consumption and are on salary.

So blocking ads is natural to us all. We can't imagine the motivations of people making web content, freely viewable, with the expectation that they will be paid by ad revenue at some later time.

I don't know who these people are, but if they banded together and maybe formed a union or released a documentary, they could get the rest of us to start a conversation to move the status quo.

In the meantime I'll continue posting to sites like this for free without expectation of compensation for my time, and donating money to the running of sites I value if that option is made available to me.

[morgante]

This is a great metaphor and I'm totally stealing it. Ads are an expectation but not an obligation and by blocking them you are a free rider.

[Nadya]

In many countries, tipping is seen as an insult and is something that should be avoided. In a global context (which the Internet largely is) it isn't the best metaphor. Entire countries wouldn't understand it.

[Jordrok]

Yeah, but you still have to pay for the meal. Once Google starts charging you a flat fee for every search and you can optionally choose to view an ad where the revenue goes directly to a customer support employee (customer support at Google, ha), then you might have an argument.

[jwise0]

I think I agree with at least some of what you say. I feel bad viewing content from small blogs without "paying" for it. My current best compromise is that I run uBlock Origin with an exemption for Google, and then I use Contributor.

It's still not a perfect solution. I give up a lot privacy that way, and in order to use Contributor, I have to give up some of the other uBlock features that I really like (in particular, element-based blocking).

I will note, though, that I don't feel in the slightest bad viewing Facebook or Twitter with ads blocked. Facebook and Twitter survive by network effects; I couldn't reasonably opt out of using their services even if I want to. Since I'm forced to use their services, then, I think it's reasonable that I do so on my own terms.

[Grishnakh]

I'm all in favor of ad-blocking, but how on Earth are you "forced" to use Facebook and Twitter?

I don't even have a Twitter account, and never did. I don't give two shits what some celebrity has to say in some 160-character burst of text.

I do have a Facebook account, mainly to keep someone else from making one in my name, and also because it's used as an authentication mechanism for some services (like Tinder), but I don't actually spend any time there at all. Why would I? I don't care about seeing family photos for distant relatives or people I knew in high school, and I sure as hell don't want to read a bunch of wacko political BS, which is what most people seem to use the site for. If I want to keep up with friends or family, I use my telephone, email, or I visit them personally.

[bargl]

I like your note at the end and I agree with you. If you are being used for some other form of monetary benefit then ads don't make sense to me.

I would apply this model to, if I pay for TV don't give me ads too. Either raise your costs, provide me with a higher cost version of TV as an alternative or don't run ads. I look at the Tivo as one of the first Ad Block devices out there and there was a REASON it was created, you've already got me paying for this service why are you taking someone else' money too?

[stevesearer]

Check out the site in my profile, would love to hear your feedback - I sell and self-host all of my own advertising. Because I have that control the ads end up being both high-quality and targeted to the content (and the reader by association).

[themartorana]

Hey! This is great, although I imagine difficult to do when it's your business, and harder to do as a hobby. But I'd love to hear about your experience with this.

In any case, if I turn on uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger, I still end up with 15 things blocked: https://cl.ly/0l2r0d440G05

Some are recognizable - Facebook integration, for example. But I noticed that your domain is actually in the yellow for uBlock Origin! https://cl.ly/3v0f0h2K0a39

Looks like the naming convention of your ads is enough to throw up a red (yellow) flag: https://cl.ly/3N1x050G0Z0V

[stevesearer]

It actually is my full-time work and has been for 3-4 years now.

No idea what my domain being in the yellow means. Can you elaborate?

[bargl]

Is Framery one of your ads? The way you have it it feels like a link to another one of your own products. That's in part because you have content that is relevant and the layout gives the suggestion that they are tied to your product.

That's awesome. I like the fact that you are able to make this feasible and that you advertise based on your content and not your user. Kudos.

[agumonkey]

That fits my definition of acceptable. I, we, aren't blind to people's need to make money for the time and effort. But we don't want 50% clickbait video poppin up randomly. Same for battery life, etc etc. No JS.

With some fixed not too screamy image smartly positionned, I'd never block ads.

I don't get the logic behind these ads. They really think that shouting red stuff at my face will make me spend time and money ? If someone is looking for something he'll react to subtler cues. If the ad is really relevant (not just word match) to the content, it's even better. But that's a rare oddity.

[yann63]

> They really think that shouting red stuff at my face will make me spend time and money ?

Actually, yes, they do. And it scares me that they may be right. Ads are toxic. Why don't we ban them? I've yet to hear a sensible argument to keep ads.

[Intermernet]

The "sensible argument" is that ads allow small "content creators" to "monetize" their content.

I think this is mostly a fallacy. I know of many developers, bloggers, musicians, film makers, etc who put their content out into the public domain because that's what they want to do. There are "monetizing" opportunities above and beyond advertising that seem to work well, but the lowest common denominator, and by inference, the lowest form of media, are generally ad-driven.

People argue with "yeah, but what about game of thrones and silicon valley". I reply with "yeah, but what about keeping up with the kardashians, jersey shore and the latest CSI franchise".

The gold / dross ration is 1 / 99. We can easily lose most of the ad driven content in the world without losing entertaining content.

I may be a statistical aberration though. I'm obviously not the "target audience".

[chris_7]

> "yeah, but what about game of thrones and silicon valley"

But these are subscription-driven? The Americans would be a better example. I get shows like that on iTunes, because if a show is good enough to watch, it's too good to watch with commercial breaks.

[blakeyrat]

Well in the US we have this little thing called "Freedom of Speech", so unless you're prepared to push through a Constitutional Amendment, banning ads ain't gonna happen.

(Nor should it, in my opinion.)

Anyway, I can't give you a sensible argument to keep "brand" ads which strike me as ridiculous also. But if I'm an inventor and I invent a great new X, how the hell am I supposed to tell the world about it without advertising it in some form or another? "Hey, I have a machine that can make your life easier. But I can't tell you what it is or how to buy it, because ads are illegal. This makes sense."

[aninhumer]

> Ads are toxic. Why don't we ban them?

Because there's no way to do so that doesn't run into serious issues with Freedom of Speech, in both letter and spirit.

Who decides what's speech and what's an ad?

[nothrabannosir]

> They really think that shouting red stuff at my face will make me spend time and money ?

Much like SPAM, they wouldn't pay for it if it didn't work.

Unfortunately.

[agumonkey]

Yeah, stupid me, I bet the ROI is good enough otherwise they'd stop.

[balabaster]

I'm pretty much in agreement with this. I don't want to be advertised to unless I'm specifically looking for something and the ad is relevant to exactly that for exactly the time I'm looking for it. At all other times, I don't want companies constantly telling me what they can offer me. If I wanted that, I'd go to the mall.

[Fifer82]

I agree! I appear to have formed selective blindness from long term exposure which is quite useful! My eye appears to skip over anything considered an ad on most static mediums. I just don't notice them and if I do, my brain appears to discard it.

[dhimes]

Funny story about this: I was traveling back in February and returned home after about two weeks, during which my local Dunkin Donuts re-arranged their menu. I came in for my extra-large coffee but couldn't find it on the menu. I ordered a large, and mentioned that I used to order extra-large but it wasn't on the menu any more. The server pointed out that it was on the menu. I was bewildered for several seconds until I realized that the entire right-most column of the menu (the up-sell stuff) had a full-color background and different font. They did this in order to stand out, but now my eyes naturally skip over any such elements of a layout, apparently.

[pmoriarty]

A lot of people think they can just ignore ads and that ads don't work on them.

But there are a lot of very talented and creative people, a ton of research, and a whole industry, really, fighting hard against people's conscious or unconscious attempts to ignore ads, and they can be very effective, even if you don't consciously realize it.

There's a lot of research showing that advertisement is effective. The point of advertisement isn't always to directly make you rush out and buy a particular product right away. So just because you don't do that doesn't mean the ad wasn't effective.

Many times the point of the ad is to make you have a positive association with a brand, or to make you remember (even merely subconsciously) the brand so that you recognize it among a lot of other brands you see in a store -- and thus be more likely to buy a product of that brand rather than that of a brand you've never seen an ad for before.

[Fifer82]

They don't work on me though. I cannot be sold unless I go looking and then it becomes about quality, and then it becomes about price.

[itchynosedev]

It's ironic since I can't escape ads promoting Banksy exposition in one of the hgih porifle expo houses.

[k-mcgrady]

>> "I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me."

And you have no right to the content you're viewing but blocking ads on. If you really consider ads 'poison' surely boycotting sites that use ads is the solution or offering an alternative solution this is actually viable.

[bonoboTP]

When watching TV, I often switch away when the ads come. Then after a few minutes I switch back to continue watching the program. Do you think this behavior is also unacceptable? Or how do you feel about people who throw away promotional stuff found in magazines and newspapers?

[balabaster]

On U.S. TV you can pretty much watch the first 5 minutes of the show and come back and watch the last 5 minutes without missing anything of consequence... everything you missed was flashbacks, bullshit and advertising. This describes 90% of all American TV content.

Edit: I guess the truth hurts. Thanks for the downvotes. Whatever, I stand by my observation as a foreigner having watched TV in many other countries and I can tell you from first hand experience that U.S. TV is the worst offender by a HUGE margin.

[burkaman]

Have you ever watched American TV? This reads like someone who turned on Bravo at 2PM one time and decided all TV must be like that.

[Intermernet]

I think what they're commenting on is the sort of editing time-line encountered on such shows in the genre similar to "greatest ice-road vintage trucker sale digger catch".

These tend to be, in a 30 minute slot:

<2 minute highlight reel>

<2 minutes of original footage>

<1 minute of "coming up next">

<5 minutes of ads>

<1 minute of "previously on...">

<3 minutes of original footage>

<1 minute of "coming up next">

<5 minutes of ads>

<1 minute of "previously on...">

<3 minutes of original footage>

<1 minute of "next time on...">

<5 minutes of ads>

Which gives 8 minutes of original footage stretched over 30 minutes, with 15 minutes of ads and 7 minutes of rehashing.

This format, although now popular in other countries, is a "modern-classic" of US television.

[balabaster]

> "greatest ice-road vintage trucker sale digger catch"

You'd better get on the horn to Discovery, I think you've got a gold mine on your hands there ;)

> a "modern-classic" of US television

If by "modern-classic" you mean "beyond irritating" :P

Plus: You nailed that edit real, kudos - though, you missed the 1 minute "> Previously on...whatever show it is" at the beginning. 8 minutes of content on a channel you pay for, plus 15 minutes of advertising... so you're basically paying more for the ads than you are for the content... there's something really really wrong with this from a moral perspective.

If you pay for a channel, you should be paying for the content on that channel, not paying to be advertised to with some content as a by-product just to get money from both ends of the donkey.

[blakeyrat]

Editors are cheaper than actors.

Obligatory Mitchell and Webb Gift Shop Sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc

[majewsky]

What's even more hilarious is when you watch these "documentaries" syndicated in Germany. Our usual ad format is one 7-minute ad break every 30 minutes instead of 2 minutes every few minutes. But you still have the artificial dramatic buildups before the missing ad slot, that you can see resolve into nothingness immediately.

[burkaman]

Yeah, I get that, but that's a fairly small sub-genre of TV. It's a common stereotype, and I agree it's warranted because that style is obnoxious, but it's not actually a problem if you live in the US and want to watch something different.

[acveilleux]

Which came first? This TV show format or the Listicle?

Either of which is beyond annoying.

Once in a while, I'll seek out a few Listicles with ad blocking off to see just what the state of the art of agressively deceptive advertisements is.

[balabaster]

I have lived (and still do) in Canada and spent the past 18 years with access to the full suite of channels that American TV has to offer. It is largely the only TV I have access to (though not solely because I still have the internet after all). In the past couple of years I've limited my consumption to the point of avoiding it because it has become so bad.

[burkaman]

Ok, your edit makes more sense. I agree that American TV has way too much advertising and is the worst on that front compared to many other countries. I think your original comment was downvoted because it was just a handful of stereotypes with not much relation to reality.

Also, the shows themselves are generally quite good, it's just the networks that suck. When many Americans think of TV they're thinking of HBO and Netflix and friends, so advertising isn't such a big deal.

[JoeAltmaier]

Ok I know that's meant cynically, but watching is about more than determining 'who-done-it'? The journey is supposed to be enjoyable.

[balabaster]

Which it totally would be if it didn't get interrupted for ads every 10 minutes and then have flashbacks to remind you what you were already told before the commercial break.

[JoeAltmaier]

Yeah this recap dialog fad is going way too far.

[k-mcgrady]

My issue isn't really with ad-blocking. It's with people like the parent who act like it's a human rights violation but still take the content and don't offer an alternative. If you feel so strongly about it boycott companies showing you ads.

[gakada]

Speaking personally, I do. Internet ads are usually a sign of low-quality content, for instance they seem to have an incredible power to turn previously esteemed newspapers into clickbait factories.

The best content on the internet is ad-free.

[snsr]

Don't serve web pages to me if you don't want me to decide which parts are acceptable.

[chris_7]

Stop responding with 200 OK then. Remote servers don't get to configure my user-agent, they can only control their response.

[jfoster]

How do you feel if they respond 200 OK the first time, and then when the code detects that you are blocking ads, returns 402 the next time?

[Grishnakh]

If they want to resort to that, they're entirely within their rights to do so. I have no right to demand they serve me their content. However, I have every right to make a polite request, and to download the response they send to me. They, however, have no right to tell me what to do with that response. If they want to give me a content-free response (your 402), they can do that. But no one does (the closest is sites like Forbes which use JS to block the content if you're blocking ads; personally I just don't go to Forbes any more).

[denom]

This is an ad-blocking arms race for sure, but sites like the Washington Post and NYtimes have done a good job dealing with the new ad-blocking 'normal'. The point is that there _are_ things sites can do to deal with this situation. However, the status-quo is not an option.

[k-mcgrady]

>> "The point is that there _are_ things sites can do to deal with this situation."

I agree. But that's no excuse for someone getting on their high horse but not offering an alternative and still accessing the content.

[stincity]

And I respectfully disagree. I don't enjoy ads, I never click on them even if the item is something I'd use at the time, I will not click on it. I'll just go to amazon or whatever and get it there. I will never, ever click on an ad. So I'd rather not even see them.

[manigandham]

Clicking on ads isnt necessary. A vast amount of ads are paid on an impression basis and I can guarantee that you've been affected by the advertising you've come across in your life.

This is one of the most data-driven industries on the planet and there are petabytes of data generated every day showing how well it works.

[stincity]

That's cool. I never said I wasn't affected. Just that I don't click on them. Ever. Like I said, I'd go to amazon or drive somewhere before I click ANY internet ad. And thus far, I have never clicked on one... willingly.

[Grishnakh]

I have. Back in the days when Google had those little unobtrusive text-only ads to the right of the search results, I clicked on those once in a while, and they were actually really useful! If advertising were all like that, we wouldn't be having these arguments.

[moovacha]

oh really? there are petabytes of data proving ads work?

[manigandham]

Yes...

[Fifer82]

It is not up to us to solve that problem.

[pmoriarty]

That's not how we usually deal with a public health hazard. Usually the government steps in and forces the company to stop the harmful activity (or even shut down), and then face criminal charges.