Ask HN: Is using Adblock unethical?

[pigou]

It doesn't seem that using Adblock Plus is in any way illegal, but I can't help but feel guilty that I might be unfairly benefitting at the expense of websites and other users. Is using Adblock unethical?

[tokenadult]

No. I use Adblock Plus for all of my regular browsing (on Chrome) and I also use Ghostery to reduce tracking scripts and other cruft on webpages. If a site won't display for me with my default installation of Chrome extensions, I assume it is a lousy site. If I absolutely must use the site without blocking some scripts, sometimes I hold my nose and use IE 9 for a moment to use the site, but then go back to using Chrome with Adblock and Ghostery.

It's perfectly legitimate to get up and get a drink of water instead of watching commercials on broadcast TV, and it is equally legitimate to not view advertisements on websites that post advertisements.

[coryl]

That's a false equivalency isn't it? Systematically removing all advertising from all webpages is not the same as getting up for a drink of water while watching TV.

[anigbrowl]

We're not systematically removing it. It's still there for other people. We are automating our own choice not to view it. What you do at the server side is your business.

[pasbesoin]

I understand the approach, but I wouldn't us IE for the "nose holding". (Although I guess 9 and 10 are better than their predecessors.)

[antrover]

I always use Adblock. I also use Do Not Track, dot.js (to modify pages), Tampermonkey, Ghostery when needed and other extensions / scripts. I also clear my cookies upon closing the browser.

I don't care that I'm an "asshole". When I show less technical people how to block advertisements, the first thing they usually say is, "thank you!" or "can I buy you a beer?". I never met one person (other than people in marketing) that have said, "No, I'd prefer to see advertisements over content".

[anigbrowl]

No. Advertisers don't have the right to your attention.

[coryl]

Do the producers of content have a right to monetize their audience via advertising?

[anigbrowl]

Of course, but not the right to be successful in doing so. Most sites where I have adblock enabled have too many ads to the point of making it difficult to navigate the content. OTOH, I don't block ads from google, since they are visually restrained and unobtrusive.

[coryl]

Alright, so why don't content producers have a right to be successful in showing advertising? I understand you can do whatever you want with your computer, but that doesn't get to the root of our ethics discussion. I think its a cheap escape to answer with "because we have the right to look at what we want". After all, you knowingly are taking money (or the opportunity thereof) from the host, have all the upside of your relationship and then burden no cost, why do you get that right?

Lets not specify any particular brand or types of advertising for the sake of discussion, all advertising is just advertising.

[anigbrowl]

After all, you knowingly are taking money (or the opportunity thereof) from the host, have all the upside of your relationship and then burden no cost, why do you get that right?

Because you chose to present it that way in hopes of maximizing your revenue. Maybe you would be better off using a paywall. Personally, I don't think it's so simple in terms of all upside, since I may jsut as easily visit a content provider only to have my time wasted by copypasta or inaccurate reporting or whatever. Frankly, I would rather consume fewer products of higher quality, and am willing to pay not to have to look at advertising, but no simple mechanism exists for me to opt out from the ad-supported model on most sites.

Lets not specify any particular brand or types of advertising for the sake of discussion, all advertising is just advertising.

Not from my perspective. I'm quite willing to have products or services suggested to me in the form of advertising, but I'm not willing to be shouted at with garish visuals, distracting animations, or misleading taglines. I think there's a great deal to be said for the strict guidelines that Google imposes on adwords advertisers.

You may not distinguish between different kinds of advertising as a content provider, because the revenue it generates is fungible. I care a great deal about it as a content consumer because it imposes a time cost upon, which is highly variable depending on the content of the advertising.

[CurtHagenlocher]

My personal ethics demand that I respect the rights of creators to decide on the restrictions under which their output can be consumed. If I don't find someone's restrictions acceptable, I simply don't consume their content. There is an awful lot of worthwhile content available in the world, and I've never felt like I was missing out because -- say, Game of Thrones can't legally be streamed and I therefore can't watch it.

On the other hand, I am aware that everyone's ethics are different, and I generally try to withhold judgment.

[chc]

As somebody who creates web pages, I would feel very guilty if I caught myself getting huffy because somebody used an alternative stylesheet on my site. I would like for people to view my layout the way I made it, but at the same time, I don't hate deaf people or people on cheap phones. The Web just isn't the place for you if you can't bear the thought of your work being viewed in unexpected ways.

[salem]

It would be great if there was an tracking/advert blocking solution that let you block based on what is in their privacy policy, if anything, in which country they are based, and so on. This could allow you to only permit advertisements/tracking that are have a privacy policy that you find tolerable and that is subject to FTC enforcement/auditing and penalties.

Your conscience can be clear, since you have the means to allow sites to fund themselves via advertising if they deal with ethical advertisers.

[diminium]

I don't consider using Adblock unethical.

What I consider unethical is sites which track you across hundreds of internet sites while trying to figure out your previous URL history of sites it doesn't track all the while hiding behind the fine print saying what it does is legal.

Internet advertising is nothing like newspaper or magazine ads. Internet advertising has a tracking component built into it and that tracking component doesn't stop once you leave the site. It follows you forever.

[lumberjack]

I have no qualms about deciding what gets downloaded and what runs on my machine because it's ultimately my machine. That's a pretty basic tenant of free software.

Of course the content curators can use the same argument. They have every right to restrict content access to whoever they want but ultimately that wouldn't be profitable so they have to very liberal with their access permissions and chalk it down as a cost of doing business.

[56756756756]

Yes. You consume someones content and their resources, repay them with a CPM impression.

That is unarguable.

However, very few here will be man/woman enough to admit they're an asshole and don't care about the finances of the website. It's the true reason why we use Adblock and pirate others' IP.

[clobber]

No.

Being an asshole are the sites that allow unethical tracking and pass around user private info from one ad network to the next. Take your weak argument elsewhere.

[dorsiak7]

I think it depends on the sites in questions. If they're unethically filling every pixel of screen size with adds, overlapping adds etc, then I think some addblock is just what the doctor prescribed.

Site owners need to have some common sense when it comes to advertising

[vasco]

I used Adblock Plus for several years without remorse. Last year I started some websites and slapped Adsense on them to cover server costs and realized I would be an hypocrite if I kept using Adblock so I've stopped since.