[worklogin]

I wouldn't mind unobtrusive ads to be whitelisted, were the man not charging money for the service.

Ads aren't inherently "wrong". people tend to block ads because many are unsightly, bandwidth consuming, etc.

Simple ads that don't have JS, don't have trackers, and blend with a site should be encouraged. But making beaucoup money on extortion payments is pretty bad.

[bowlofpetunias]

There's no such thing as "unobtrusive ads". If they weren't obtrusive, they would be either decoration or information, not ads.

[skriticos2]

There are the ads that feel totally out of place and are animated near the text that make it unreadable. I call these obtrusive. And then there are the ads that kind of fall into place on the website and while they attempt to get your attention, they don't cause epileptic spasms and mostly can be scrolled out. I tend to accept the later ones on sites I frequent often so that they get a revenue for their effort. The earlier type makes the sites totally useless, so I fail to see the point in them.

[GhotiFish]

That's not true, you're equating how they have being practically implemented for their definition. There's nothing stopping ads from being useful and beneficial to society at large.

If I need computer repair services, then looking through advertisements for shops that can offer that service is not a detriment to me, or a distraction. The reason we block them is that they are being implemented in an antagonistic way. You can have a beneficial ad.

[CodeMage]

> If I need computer repair services, then looking through advertisements for shops that can offer that service is not a detriment to me, or a distraction.

I don't really understand the part about "looking through advertisements". If you're actually doing a web search, what you're looking at is a list of web search results, not ads. Any ad that is inserted in that list is there by virtue of that shop having paid for that privilege, which does not necessarily mean it's relevant; it just means that its ranking got artificially boosted.

On the other hand, if you're not looking at a web search, then you're probably doing some other kind of research on computer repair services, such as looking at reviews, blog posts and such. In that context, ads are being displayed based on the context of what you're viewing, as determined by a computer algorithm, but you're already actively looking for human recommendations, so ads won't benefit you either.

The way I see it, ads fall into two categories: 1) artificially boosting the search engine rankings and 2) do-you-want-fries-with-that offers based on what you're currently doing. Most of the time, that doesn't seem to add any special value to the consumers.

The only situation I can think of that might be helpful is when you're not already looking for a solution to some problem and an ad suggests something you didn't even know existed. For example, you're looking at cooking recipes and an ad shows up for a kitchen gadget that would really help you cut down the preparation time in half. Even then, the rational choice would not be do go buy that particular gadget, but to do some research on gadgets of that type in general and choose the best one.

All in all, I agree with GP: ads are neither information, nor decoration, but an obstruction.

[GhotiFish]

>The only situation I can think of that might be helpful is when you're not already looking for a solution to some problem and an ad suggests something you didn't even know existed.

I was driving at that, though on review I realize I wasn't clear.

There's nothing stopping an ad from being useful, it can be an option you didn't realize existed, or it can be an option you might not of considered for review (number 2).

Neither of those are an obstruction, so:

>All in all, I agree with GP: ads are neither information, nor decoration, but an obstruction.

This is where we disagree. They could be information, they could be useful, it's just that their current implementation is not like that.

Ad Block Plus used this argument to set up their payment scheme. Which is a shame, but just because an idea is used for slimeball tactics doesn't mean the idea is wrong.

[drcube]

> Ads aren't inherently "wrong".

Yes, psychologically manipulating people and lying to them for money is wrong.

[serf]

the key to current and future advertising is not manipulating the person, but rather taking advantage of the fact that everyone wants something.

modern advertisements are making an effort not to sell you their specific 'ProductX', but to sell you products that you desire/need from their outlet. That feels more honest than advertising did in the past, at least now they are assessing the relevance of the ads you're exposed to and making efforts to target.

I will, however, agree that relying on the needs of others to fill your coffers is probably immoral -- but that condemns most of marketing, and I don't know how well that opinion will fly here.

[Istof]

usually bandwidth, or unsightliness is not the main problem... they distract so much from the content that sometimes it can be almost impossible to differentiate the two.