[jmount]

Strongly agree. Ads (and even ads placed by primary distributors and authors) hijacked the internet without permission from browsers/surfers and routinely have additional negative consequences. The reader doesn't need permission to defend themselves.

[vertex-four]

Do ads in a newspaper "hijack the real world"?

[vinbreau]

Ex-Advertising layout designer here for Hearst. Ads in a newspaper are typically laid out in a pyramid fashion to specifically avoid breaking up news articles into more difficult to read formats. 'Flow' is important when laying out every page. Ads on the web adhere to no such flow and often inhibit the experience of reading. Newspapers want their ads to be as unobtrusive as possible while still being seen. Advertisers on the web tend to scattershot ads and want to be seen at all costs without consideration for the viewer. I can easily skip the flow of ads in a newspaper only looking at those that interest me if I choose, I have no such options on the web and so block them all to be less distracted and able to easily digest content.

[eli]

It seems like your complaint is about the poor design of news sites (which I generally agree with) more than it is a philosophical objection to advertising.

(There are some print publications with quite terrible ads too. Not everyone has the standards or resources of Hearst.)

[vinbreau]

These design principles were taught to me while I attended university and are not solely employed by Hearst. Publications that flagrantly disregard lessons learned from the past are horrible and obtuse to read. My point is that publications backed by experienced teams tend to adhere to these lessons, very few web publications could claim the same. Since advertising on the web is much younger, and lacking similar historical perspective, we have an intrusive system for advertising delivery. Advertising in a properly formed publication means the ad layout is determined by an experienced individual and attempts to strike a balance between obtrusiveness and visibility . It seems marketing divisions determine ad placement on the web more than it does in print media and visibility is held to be more important than being less obtrusive, the balance is way off.

[stephancoral]

Ads in a newspaper aren't vectors[0] for malware that can potentially ruin someone's finances or business.

[0] http://www.invincea.com/2014/10/micro-targeting-malvertising...

[ajuc]

No but billboards do. http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/8/7897/z7897718Q,Polski-Outdoor.jpg

Anyway, I'm not using adblock for the last few years because internet isn't that bad (at least the sites I visit). Before adblock it was awful and I think it was adblock that made it go away. Thanks to users ability to respond we have balance.

So this is good that such extensions exist.

[jmount]

And some cites have outlawed billboards in some areas: as they are blight.

[jbigelow76]

    >Ads (and even ads placed by primary distributors and authors) hijacked the internet without permission from browsers/surfers

Isn't actively visiting a site you know to be ad supported implying permission?

[jmount]

Permission for what?

To see a single text ad? To see a series of gifs? To have an autoplay video start? To accumulate tracking cookies? To accumulate permanent flash storage? Permission to do some reverse lookup and call your phone? Permission to capture later browsing and re-write links in a i-Frame?

I am not currently using an adblocker/clicker (broke too many things). By a similar argument if the site doesn't want to serve content to those not reading they ads they can selectively choose not serve it. Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission? I really don't understand why so many people are unsympathetic to attempting to defend oneself.

[jbigelow76]

    >Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission?

It seems to me like it's a two way street. The site is implying permission to consume the content by placing it out there, we imply permission to have ads served at us by going to the sites knowing the ads are there.

If the site is serving up malware why patronize it to begin with? There is a distinction between an ad and malware.

[forca]

The sites don't always know the ad servers have been compromised. A person visits a site, allows ads/3rd-party cookies, is surfing with admin rights, the ad servers gladly push their drive-by malware and ta-da... infected user. It's that simple...

Blocking ads, disallowing cookies (whitelisting), blocking the general ad industry is the only safe way. It's like sex: use protection.

[belorn]

Lets extrapolate this to the real world and see if implied permission works.

You actively walk into a bar. For what ever reason, you can't pay your bill so the bar owner break your leg as a lesson. Alternative, the bar owner will sell you into slavery so you can pay your bill.

Should we imply that you gave permission for all this by walking into the bar? What if there is a 400 pages long contract, which by entering, you silently agreed to by staying in the bar?

Implied permission created from non-action are a horrible concept that only exist on-line.

[jbigelow76]

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. There are no implications since the already in place rules of commerce would preclude any ambiguity.

I'll throw you and your analogy a bone though. You walk into a bar, bars are smokey, you don't want to smell like smoke, but you want a cocktail more than you don't want to smell like smoke. You've implied that you're okay with smelling like smoke as long as you get your martini.

[belorn]

The rules of commerce exist outset the net, I fully agree on that. If we applied similar rules on the net, the implied permission will go away in favor of a common set of rules.

And that is what the EU is trying to do for private data. When it is illegal to track users, then users can't silently give permission by visiting the website. The whole question about implied permission goes away when rules of commerce specify what is and isn't allowed.