What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.
It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are seen, then there's no reason to continue paying.
If web ads were more like newspaper ads, I think I would find them more agreeable.
Newspaper ads don't animate and distract me from what I'm reading. When I flip to a different page in the paper I don't have to "wait ten seconds" to start reading. I've never had an ad spontaneously appear in front of the newspaper article I'm reading.
Newspaper ads don't track me, and no matter how sketchy the ad is, it doesn't put me a couple of clicks away from installing malware on my computer.
I agree that ads are annoying and unpalatable, but I don't think that absolves consumers from behavior that I see as a clear responsibility of consumers to uphold their side of the bargain. We have content providers, that choose a business model that allows them to provide content without requiring payment as long as there is advertising. We then have consumers taking this content and automatically removing said advertisements. When the terms of a deal are seen as disadvantageous, it's the right of either party to not enter into that transaction. It is not their right to renege on their side of the transaction while receiving the benefit from the other party.
I understand many people do not see this as a contract between the consumer and the content provider. I just haven't heard a justification for why it's not that I can agree with. To me, it clearly is.
Imagine a newspaper trying to go after someone for not reading the ads in the news paper, or for cutting the ads out before reading the paper.
That's what you sound like to the rest of us.
When my browser asks for a page from your webserver, I'm under no obligation to render or even receive the packets that you send back to me. If you seek further guarantees or protections I encourage you to find a different medium.
> When my browser asks for a page from your webserver, I'm under no obligation to render or even receive the packets that you send back to me.
Of course, just as if you receive mail you are under no obligation to read it. But I'm not talking about that level. I'm talking about the contract the consumer and the content provider have. You either believe there is one or you don't. I believe there's a reason that the content provider is giving me content, and it's not out of the goodness of their heart. What reason is that, and what strings are attached?
How can you possibly believe that there is a contract. If I send you a link to an article I think you might like, and you click on it, do you really believe that in doing so you have just agreed to whatever Terms & Conditions are waiting for you on the other side of that link?
No, I don't believe the loading of a website automatically confirms my agreement with the terms of a contract. On the other hand, when the contract is made clear, if I take what is offered then I believe I am bound to the terms. Inthe case of website advertising, it's ambiguous, which allows people to hand-wave it away, but not so ambiguous that you can't realize you are taking something without having to pay the costs. So who's paying the costs? There is an implied contract[1] when you take services from someone who expects compensation in some form.
> It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people.
What you've just described is me, taking the content from your site, stripping out the ads, and re-posting it on the Internet for others to consume sans advertisements.
This is very clearly different from a single person using ad blockers on their own computers, and you know it.
However, this is equivalent to everyone who reads you newspaper cutting out the ads from their own newspaper before reading it. Which, perhaps, should tell you something about the ads in your paper.
No, the difference is we're distributing devices that, at no effort whatsoever, strip out all the ads. An ad blocker is literally a few clicks away on google chrome to never see ads again. His analogy is pretty solid compared to that. It's so easy to use an ad blocker that there's no reason not to, no matter how low impact the ads are. And no single user can make a measurable impact on a website's revenue through advertisements, so his actions don't have a direct content degradation impact either.
Of course, the collective actions do degrade quality. It's classical 'Tragedy of the commons' [1].
Me using an ad blocker on my computer is in no way equivalent to me reposting that content, and trying to claim it is causes me to lose respect for the person who holds that opinion.
I get the tragedy of the commons, but far as I'm concerned the impact on content producers is not my problem, the abusive ads they used to employ are. I now have protections against such abuse and I will not feel sorry for them for it.
They chose to use abusive ads. They made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.
It's just a matter of semantics. It's a "device" that strips all ads at no effort, by default everywhere, forever. It's definitively not equivalent to cutting out the ads yourself since that requires significant effort. If you don't like the phrase that "someone is redistributing the content without ads", just replace it with "someone is distributing a device that strips all ads as soon as you see the newspaper". Semantically different, effectively the same.
True, it is bad for the advertiser and the ad hosting site. But it is good for the person annoyed by the ads. There is no objective value in blocking ads, it depends on the party. Since there is no objective valuation, it is not bad manners; it is merely an ability of consumers that is undesirable to advertisers and the ad hosting companies.
> It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people.
Nice try at an analogy, but removing the ads from free newspapers and giving the results to people could be seen as conspiracy harming the newspaper, because there would be party doing the removing and taking over the distribution. With online ads, nothing of this sort happens, because the consumer requests the newspaper company - not some other ad-removing party - for the newspaper article, the newspaper company sends it to him with hope he will pay attention to ads and the consumer displays only that part of the sent document which he deems worthy of his attention. He does this with help of his computer in which he is entitled to process and filter information in any way he deems useful. No organized action destroying the business is happening, the consumer himself removes the part he does not want on his computer, he does not remove ads for other people. This is virtually the same as when the person buys a newspaper in store and skips reading the ads, which everybody who would read the newspaper is entitled to do. All people are entitled to filter the information other people, companies and government try to feed them, irrespective of the channel, be it paper, audiovisual channels or the Internet. Otherwise our brains would get really dumb from all the fatuous ads.
You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers aren't getting much value from the newspaper.
If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money they would have otherwise wasted.
I'm making no argument that they have to survive on their current business model, or that the current business model deserves to survive. I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract, and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed.
I don't see this as any different than if you were at a conference, and someone offered you a free book which you were interested in if you talked to them for thirty seconds about their product. Taking the book without hearing the pitch is not what I would consider acceptable behavior.
In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content.
Some people have made arguments about how intrusive some the the advertisement tracking is as a justification for blocking it. This is a perfectly acceptable justification for blocking that tracking, but it does nothing to address the further consumption of the content. The correct response to the abusive shopkeeper that berates you in line is not to steal his goods, but to leave the goods and refuse to give him your business.
> If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners.
How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not? In any case, the market decides this. You are just making information in the market harder to come by, making the market less efficient.
> In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money that would otherwise be wasted.
Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.
I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract...
Well, there isn't.
...and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed.
If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though.
In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content.
Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others; maybe something important to them. They often work hard to produce the content in their spare time. They put ads on there as an afterthought to help cover the maintenance costs, but they would never do that if they thought it would turn visitors away.
I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets, especially when - in the case of advertising - they're assets I have no control over and may be advertising products I don't even support.
How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not?
I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad.
Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.
Are you sure? Why do you think the content is being provided then? Presumably there's a reason they've put the effort forth to make it available?
> If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though.
You shouldn't feel compelled to honor a site's acceptable use policy? In some cases violating the AUP can result in legal action, so in at least some cases you are legally compelled.
> Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others...
> I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets
These aren't your sites. It's not your right to make choices for other people. You can accept what they want to bring to the table, or you can decline to trade.
> I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad.
You've made it easier on yourself. How have you helped anyone else out? The content provider wanted to trade you content for attention, and you took the content without providing the attention. In what way does that help anyone besides yourself?
> I don't even know what to make of this.
People are susceptible to rationalizing their current behavior, regardless of whether it's truly beneficial in the ways they think to the parties they think. Doubling down on behavior that a content provider may not like with the excuse you may feel morally obligated to save them money by doing so is ridiculous. What right do you have to dictate how they run their business, as long as it's within the law?
I would pay the premium for newspapers without ads. In fact, I do -- I support news organizations that aren't driven by advertisement.
If you can't find a business model that doesn't antagonize me, then you haven't found a business model that I care to support. If capitalism is failing to provide us with even basic methods of producing quality works, then that's a problem we should tackle at a larger scale.
But this isn't about you choosing to pay for a source without ads, this is about people choosing the source with ads, and then removing them. Those are entirely different things.
> It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people.
No, it's more like asking the newspaper publisher if you can have a version of their newspaper (for your own use) without ads, and them obliging. Blocking ads has nothing to do with redistributing someone else's content.
> Blocking ads has nothing to do with redistributing someone else's content.
You're right, it's like subscribing to a service that does it for you.
> No, it's more like asking the newspaper publisher if you can have a version of their newspaper (for your own use) without ads, and them obliging.
No, if they had an easy way to enforce your viewing of ads that scaled, I think it's fairly obvious they would (as many of the blocked ads are indeed an attempt at this, such as the timed overlay). It's more like the distributor responding with both marketing material and content with the understanding you are to view the marketing material along with the content, and you routing the marketing material to the trash from the post office (or somehow tricking the system into not sending you the marketing material). The expectation you are to view the marketing material is still there, even if you've somehow removed your ability to receive it.
> You're right, it's like subscribing to a service that does it for you.
You mean the blacklist services? Those are just a list of URL rules for your browser to reject. You still request the content from the web and the content provider obliges.
> No, if they had an easy way to enforce your viewing of ads that scaled, I think it's fairly obvious they would
Given that I have seen several websites that do this, I think you must be wrong.
> It's more like the distributor responding with both marketing material and content with the understanding you are to view the marketing material along with the content, and you routing the marketing material to the trash from the post office
Yes, it is like that, and I having no qualms with doing that. If I received a free magazine full of good content, along with a separate booklet of ads that are intended to be views with the content, I would have no problem reading the content and ignoring the ad booklet.
That's your choice, but I don't think it addresses whether the action is moral or not (unless you also ascertain that you refrain from all morally ambiguous actions), or whether it's bad manners (as the initiating comment termed it). I think there are a great many slightly immoral things that people do every day and justify by weighing how small the moral infraction is against the perceived benefit to themselves. The perceived benefit of not being annoyed by ads outweighs the slight immorality of circumventing those ads.
It feels like a negligible harm to the other party, so we justify it to ourselves as victim-less, but it's not. The combined harm of all those that do so adds up the what is certainly a non-negligent level of harm in many cases. This is not unique to advertising, we fall prey to this reasoning in many ways, and in some ways we've seen that harm manifested in obvious ways that have then changed our behavior. Consider littering. The harm of a single person dropping a small amount of trash on the ground is negligent, the cost of most of a nation's population doing so is definitely not.
Well, then the sites should buy a service that gives them more features. If the existence of GA means there is no market for such products, then GA should go away.
That's a pity. This gives me an extra reason not to use blocklists maintained by anyone but myself. (I currently don't use uBlock, but RequestPolicy + NoScript, but am considering switching.)
Activism for the lazy; sounds like a good deal.