[VieElm]

This isn't true, I'm perfectly willing to pay for content. I just don't want ads and I don't want to be tracked. Thanks to browser extensions I don't have to no matter how much that hurts your feelings. You say I'm entitled but it's actually you who isn't entitled to control how the software works on my computer.

I'm perfectly willing to support business models that aren't terrible. Perhaps you might also consider users not wanting to install rootkits, spyware and adware to support content entitled? It's the same, it's a shitty experience people don't want.

[Nadya]

Shh... don't point out the hypocrisy of installing software but preventing the "Ask Toolbar" that it tries to install from installing.

How dare you hurt their business model by preventing the program from installing spyware!

You should be running IE with 12 different toolbars and Bonzi Buddy and the 90-day trial of McAfee.

[danso]

OK, I'll answer this one. No software I own installs adware/spyware that I then uninstall or circumvent. This includes "free" commercial stuff like Chrome, Steam, the Kindle App, and Spotify. And then stuff I purchase licenses for, including Transmit, Sublime Text, Lightroom. The free consumer software that I do use, KeepassX and Handbrake, don't currently install adware/spyware. If they did, I wouldn't use them.

So no, I'm not being a hypocrite in the same way as the GP is being, unless he has restricted his consumption of Internet content to Wikipedia and pastebin

[Nadya]

That wasn't directly targeted at you - but more the "pro-ad" people who support it as a business model. Many of them (not all, as you yourself prove) will uncheck the "install this" for bundleware. Which hurts that business model for software developers.

Now the main difference is that users can uncheck the bundleware in most installers. Few sites offer a pay-to-opt-out option against ads. So what options do users have to disable ads? They're forced to use an Adblocker to opt themselves out.

People turn to alternatives because it provides an easy-access alternative. Netflix soared in popularity and put Blockbuster out of business because you didn't have to visit a brick & mortar store to rent movies. Many people will pay to use Netflix rather than torrent for free, because Netflix provides a no-friction way of consumption.

Provide a way that's frictionless for users to disable ads. A once-a-year payment for $10-$20 does the job fine and likely makes you more per user than ads would. Give them a little flair badge or something trivial and cosmetic and you might convince even the Adblockers to impart some of their money to you.

There are other business models other than Ad Revenue. Many of those business models have been time-tested and work. Ads are the "lazy" way out that shows a lack of care towards your audience.

[drostie]

I'm glad that you don't use Flash or Java. However, I'm sure you can understand if they're (a) very common, (b) bundled with adware, and (c) make one of many fine counterpoints to the "you have a moral obligation to view ads in order to support the artists who made the stuff that you're consuming" argument.

That might not be your argument, but it is an argument that's in the atmosphere. This is a thorny problem, not a cut-and-dry case. The greater good is supported when artists can be fairly compensated. It is also supported when we annoy the art-consumers less. It is probably also supported when our political stances are small, simple, and ideologically pure. It is probably also supported when poor people can consume art. There are a lot of different factors that play into the "is it OK to block ads?" question, and it's not obvious that there's a simple solution which resolves all of them.

[JohnTHaller]

We show an ask for donations in place of the ads for users who block our ads (Simple, subtle, using the same colors and fonts as the rest of the site so it isn't distracting). A handful of users do donate. The vast majority do not. Interestingly, the users who donate are also the ones most likely to whitelist our site.

Most (but not all) users today feel entitled to content, games, music, etc for free and get mad when it isn't granted to them and turn up their noses at things like ads that support the content for the price they're willing to pay (free).

[VieElm]

Sounds like you've come up with a nice comfortable rationalization for creating bad experiences for your users. How convenient for you. You don't seem to think very highly of your site's visitors.

> Most (but not all) users today feel entitled to content, games, music, etc for free and get mad when it isn't granted to them and turn up their noses at things like ads that support the content for the price they're willing to pay (free).

This is an obvious generalization and an opinion you have. People who block ads do so because ads have been and continue to be annoying, exploitive, invasive and vectors for viruses. I am not sorry I block them, and you're not going to make me feel bad for making decisions about what my computer does or doesn't do.

[JohnTHaller]

On the contrary, I think very highly of my site's visitors. That's why there's no banner ad across the top of the page. That's why there's only a single ad above the fold (within the sidebar away from the content so it doesn't distract). That's why I've never done popups, popovers, popunders, etc. That's why I have a script to detect adblockers that, instead of blocking content, just shows a nice simple request for either whitelisting or donating if they can that also cleans up the remnants of the site design left behind by blocking the ads for a cleaner page view for them and specifically reserves space for the message so the laid-out elements don't jump around and distract from viewing the page sans ads. That's why I have 60+ domains blocked within AdSense because I found they were showing fake Download button ads that were trying to trick users into downloading crap instead of free software they were after... even though these were the most high-paying ads available. That's why I've avoided doing bundleware despite the fact that it would make me a millionaire within weeks.

Much of what I said was more a generalization of online users overall. And I'm lucky that many of my own users fall outside of that generalization due to the niche of what I do and the type of product I offer (free open source software, utilities, etc). Sadly, it doesn't matter how responsibly you try to show ads as adblockers don't discriminate (except for AdBlock Plus which allows some ad networks due to payola). And doing ads on your own without a 3rd party service is nearly impossible for an independent site these days due to the nature of the ad industry.

All that said, it's not like I'm giving up. I'm working with my userbase to come up with additional revenue streams to allow the site/project to continue and the millions of users to keep using the software. Including things like paid services, merchandise, sponsorships, etc. Honestly, if we can arrive at one that'll let me ditch ads entirely, I'd be happy to.

[tshaddox]

Don't confuse the desire to not see ads with a feeling of entitlement. I fully support a website operator's right to detect that I am blocking ads and hide the content, or to make unblockable ads. I don't feel entitled to their resources. But if they do show content I'm interested in, I'll consume it. It's not at all a feeling of entitlement.

[JohnTHaller]

Most users don't share your sentiment. There are pre-bundled blocklists in most adblockers to block websites' JavaScript designed to detect adblockers and block content. uBlock includes two such lists by default. Adblockers vary whether these are enabled by default or must be enabled by the user.

[baddox]

> There are pre-bundled blocklists in most adblockers to block websites' JavaScript designed to detect adblockers and block content.

That still doesn't imply a feeling of entitlement.

[cactusface]

Watching an ad is paying a price. If it's possible to get something for free without breaking the law and without other tangible negative consequences for yourself, why would you pay a price? Altruism, right? So watching ads is my altruistic duty now?

[darkmighty]

The respondents have a solid point. You can't criticize them blocking ads, if they're willing to see degrading service because of it. What we lack that would be ideal is full transparency from the site's point of view to know which user is blocking ads and, if they choose so, prevent that user from viewing any content. It should be illegal to 'fake' watching ads just to get the content.

This imbalance is indeed a big problem imo: essentially any scheme from the site is permitted to be circumvented without giving them knowledge: this can create an unhealthy market dynamics where ads get more aggressive (to generate more revenue per user), every user installs ad blocking software (note that once installed, most users won't ever uninstall ad blockers), and websites are eventually forced to chose from only two models: mediocre service (low operational costs) or paywall.

I personally would gladly accept targeted minimalist ads, which I would prefer to having to pay to access most sites. Nowadays I use an ad blocker though since some ads are far too intrusive for my liking.

I think the whole internet industry needs urgently to discuss mechanisms for this problem though.

[drostie]

> It should be illegal to 'fake' watching ads just to get the content.

You mean, like, by-law illegal? Or just something more like "an illegal state" in a program? Because if we're talking about by-law, that's an awful sentiment and you should feel awful for expressing it.

If you mean by-program-state illegal, that's not actually too complicated: add a software dependency on your ad-generation or analytics code to all of your run-time code. You'll pay the corresponding cost in performance that any such paranoid solution is going to cost you anyway, and you'll be vulnerable to highly-targeted blacklisting of your ads anyway, but you can block those general ad rules and force ad-blockers to include arbitrary executable blacklist-code in their browsers, which is sufficient.

[darkmighty]

As a user you can always fake watching ads, there's no technical solution from the server side -- you have complete control of your browser (actually just controlling the display is sufficient). That's why websites don't even try to deny service for ad-block users -- it's a waste of time. So yes, I think a legal in the sense of law solution is the only way out. Unless you want to propose something like full DMR'd computers being the norm (essentially iOS everywhere), which I wouldn't want.

[vbezhenar]

So you are saying it should be illegal for me to mute TV when ads are displayed? I must carefully listen to ads and periodically pass an exam to ensure that I indeed listened to them and not thought of other things. What a wonderful feature. For ad companies.

[darkmighty]

That's an extreme example, but I'll play along.

No, I what I mean is TV manufacturers/broadcasters, if they so chose, could make it so that if you use their TV and press the mute button, you accept the TV will inform the broadcaster -- who may deny you service in the future. They should be free to decide if the consumer who doesn't want to watch any ads can watch their content, or if he has to pay subscription.

As a consumer you're not being "forced" anything: you can always subscribe or not watch the channel. Ideally broadcasters would tolerate muting/black-screening many ads up to a point, and if they see you're automatically blocking every ad they may ask you to subscribe.

[tripzilch]

You can't be seriously arguing for that TV muting analytics thing! That'd be, in my opinion, a terrible invasion of privacy.

Also, what if people have their TV plugged into a separate sound system? They could always use the mute button on that. The only way around that would be to equip the TV with a microphone, to check if the expected sounds are in fact audibly in the room ... (I kid)

(Another thought, would they also block deaf people for using the mute button on their TVs? But maybe they could request a special permit or something ...) (again, I kid)

[darkmighty]

1) We are using TVs to extrapolate what's acceptable for the internet. Why not just argue about internet directly?

2) If you want to keep using the TV analogy, ad blockers are like distributing a device for automatically muting/blacking out every TV ad, for free. Do you think free over the air TV broadcasts would exist for very long if such a device were the norm?

[Dylan16807]

And you want it to be illegal to stop my TV from phoning home (or to make it phone home false info)? That's nightmarish!

[darkmighty]

False identity is already illegal. You don't have the right to fake you're not who you are for anything legally binding. Is the law currently nightmarish?

I don't think this is a necessity for TVs, I was just playing along the extreme example.

I meant you can stop your TV from phoning home, just don't complain if they stop providing you service. If you instead falsely convey you are watching their ads, that is what would be illegal. Ads are a form of payment so to speak, and by actively concealing it you are making a false payment -- I'd expect that to be illegal just like false identities are.

[VieElm]

Seriously if ads were just like unobtrusive text ads I would be ok with it. I have never minded advertisements in dead tree news papers and magazines (they also don't track users). Online ads are toxic.

[danso]

OK, I'll bite. So what kind of Internet content have you paid for? And how do you pay for it without being tracked? Because you know, credit cards payments transmit your personal information. Or have you successfully transitioned to a Bitcoin-only currency lifestyle?

[VieElm]

A recurring monthly payment doesn't track my activity does it. It just tracks that I've paid for something. Many sites offer PayPal so there's no personal information conveyed at all.

I pay for a lot of Twitch subs. I am currently subbed to like 7 channels. I've also payed for the NYTimes and Washington Post through Amazon's payment system. I've paid for Ars Technica. I pay for Pandora. I pay for Reddit gold. I also buy skins and mounts in free to play games like Heroes of the Storm and TF2.

I pay lots. Do I meet your approval now?

[Doctor_Fegg]

I'm sure you're not seeking my approval, but it genuinely bemuses me that you're happy for your shopping purchases to be tracked by Amazon and PayPal, two giants with a history of privacy-insensitive behaviour, yet not for individual sites to run JS-based, self-hosted, same-domain analytics simply to count whether you're one or 10 unique users within a month.

[VieElm]

I don't see how PayPal can track anything other than what I've spent money on. My bank can track that too. There's no control over this. I'm not sure there are any viable alternatives to Amazon or PayPal for what they do. There's very little inconvenience to run adblock, it would be a huge inconvenience to boycott major sites to avoid them knowing what kind of shampoo I buy.