[kbenson]

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.

[marrs]

    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.

I don't even know what to make of this.

[kbenson]

> Well, there isn't.

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?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

[marrs]

All of this is implied by you. Neither of us knows what motivates the publishers of websites. But you are missing the point entirely, which is that they all chose to publish to the web - a platform that by definition gives publishers very little say over how their content is consumed.

To complain that some users don't consume your content the way you expected is just really naïve.

For example, let's suppose you expect a user to download your animated gif advert. How do you know that the user isn't on a network that filters out all images to save bandwidth?

[kbenson]

This isn't about a producer complaining about users not consuming the content the right way. I'm not a producer, I'm a consumer, but that doesn't prevent me from noting when people are not acting in good faith. And that's how I see this, a lot of people not acting in good faith and rationalizing it through various excuses (myself included). Producers produce content and attach ads as a way to recoup the cost of producing and delivering that content. I feel confident in saying the vast majority of consumers understand their desire and motivations, even if they don't value those desires and motivations much. To take what they are offering while rejecting their conditions is not acting in good faith.

[marrs]

Having read your exchanges with Quadrangle and Baddox, I think I get where you're coming from.

The trouble with your reasoning is that it only considers the point of view of the publisher and ignores the consumer entirely.

It's not practical to enter into an agreement with every website you visit (in fact half the time you're downloading assets from websites you don't visit!) so let's not even go there. Let's just consider the consumer who wants to use the web but doesn't want to see ads. What should he do: disable ads or stop using the web?

I guess your argument is that he should stop using the web because he is morally bound to honour the wishes of the publisher providing the content. Effectively you're placing the publishers' right to advertise ahead of the visitor's right to consume content on the web.

And this is my problem with your argument. I just can't feel guilty about defending the rights of one person to have free access to information over the right of another person to advertise. As far as I'm concerned, where these 2 rights clash, the advertiser should forfeit. Since I feel no guilt, there is nothing to rationalize.

Anyway, I sense this won't be enough for you, so in order to regain the moral highground, I have modified the header of my HTTP requests to include the following statement

    By responding to this request you agree not to send me
    advertising and accept that I may, at my discretion,
    block any advertising included in this or any other
    response.

[kbenson]

> Let's just consider the consumer who wants to use the web but doesn't want to see ads. What should he do: disable ads or stop using the web?

Well, find a source to pay for the content he wants to see, find a truly free source of information, or yes, stop using the internet. I'm not sure how this is any different than anything else in life. "This man wan'ts to read in the library, but doesn't like other people around, so he breaks in at night. What's he supposed to do, keep breaking in, or stop using the library?"

> I guess your argument is that he should stop using the web because he is morally bound to honour the wishes of the publisher providing the content. Effectively you're placing the publishers' right to advertise ahead of the visitor's right to consume content on the web.

I'm actually not making any argument that people should stop, just that they should recognize their actions. I don't expect the world to change, but I do expect people to be cognizant of their actions and the consequences. Additionally, I'm not placing the publishers right to advertise over anything, I am placing the publishers right to control their content over the consumer's desire to see said content.

> And this is my problem with your argument. I just can't feel guilty about defending the rights of one person to have free access to information over the right of another person to advertise. As far as I'm concerned, where these 2 rights clash, the advertiser should forfeit. Since I feel no guilt, there is nothing to rationalize.

Do people have a right to free access to information? If I know something you don't know, but would like to know, do you have a right to that information? I'm not arguing someone has a right to advertise, I'm arguing they have a right to control their property. Ad-blockers effectively remove content provider's ability to control their property, which I think is their right.

> Anyway, I sense this won't be enough for you, so in order to regain the moral highground, I have modified the header of my HTTP requests to include the following statement

That's a start, and I think it is, until there is an acceptable way to broadcast to a site you are unwilling to view advertising, a good compromise. This brings up an interesting question though, which I think sheds light on what I'm trying to get at; If there were a box you could toggle on your browser to send an industry standard header that indicated your refusal to view advertisements as payment for content, and some site owners decided to withhold content based on this header (and I suspect others would redirect you to a payment portal), would you browse with it on, if it meant not getting some content? Or, more importantly to my point, do you think the populace at large, even if reduced to the set that understand the flag's meaning and import and refused to view ads, would browse with it on?

I suspect the answer for the majority of the group in question (I don't presume to know your actions) would be to browse without that indicator but with an ad-blocker. I think a lot of the pretense would be gone though.

P.S. I occurs to me this discussion not only parallels one about pirating movies, but is indeed the exact same, in my eyes. Content producers work hard to restrict their content, and users bypass those restrictions to view the content. Sure, content producers are assholes in this case, but being an asshole doesn't restrict your rights. It does help people feel justified in actions that hurt you though, even if they are illegal.