Ask HN: Should I feel bad for using an Ad Blocker?

[dufferzafar]

I've been using and Ad blocker ever since I've known about them. Previously it was Ad Block, but I now use uBlock Origin.

I was just reading an article on Wired when I noticed this [0], which got me thinking, should I whitelist them?

I felt I should, and if them, why not other sites?

The only way sites earn is by ads right, so If I like their content and don't view ads, am I 'cheating'?

[0] : http://i.imgur.com/MwkiyO1.png

[sp332]

If their "monetization strategy" is so annoying (or insecure, which is another legitimate reason to block ad networks) that you're disabling parts of your browser to work around it, then their business model is broken and you shouldn't feel bad about it.

Wired in particular has a print magazine which is mostly funded by print ads, and they are owned by Advance Publications which did $8B in revenue last year so I wouldn't worry about them too much.

[tmoullet]

Do you feel bad for DVRing a tv show and then using the skip button to bypass commercials?

[Zekio]

Never feel bad for not wasting CPU and Bandwidth(video ads ugh)

[ljk]

Especially auto-playing videos ads, and the sites that force you to disable ad blockers.

[Mz]

Maybe, maybe not. There are other ways to support sites and site monetization is complicated. If you value what they do and you use the site, you should find some means to support it, if possible. But it isn't all on your shoulders either.

You should strive to support the things you benefit from and not just be a leech. But it also isn't an offense that merits committing hara kiri either.

I say this as someone who runs a number of sites that don't really make money. I do have a notice that says "Thank you for white listing," but the general lack of financial success of my work is far more complicated than "You evil ad block users killed my monetization!"

If it bothers you enough to ask, consider coming up with some thoughtful personal policy that makes you more comfortable than what you are doing currently.

[Nadya]

>The only way sites earn is by ads right, so If I like their content and don't view ads, am I 'cheating'?

Featured posts, donations, merchandise, subscriptions, pay-per-use (paywall), sponsors.

I took the better approach, which is also more fair for them: I don't visit them at all.

It also depends if they get paid per ad impression or ad click. Though I don't think ad-clicks are common nowadays.

Not visiting their site has the same result, but is more "morally acceptable" for not using server resources. I don't agree with ads on principle - and an ad asking me to remove my ad blocker is still an ad.

[dufferzafar]

> I don't visit them at all.

I honestly don't get this part. You don't visit any website that has ads?

[Nadya]

I don't (intentionally, at least) visit any site that has an ad for users who use ad blockers to disable their ad blocker.

I do this because, to me, it is implied they would rather not have me visiting if I do not white list them. Which is reasonable and understandable if ads are their main business model.

If it is merely a request but they explicitly state that continued use of the site with your ad blocker active is OK, I'll continue use of the site.

E:

I went off on a tangent. Removed the unnecessary bits.

[anonyfox]

see http://blog.plague-dev.de/posts/Adblock-isnt-immoral .

[Myk267]

Only if you would feel bad that the sites you visit with your ad blocker enabled all died because they didn't get enough funding.

[redxblood]

Nope. It´s your choice to use one.