This is why adblocking is so important

[TheL8Elvis]

Read the entire thread.

That's not a helpful response. I did read the entire thread.

Which is an assumption on your part.

Yes, based on context, that's what I understand it to mean. You have a right to it, meaning if you are not being blocked, you can view the content. Because that is how the internet works.

You're conflating meanings. Of course we know the technical side of things (even if it is still evolving). However, from a business and social perspective, we don't know jack yet.

Of course we also know how the business and social side of the internet works (even if it is still evolving)

Because it isn't an analogy. It is a description of what is happening.

No, I literally have not ever been handed a bill for visiting a web site. It's a bad analogy.

Some places do state a policy regarding ad filters.

They can state whatever they want, that doesn't make it a valid contract.

You're not compensating content creators for their content,

This happens all the time, and is not unique to the Internet, and really shouldn't pose a moral dilemma.

The independent content creators need revenue to continue independently creating content. If that doesn't happen, then eventually, we'll see all the content being created by the ISPs, since they will be the only ones who can profit from web content.

Yes, the sky is falling. Been falling for a while now, yet I see now shortage of content on the internet.

So, what do you think is going to happen when the only sources for content will be Comcast, AT&T and Verizon and a handful of other giant conglomerates? They won't have to bother buying anti-net neutrality legislation.

I don't think that is going to happen. You certainly haven't provided any evidence that it is going to.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Start here

Too true.

 

[fuelair]

The website is free to arbitrarily block requests from certain IPs or not provide their content to browsers that looks they are running adblocking features.

I have no problem with that - I simply do not need what they have that much. There are no sites on the internet that are essential to me/ that I would pay to be able to go to. And my mind needs the input faster than an ad slowing can be tolerated so I will simply find another source for the data. That is why I do not google, I dogpile - faster locating of useful sites - though even they are not as good as they used to be.

 

[DarthFishy]

There's an inherent problem with the terminology of web browsing. One does not 'visit' a website. One requests a website to load data unto your computer that you then view through a browser. I absolutely, legally and morally, reserve the right to have control over what data is loaded unto my computer, which is what an adblocker allows me to control.

I will whitelist a site that I enjoy using and that has unobstrusive ads though.

 

[GlennB]

You're not compensating content creators for their content,

That's an arbitrary and one-sided implied contract where the user is unaware of the implied terms & conditions. If they expect this compensation then let them announce it up front or block users who use ad blockers.

 

[Donal]

That's not a helpful response. I did read the entire thread.

Look at the post right before I first used the word entitled.

Yes, based on context, that's what I understand it to mean. You have a right to it, meaning if you are not being blocked, you can view the content. Because that is how the internet works.

At the basic semantic level. But the only reason one would cling to this is to avoid actually discussing the problem.

Of course we also know how the business and social side of the internet works (even if it is still evolving)

No, we really don't. that is why we're still using such a broken system. Again, if that was a resolved issue, this discussion would be a moot point.

No, I literally have not ever been handed a bill for visiting a web site. It's a bad analogy.

Yes, the ads. You know how they expect to make money.

They can state whatever they want, that doesn't make it a valid contract.

Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean it is there.

This happens all the time, and is not unique to the Internet, and really shouldn't pose a moral dilemma.

"Everybody else does it"? Really?

Yes, the sky is falling. Been falling for a while now, yet I see now shortage of content on the internet.

So, because you personally don't see it means it doesn't exist or isn't an on coming problem?

I don't think that is going to happen. You certainly haven't provided any evidence that it is going to.

You haven't seen small sites going out of business or selling out to larger media companies? You haven't seen the big ISPs making moves to control internet content? Are you stuck in 2005?

 

[Donal]

That's an arbitrary and one-sided implied contract where the user is unaware of the implied terms & conditions. If they expect this compensation then let them announce it up front or block users who use ad blockers.

What do you think the ads are there for? Do you think bandwidth and hosting are free? And what is your excuse? You know what the deal is.

And again, look what happened when Ars Tecchnica and Destructoid made those requests.

The other thing the "paywall" model does is raise the bar for entry. New content creators can't just throw up a paywall when they start out. You need to build a following. And once you've had people using your site for years,to turn around and charge a fee for the content is called a "slap in the face" to your "fans".

 

[Hawk one]

My solution to ad problems: Make the server host financially responsible for any ads that provides malware or spyware to the surfer; fairly compensating them for the time they spend fixing their computers.

That will give the web pages a huge incentive to stop using that kind of scripted crap; and I as a surfer will lose my need -and yes, as things are now, it is a need, a necessary requirement to use the internet- to use my adblockers.

 

[Donal]

The problem there is that the companies that make the ads are shady mofos who get more money by selling the ads the autoplay video or run some sort of script. Thats why they bundle them together with the static ads.

My fiance was a marketing manager for a small restaurant group and was doing business with them on the other end. They always tried to up sell her on those things, but she knew there was no evidence they actually bring in more revenue.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

What do you think the ads are there for? Do you think bandwidth and hosting are free? And what is your excuse? You know what the deal is.

I should be able to determine what gets displayed on my computer, shouldn't I? If they want to require viewing ads, put it into the agreement when I make an account. Ban those who use adblockers. What's wrong with that?

 

[Hellbound]

If I might chime in...

I think the problem is that the websites aren't the ones in control of the ads. Basically, using an ad-blocker is punishing the website for the "sins" of the ad company. Since one is visiting the website, it can be assumed that they place some value the content there. SO I don't think it's in anyone's best interest that the content creator be punished.

That being said, on a practical level, it's also not in anyone's best interest that the end-user be annoyed, disgusted, or have malware placed on their system because of the ad company.

In short, the system is broken because there's little way to tie responsibility to the root of the problem. Ad-blockers are the tech equivalent of walling in plague cities to prevent the spread of a disease. It may be necessary for safety, but no one really wants the inhabitants to die (dramatic, perhaps, but a good analogy I think).

As to an answer, I don't know. I do wonder if Hawk One might be on to something, though. However, I'd thinkt he ad company would be the one that should be targetted, in class action suits against them when they release danmgerous code in ads. Ultimatley, they are the ones responsible for that. The content sites are, in effect, renting some of their bandwidth to the ad company in return for revenue. Just as it wouldn't make sense to sue your ISP because they sold bandwidth to a company that used it inappropriately, I don't think it's fair (necessarily) to hold the site responsible for the ads. BUt the ad company would seem to have a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to insure that they are not providing dangerous or damaging content. It would seem to me that it's fairly simple to test an ad, or scan it for dangerous script componenets, and failure to do so would seem to be negligence.

I don't really know how it works out legally, but I think there will have to be changes in law before anything can really be done. I don't have an answer, either. Ad-blockers aren't a good solution, but they are protection fo rthe end-user, and with the current situation I can't blame end-users for protecting themselves. I can only hope that as the revenues start dropping as more people turn to ad blockers, the ad companies may realize that butt-******* the end user is ineffective, and these tactics may reduce.

I dunno, just some random, wandering thoughts on the subject. Use at your own risk

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Look at the post right before I first used the word entitled.

I see that now, thanks. As I see it, there is no entitlement for either party. I am not entitled to any content if I am blocked from accessing it by content creators, and content creators aren't entitled to have me view their ads I choose to block.

At the basic semantic level. But the only reason one would cling to this is to avoid actually discussing the problem.

No, we really don't. that is why we're still using such a broken system. Again, if that was a resolved issue, this discussion would be a moot point.

Yes, the ads. You know how they expect to make money.

Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean it is there.

"Everybody else does it"? Really?

So, because you personally don't see it means it doesn't exist or isn't an on coming problem?

You haven't seen small sites going out of business or selling out to larger media companies? You haven't seen the big ISPs making moves to control internet content? Are you stuck in 2005?

We're all over the place. You have made a slew of assertions, and provided no evidence.

If you want to narrow down the focus to a few claims and provide some evidence, then there may be something to discuss. Otherwise, I think we just have a differing opinion on what the right thing to do regarding ads is.

 

[quadraginta]

If I might chime in...

I think the problem is that the websites aren't the ones in control of the ads. Basically, using an ad-blocker is punishing the website for the "sins" of the ad company. Since one is visiting the website, it can be assumed that they place some value the content there. SO I don't think it's in anyone's best interest that the content creator be punished.

<snip>

How does that work? Are the sites being hacked and the ads put up without the operator's knowledge.

As long as those operators are receiving revenue from the ads then they are a priori sanctioning the ads. If they are clueless about the content they are being paid to offer that is definitely their fault.

I'm willing to give 'em a pass until somebody points out the problem to them, but after that they need to put on their big girl panties and take some responsibility.

 

[Donal]

I should be able to determine what gets displayed on my computer, shouldn't I? If they want to require viewing ads, put it into the agreement when I make an account. Ban those who use adblockers. What's wrong with that?

1) Still costs more money to implement those things, raising the bar for entry.

2) I'm personally fine with that, but again, look at what happened to places like Ars Technica and Destructoid. Do you know how little time a website has to grab a viewer? Forcing people to read a TOS agreement before viewing your page is death.

3) what is wrong with just not going to sites that run ads with scripts?

I am completely on board with preventing executables from being run on your computer and from sites tracking your browsing habits. The problem is, we don't have a better model for producing revenue for web content creators.

 

[marplots]

It becomes a non-issue when ads are programmed the same way as content. If I want to read the .html, I get the .html ad.

I have noticed magazines do this. They print the good stuff, like articles, on the same paper as the ads.

 

[Donal]

How does that work? Are the sites being hacked and the ads put up without the operator's knowledge.

As long as those operators are receiving revenue from the ads then they are a priori sanctioning the ads. If they are clueless about the content they are being paid to offer that is definitely their fault.

I'm willing to give 'em a pass until somebody points out the problem to them, but after that they need to put on their big girl panties and take some responsibility.

On principal, I agree, but it in practice, this puts a ton of burden on the content creators. The ad companies have the hammer here. They sell ads by the bundles. these bundles include all the crappy ads that auto run crap. Even if the smaller sites were willing to go with the static ads that don't pay as well, they simply don't have the choice.

 

[GlennB]

On principal, I agree, but it in practice, this puts a ton of burden on the content creators. The ad companies have the hammer here. They sell ads by the bundles. these bundles include all the crappy ads that auto run crap.

And there we have it. It's the responsibility of the content providers to sort out the crap. While the crap exists (as it does) users have no obligation to expose themselves to the crap. I'll continue to take steps to guarantee I'm not exposed to it, thanks all the same, which I feel is very reasonable indeed.

A thought - JREF bans hotlinking images except from certain sites, as today's fluffy kitten image might be replaced by something horrific tomorrow. Allowing random ads on your machine is similar, probably worse, as it goes beyond the risk of offence and into outright damage.

 

[Wudang]

I am completely on board with preventing executables from being run on your computer and from sites tracking your browsing habits. The problem is, we don't have a better model for producing revenue for web content creators.

Then perhaps we should have one? The thing is when I use google to, as I did today, search for memory leaks in hibernate classes, I often have no previous experience of the websites (often personal blogs) in search results so will not trust them. If a website politely asks me to whitelist them, then if I judge their content worthwhile and they seem reasonable, and how they ask will be part of that process, then I may whitelist them.
A lot of the time what I get instead is the equivalent of taking a quick look at a restaurants menu in the window only for the maiter d' to come out shouting at me that they only use Wonderbrand flour and please read this leaftlet on Wonderbrand flour while standing in front of the menu wearing a Wonderbrand t shirt. If you only have a short time to make an impression sell me something I want not what you want to sell me. I have other choices.

 

[Donal]

And there we have it. It's the responsibility of the content providers to sort out the crap. While the crap exists (as it does) users have no obligation to expose themselves to the crap. I'll continue to take steps to guarantee I'm not exposed to it, thanks all the same, which I feel is very reasonable indeed.

A thought - JREF bans hotlinking images except from certain sites, as today's fluffy kitten image might be replaced by something horrific tomorrow. Allowing random ads on your machine is similar, probably worse, as it goes beyond the risk of offence and into outright damage.

Did you intentionally ignore the rest of what I said? Or do you not see how a lack of options is a significant problem?

Again, the ad companies have the hammer. Very few offer plans that don't include executables.

 

[Donal]

Then perhaps we should have one?

No argument here. the problem is, anytime the solution viewers doing something, the web admins get flooded in hate mail.

The thing is when I use google to, as I did today, search for memory leaks in hibernate classes, I often have no previous experience of the websites (often personal blogs) in search results so will not trust them. If a website politely asks me to whitelist them, then if I judge their content worthwhile and they seem reasonable, and how they ask will be part of that process, then I may whitelist them.
A lot of the time what I get instead is the equivalent of taking a quick look at a restaurants menu in the window only for the maiter d' to come out shouting at me that they only use Wonderbrand flour and please read this leaftlet on Wonderbrand flour while standing in front of the menu wearing a Wonderbrand t shirt. If you only have a short time to make an impression sell me something I want not what you want to sell me. I have other choices.

What do you do then? Do you continue to block ads on that site, or do you move on to the next one that doesn't have obtrusive ads.