This is why adblocking is so important

[Aepervius]

You pay for libraries and over the air television with your taxes.

And there is a restriction on the web content. that is why we're having this conversation.

There is no restriction. If there was (as some site do) we would not be having this conversation.

 

[Aepervius]

You pay for libraries and over the air television with your taxes.

Basically not always true, as some OTA TV station are private and fully financed trough advertising.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I know, I participated in it, defending ad blockers no less. Granted, my issue there was the lousy reasoning and misrepresented facts Buddha was doing.

My issue here is the sentiment that readers/viewers are entitled to the content. We're not.

I agree with the post below:

Entitlement is a loaded word intentionally set up to give the impression somebody is stealing content and work and sweat.

This is not how the web works.

We politely ask , "can i see the page". Then the site decide to show it to us and give us all it think we should load up to watch it for the best experience. Then we simply omit to load *some* of the element.

There is no moral obligation to watch the ads, and neither there is a contractual one.

If the web site owner thinks ad blocker should not be used, it is up to him to enforce it, rather than have a welcome mat.

 

[Donal]

Entitlement is a loaded word intentionally set up to give the impression somebody is stealing content and work and sweat.

I'm not the one who brought it up. and I'm using it in the correct context. Several posters here, including yourself, are saying that if it is out there, you have a right to it. The language being used here and other places makes it sound like people are blaming the content creators for...creating the content in the first place.

This is not how the web works.

See, that is the thing. The web is still in its infancy. No one really knows how the web "works".

We politely ask , "can i see the page". Then the site decide to show it to us and give us all it think we should load up to watch it for the best experience. Then we simply omit to load *some* of the element.

You can't choose to omit the bill a company gives you for a service provided.

There is no moral obligation to watch the ads, and neither there is a contractual one.

Contractually, you are right...for the most part. Morally...again, if it were that clear cut, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If the web site owner thinks ad blocker should not be used, it is up to him to enforce it, rather than have a welcome mat.

Which is all fine and good, but look at the reaction to that like the second post in this very thread and tell me there isn't a sense of entitlement involved. Look at the hate mail Destructoid and Ars Technica got when they tried a "freemium" approach.

I agree with the security concerns and the idea that the site admins are responsible for making sure their sites are pushing malware on us. What I'm saying is we have an obligation in the bargain as well.

I think we all want an open and available internet. But, to get that and have it work, we need to be willing to meet certain responsibilities.

 

[Donal]

There is no restriction. If there was (as some site do) we would not be having this conversation.

If there is no restriction, why the debate about ad blockers? Just ebcause you circumvent it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[Donal]

I may be missing something so I will try again: a site puts up material, the material is listed in search engines, the site has no paywall and no (functionally equivalent) subscription requirement. On what basis do you contend that viewers are not "entitled to the content"?

IF your contention is based on the idea that they should also have to read/watch/listen to the ads, magazines, newspapers and television (non cable ) have, it is minimally simple to prove you wrong. How? You are free to skim past, overlook, purposefully avoid the ads in all of those - nothing illegal about it so nothing wrong with it. IF I interpret you correctly, you are reacting like the old fool at a meeting on new technologies I and a lot of others in tech and marketing were at about 10-12 years ago (at which I first heard of FOLEDs) who, when the discussion turned to the easy technology of ad avoidance, turned red (honest - he looked like he was having a heart attack) and said/yelled " Damn it, the government needs to make a law that people have to watch the ads - that's what makes the stuff available!!!!!" Fun evening and even the other advertisers/marketers were laughing (after we got over the shock of that level of stupidity).

Irrelevant anecdotes and insults aside: I'm not saying the system isn't broken. It is. I also have said I use ad filters and such on my browsers. But, I'll also pay the content creators.

Also, ad blockers are different than just skimming past magazine ads. Ad blockers work more like the ad is ripped out of the magazine before it reaches the shelf for you to see it.

 

[elgarak]

Entitlement is a loaded word intentionally set up to give the impression somebody is stealing content and work and sweat.

This is not how the web works.

We politely ask , "can i see the page". Then the site decide to show it to us and give us all it think we should load up to watch it for the best experience. Then we simply omit to load *some* of the element.

There is no moral obligation to watch the ads, and neither there is a contractual one.

If the web site owner thinks ad blocker should not be used, it is up to him to enforce it, rather than have a welcome mat.

Indeed.

And if the owner of a web page does not show me the interesting parts in the way I like it, in quite a few cases I do and did not visit them again.

The most recent I recall is a newspaper web page that redirects me to a paywall for more than ten visits in a month (it resets). But since all I ever read there were agency text that were available verbatim on other news outlets, I abandoned them. No revenue for advertisement, and no revenue from subscription. It wasn't worth it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not the one who brought it up. and I'm using it in the correct context. Several posters here, including yourself, are saying that if it is out there, you have a right to it. The language being used here and other places makes it sound like people are blaming the content creators for...creating the content in the first place.

I thought you did bring up the entitlement part:

But you have entitlement to their content?

As for the right, I read that as simply an explanation of how HTTP works when stuff is "out there"

See, that is the thing. The web is still in its infancy. No one really knows how the web "works".

We do know how it works, and that was an accurate description of how HTTP works.
I think you must be conflating how the internet works with something else, but I am not sure what.

You can't choose to omit the bill a company gives you for a service provided.

This is simply a bad analogy.

Contractually, you are right...for the most part. Morally...again, if it were that clear cut, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Which part is wrong for contractually?
As for the morals, I haven't seen a convincing argument that ad-blocking is morally wrong.

Which is all fine and good, but look at the reaction to that like the second post in this very thread and tell me there isn't a sense of entitlement involved. Look at the hate mail Destructoid and Ars Technica got when they tried a "freemium" approach.

I agree with the security concerns and the idea that the site admins are responsible for making sure their sites are pushing malware on us. What I'm saying is we have an obligation in the bargain as well.

I think we all want an open and available internet. But, to get that and have it work, we need to be willing to meet certain responsibilities.

I don't see the necessary connection between an open net and me having to view ads.

 

[Wudang]

No one really knows how the web "works".

Start here

 

[geni]

I may be missing something so I will try again: a site puts up material, the material is listed in search engines, the site has no paywall and no (functionally equivalent) subscription requirement. On what basis do you contend that viewers are not "entitled to the content"?

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.

 

[geni]

Absolutely. Also, the advertisers need to go back to banner ads or something else less obtrusive instead of the damn popups.

I seem to recall popups being a major method of advertising back around 2002 before more browsers started to block them by default (probably drove firebird adoption back in the day).

The "mobile" versions of news sites seem to be the worst offenders.

You chose to use a broswer header that indicated you were using a mobile phone.

If you insist on producing ads that make it impossible to see the content I came to the site to see, I'm going to be so busy figuring out how to get the add out of the way that I don't notice or care (except maybe not to do business with them) who placed the add. Make it annoying enough and I will just block it. Put an ad somewhere visible but not in the way of what I actually want to read, and I might notice it, in the fairly unlikely event that it's for something I'm actually interested in buying.

The problem is that mobiles have so little screen real eastate that there really isn't anwhere to put the ads hence the full screen stuff.

 

[ehcks]

Irrelevant anecdotes and insults aside: I'm not saying the system isn't broken. It is. I also have said I use ad filters and such on my browsers. But, I'll also pay the content creators.

Also, ad blockers are different than just skimming past magazine ads. Ad blockers work more like the ad is ripped out of the magazine before it reaches the shelf for you to see it.

However, a magazine ad has absolutely no way to damage my ability to read other magazines.

If an ad on TV could cause your television to pop up more ads during your show, then I would suggest everyone get a DVR and skip all the ads. Would I find people telling me it's entitlement?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If they think they need to be compensated, then they should put their stuff behind a paywall.

I love when people pull out these "simple solutions" as if they hadn't already been considered and rejected multiple times over.

 

[Checkmite]

I love when people pull out these "simple solutions" as if they hadn't already been considered and rejected multiple times over.

I love it when people don't hesitate to reject these other solutions "multiple times over" for their various disadvantages, but when it comes to the disadvantage of served adware (namely, users with ad-blocking software), they'd rather try to argue it away or insist other people deal with it.

 

[Minoosh]

I love when people pull out these "simple solutions" as if they hadn't already been considered and rejected multiple times over.

The news media fumbled badly on the transition from print to Web. There was such a feeling of wanting a Web presence that we gave it away free and never did develop a model for making money on Net traffic.

Ad revenue subsidized a lot of fluff, but also important investigative reporting. Freed from slaughtering trees, gulping ink and burning gasoline - and the expectation of 30 percent profits - the news industry might be able to get by with relatively unobtrusive ads. YouTube has taken to running 15-second ads, or ads you can skip after 5 seconds. The ad producers make the most of those 5 seconds.

Maybe this could work for traditional "print" media as well. By "print" I mean stories you read, vs. watching videos. I'd sit still for 5- or even 15-second ads, because it does take resources to produce meaningful content.

ETA: But I'm talking about ads the user buys into, not ones that jack your computer. Popups don't bother me as much as incredibly loud audio ads that play seemingly without any consent on my part. I don't even know how that happens.

 

[Donal]

I thought you did bring up the entitlement part:

Read the entire thread.

As for the right, I read that as simply an explanation of how HTTP works when stuff is "out there"

Which is an assumption on your part.

We do know how it works, and that was an accurate description of how HTTP works.
I think you must be conflating how the internet works with something else, but I am not sure what.

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.

This is simply a bad analogy.

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

Which part is wrong for contractually?

Some places do state a policy regarding ad filters.

As for the morals, I haven't seen a convincing argument that ad-blocking is morally wrong.

You're not compensating content creators for their content,

I don't see the necessary connection between an open net and me having to view ads.

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.

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.

 

[Leftus]

I love when people pull out these "simple solutions" as if they hadn't already been considered and rejected multiple times over.

And yet you don't share that sentiment when it comes to blocking ads. Ad delivery that has been considered and rejected multiple times over due to security concerns.

 

[Donal]

However, a magazine ad has absolutely no way to damage my ability to read other magazines.

I dunno, some of those cologne ads make my eyes burn.

If an ad on TV could cause your television to pop up more ads during your show, then I would suggest everyone get a DVR and skip all the ads. Would I find people telling me it's entitlement?

If its on cable? Hell, no. I'm still pissed I have to pay extra and still watch commercials.

If we're talking over the air, ya. You could just not watch it.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'd like to know how anti-ad people expect their favourite websites to be paid for. Web hosting is not free.

 

[Pulvinar]

I'd like to know how anti-ad people expect their favourite websites to be paid for. Web hosting is not free.

I have no problem with well-behaved blockable ads. Some people like ads, or at least don't mind them. I do, and my blocking them has the same result as my usual habit of ignoring them.

Remember, those who buy the products are supporting everyone else, including those of you who looked at some ads but didn't buy (you know who you are-- shame on you!)