Ethics of blocking the ad blockers (internet advertising).

[yosemite]

@pepperlandgirl

Perhaps instead of targetting the people who are forced into using adblocking software to protect their computers, webmasters and site owners could pressure the companies that make it such a risk.

I’m with you there.

I just have the feeling that if savvy Internet users were forced to choose between visiting certain sites and keeping their computers clean by keeping up the current security settings, they’ll choose the latter nearly every tiime, and the webmasters may be shooting themselves in the foot regardless.

I suspect you might have a point. Note my comments earlier in this thread about “creating ill will” by blocking the ad-blockers.

Not anymore. After the latest 24 hour binge, I wised up and DLed mozilla. Between that, proximitron, and regular sweeps, I haven’t have anymore problems.

I am not a savvy PC user (better than many, but not at all savvy) but I suspect that you will have far fewer problems now. I haven’t used IE as a primary browser since I first upgraded to Windows 95. Perhaps that (and the fact that I tend to browse more on my Mac) explains why I do not have so many problems.

It would depend on the site, how often I use it, and the risk/benefit analysis. I mean, I could just be very, very paranoid and over-cautious, but this is the only computer I’m going to have for a very long time and I’m just not interested in putting it at risk. In that regards, yeah, I’d think it was unfair. I didn’t ask for these potential risks.

I can sympathize with your computer problems, but I’m not sure why you think it is “unfair” if you could not access a site that you are paying nothing for. They do not owe you access. Just like you are not obligated to worry about their financial burden in keeping the site up, they are not obligated to worry about your computer woes (as long as nothing on their site would contribute to the computer problems).

No doubt. But I do think more people than not (unless you get mainly mac users or people who are already surfing around with 50,000 pieces of spyware on their computer) probably just wouldn’t risk it.

I am not the best person to address this (being on the Mac so much, and all), but I do think that your zeal and caution are a little non-typical. Obviously a lot of people have no problem surfing around with ad-blocking turned off.

Put it another way, some people may do a risk/benefit analysis and decide it’s worth it to weaken the security or to put up with an odd ad here or there.

And perhaps they’ll start using Mozilla, Firefox or Safari (:D) and avoid the problems that way. (I could be wrong, but I’ve heard many PC-gurus say that avoiding IE is the best step you can make.)

Other people may not think it’s worth it at all. Other people may not even know how to remove the adblockers. I know my grandfather’s in that boat. I established safeguards on his PC, told him how to run sweeps, but never told him how to turn the software off or disable it.

And while I sympathize with all these problems, I still don’t think that websites are being “unfair” to block anyone they feel like blocking. (It may be ill-concieved of them to do it, but not “unfair.”)

So do you think it would generate more revenue for you and more clicks for your ads if you A) Piss people off B) Force them to turn away because they don’t want to remove adblockers C) Push away unsavvy or ignorant users who don’t even know what you’re on about? And would there be a guarentee that even after all of this, more than 1% would click on the ads you’re trying to protect?

Read my post to Mr2001 above and you’ll see that I am leaning against blocking the ad blockers, precisely because I don’t think the ill-will would benefit me.

But I’ll repeat: I don’t owe anyone access. I can block whoever I want. I could block IE users, or Windows users (if there was a way to do that—don’t know), or whatever. It would not be “unfair” of me to do that. When someone pays nothing to view a site, they pretty much haven’t much room to complain when they aren’t allowed to see it.

[Mr2001]

@yosemite

But I’ll repeat: I don’t owe anyone access. I can block whoever I want. I could block IE users, or Windows users (if there was a way to do that—don’t know), or whatever. It would not be “unfair” of me to do that. When someone pays nothing to view a site, they pretty much haven’t much room to complain when they aren’t allowed to see it.

Sure, you can block Windows users. The operating system is part of the user agent string that every browser sends to identify itself. But, like any other blocking method, it can be defeated easily. Here is a Firefox extension that lets you change the user agent string to whatever you want.

[pepperlandgirl]

But I’ll repeat: I don’t owe anyone access. I can block whoever I want. I could block IE users, or Windows users (if there was a way to do that—don’t know), or whatever. It would not be “unfair” of me to do that. When someone pays nothing to view a site, they pretty much haven’t much room to complain when they aren’t allowed to see it.

Perhaps I would use the word “frustrating” rather than “unfair.” I do agree with your points, actually. You’re 100% correct. But then i would feel maneuvered between a rock and a hard place that’s no fault of yours really and no fault of mine…and the result would be…frustrating.

I am not the best person to address this (being on the Mac so much, and all), but I do think that your zeal and caution are a little non-typical. Obviously a lot of people have no problem surfing around with ad-blocking turned off.

Actually, if they are on PCs and they aren’t blocking ads, they [ I]do* have a problem. They just don’t realize the bugs sucking up their bandwidth and may learn to live with the popups, not realizing there’s another option (like my grandpa). But I like to think (hope) that more and more people are learning about the risks of low security and no blockers.

And perhaps they’ll start using Mozilla, Firefox or Safari () and avoid the problems that way. (I could be wrong, but I’ve heard many PC-gurus say that avoiding IE is the best step you can make.)

Mozilla, Firefox, et al, are all safer than IE obviously. IE has holes that can be exploited by nasty people and their nasty programs that Mozilla does not. However, that’s not all it offers. My adblocker is my browser.

[Dan_Norder]

@duffer

What? No, really, what the fuck?

The web publisher is there to upkeep the website. If the webmaster is counting on clicks to an ad-site for income, that’s a risk us Americans take as our given right. It’s not a guarantee that money will be made from it.

Dan, I suppose you’ll accuse me of theft for not knowing a Dodge commercial was shown during yesterday’s NASCAR race?

OK, that last part shows you weren’t paying attention. The broadcaster gets paid for advertising whether you watch or not. It doesn’t matter if you know a Dodge ad was shown or not, because the broadcaster got paid for it. You block ads on a website and you are directly taking money away from the webmaster. If you want to compare the two, then a Dodge ad could come up on the website and you just didn’t pay attention, but the webmaster still got paid. Going one step farther and blocking the ad is theft.

And this “not a guarantee” thing is stupid, because you can use the same ridiculous argument to excuse shoplifting and fraud, because if you open a store or broadcast a TV show then you aren’t guaranteed money from it either. But if you go and make use of a website that other people have to see ads to use and you block ads, it’s the same as stealing software or sneaking into the movie theater. You got to use the site, but the webmaster didn’t get the money he would have otherwise, AND you cost him bandwidth serving you the page. You stole from him, just as sure as if you used a crowbar to open a cash register and ran off with the contents. The only difference is one is more socially acceptable right now, probably as a leftover from the rampant Napster thefts and software piracy people brag about.

Plus I rally have to say that the little cyberterrorist wannabe above who wants to do denial of service attacks on websites if they have a popup ad needs to grow up before he lands himself in jail.

[Mangetout]

@yosemite

But I’ll repeat: I don’t owe anyone access. I can block whoever I want.

I agree, and it is also true that your visitors don’t owe you any particular download behaviour. The best you can do is try to find ways to encourage them to view the ads.

The best and most tasteful way I’ve seen of doing this is on a freeware download site I frequent; in order to download a hosted file, you have to go to an intermediate download page with ads on it; if you block the ads, you don’t get as far as downloading the file. Carrot and stick.

[Mr2001]

@Dan Norder

But if you go and make use of a website that other people have to see ads to use and you block ads, it’s the same as stealing software or sneaking into the movie theater. You got to use the site, but the webmaster didn’t get the money he would have otherwise, AND you cost him bandwidth serving you the page. You stole from him, just as sure as if you used a crowbar to open a cash register and ran off with the contents.

In fact, you killed him, just as sure as if you broke into his house in the middle of the night and slit his throat!

No, wait. That’s crazy.

You’re claiming that users have an obligation to view ads, in case the webmaster is paid per impression. Now suppose you go a web site that uses Google AdSense, or another advertising network that pays per click, not per impression. Are you now obligated to click on the ads? Actually, since you don’t know for any given site whether the ads pay per click or per impression, aren’t you obligated to click on the ads at every site?

What if the webmaster makes his money by selling T-shirts or mugs, and relies on the sales to keep his site running? Are you then obligated to buy something from him, or to visit his store page? Or is it OK to “steal” from him in that case?

[Basandre]

I use Firefox, and it comes with a feature to “Block images from this server” that can fairly effectively be used to block banner ads - apparently about 20 servers provide most of the banner ads on the 'net. As far as I can tell, Firefox does, in fact, download the images from the servers, it just doesn’t display them. (For instance, I occasionally get a timeout error from an ad server I know I have blocked). Does this still count as stealing content from the websites that get paid per impression? I’ve never clicked on a banner ad in my entire web surfing career except by mistake, so I’d say it’s pretty safe to say that I’m not going to do so in the future, even if the ad servers defeat my blocking, so I’m not cheating them out of clicks.

[Declan]

@Mr2001

What if the webmaster makes his money by selling T-shirts or mugs, and relies on the sales to keep his site running? Are you then obligated to buy something from him, or to visit his store page? Or is it OK to “steal” from him in that case?

It is by no means theft

If Yosemite is getting 1% click through on advertising , then thats a pretty good return , but in real terms , it means that 99% avoided the ads or ignored them , depending on how the stats break down.

As the OP posted , the ads are relatively benign , rather than active advertising via pop ups , pop unders , media content activation , so its hard to say if pop up blockers are actively denying the OP , a bigger slice of the pie.

Right now I am going to be paying 12 to 18 bucks depending , on re-upping my domain name , while paying after currency conversion, 11 bucks a month for hosting/bandwidth.

And the above is currently one fo the more expensive packages for a website to incur , at the moment , I have seen site hosting for as little as 2 bucks a month and some pretty decent options included.

So in truth , it really depends on what you expect to make in terms of money , from the ad companies, but theft , I have a hard time trying to reconcile that with actual break and enter , shop lifting , and so on , to me its just a way of using inflamatory language to polarize society in general.

But last but not least , web advertisements are the progeny of tv/radio ads , bolted over a webpage. With nothing to go on , advertising agencys and what not , went with what they know and have been refining ever since.

There will come a time , when there is a tiered internet , with payed content subscriptions coming up more and more , its a cost of doing biz in the 21 first century.

Declan

[Dan_Norder]

@Mr2001

Are you now obligated to click on the ads?

You really aren’t very good at following along.

If you go into a shop and look around, you aren’t obligated to buy stuff, but you aren’t allowed to take things without paying either. If you disable ads that they otherwise would have gotten paid for and still view the content of the site, you are robbing them of the money (small that it is) that they should have gotten.

You aren’t obligated to do anything than you would have done anyway, but actively removing the webmaster’s source of income is theft, no if ands or buts about it.

Think about this morally… you are costing them money by using up their bandwidth… what are they getting out of you if you block the ads? Other people view the ads and reimburse the webmaster, what makes you special? How do you justify to yourself that you can see something for free and not only deprive the webmaster of the small money they should have gotten but also have them be charged for the bandwidth you use up?

There are way too maany people out there that only care about themselves and will do anything they can think of to rip people off, as long as it’s convenient to them. Morals never enter into it, it’s what they think they can get away with. Ripping off these webmasters is no big deal to them, or pirating software or what have you, but they’re less likely to shoplift because they are more likely to get caught.

I’m sorry, but if you encourage theft, you are a thief, and I for one am not going to sit here and let you talk about your strategies for ripping people off and how you think you are entitled to getting the same things for free that other people pay for.

[Mr2001]

@Dan Norder

You really aren’t very good at following along.

There’s a place for remarks like that, pal.

If you go into a shop and look around, you aren’t obligated to buy stuff, but you aren’t allowed to take things without paying either.

Sure. But looking at a web page is not equivalent to that. It’s more like going in a store to use the facilities they make available to the public in the hopes that it’ll lead to profit.

If you go into a gas station to enjoy the air conditioning, use the drinking fountain and rest room, and you look around but you don’t buy anything, is that theft? If a grocery store is selling milk for $1 a gallon as a loss leader, and you go in and buy nothing but milk, is that theft? Of course not. The store is gambling that by providing a comfortable environment and marking a few items down below cost, you’ll buy something that makes them some money… and in this case they gambled wrong.

Similarly, a web site is gambling that by providing a web page with ads on it, you’ll load the ads along with the other images, look at them, and maybe click on them and bring in some money. In the case of someone who doesn’t load or look at the ads, they gambled wrong.

You aren’t obligated to do anything than you would have done anyway, but actively removing the webmaster’s source of income is theft, no if ands or buts about it.

So then it’s also bad to turn off images in your browser, because you might miss an ad, right?

What if you’re using a text browser like Lynx that’s incapable of showing images and IFRAMEs, so you miss all the ads? Are you then a thief? Are you obligated to switch to a different browser, operating system, or computer in order to see the ads?

Or what if you run a spider - a program that jumps from page to page, building an index of the web? Google does it, MSN does it, and the list goes on. Those spiders don’t run ad serving scripts, and they don’t load images. Google could index your site a hundred times without giving you a single ad impression. Are the folks at Google a bunch of thieves too?

I’m assuming you aren’t familiar with the technical aspects of the web, so let me clue you in: Loading any kind of image, frame, or embedded content on a page is more than a browser has to do. The browser has to go out of its way to load all those things, because they’re separate files from the page itself. Separate requests, and often separate connections to the server. What you’re saying is that it isn’t enough just to load the page - users are also obligated to load every image and frame it refers to, and run every bit of JavaScript, because otherwise they’ll miss some ads.

And don’t forget, webmasters aren’t the only ones who pay for bandwidth. Every ad banner or ad serving script a user doesn’t download is bandwidth that user can use for something else.

Think about this morally… you are costing them money by using up their bandwidth… what are they getting out of you if you block the ads?

By setting up a public site, they implicitly agree to let anyone view it. And by putting it on the web, where over a decade of convention and tradition says that a client is free to interpret a page however it wants, they’re in no place to whine when people don’t look at or load every part of the page.

Other people view the ads and reimburse the webmaster, what makes you special? How do you justify to yourself that you can see something for free and not only deprive the webmaster of the small money they should have gotten but also have them be charged for the bandwidth you use up?

How am I supposed to know how they get paid? I don’t get paid per impression for ads on my site.

Ripping off these webmasters is no big deal to them, or pirating software or what have you, but they’re less likely to shoplift because they are more likely to get caught.

I’ve seen some crazy things on this board in the past five years. Hell, I’ve written some myself. But comparing ad blocking software to shoplifting is… well, not the craziest, but it’s in the top ten.

[Dan_Norder]

You assume I don’t know the technical aspects of the web, yet you don’t realize that advertisers pay when people view ads? Come on, get real.

When someone puts up a website and doesn’t want money and wants people to be able to see it for free, it doesn’t have ads on it. If it has ads on it, he wants money. You disable ads and he gets no money. This is a simple concept.

This whole “gambling for money” thing is ridiculous, because it’s exactly the same as saying the stores gamble for money so it’s ok to shoplift because you wouldn’t have bought anything anyway. You get to see the page, you see the ad.

Just trying to fight ignorance here, pal. If you refuse to be educated, that’s your issue, not mine.

[Mr2001]

@Dan Norder

You assume I don’t know the technical aspects of the web, yet you don’t realize that advertisers pay when people view ads? Come on, get real.

I have a web site. It has ads on it from a very popular ad network… the best paying one, from what I’ve heard, and one that sounds awfully similar to the one in the OP. I get paid when people click them, not when people view them. Are you telling me I’m wrong about that?

I see you didn’t answer my questions. Surely, that must be because you missed them, not because your reasoning led you to answers that were embarrassingly wrong. Here they are again, in easy-to-answer list form:

1. Is someone who turns off all images/frames in his browser a thief if he visits a site with ads?

2. If someone uses a browser that’s incapable of showing images and frames, and therefore he can’t load ads, is he a thief too?

3. Are the people who run Google, MSN, and every other search engine and web bot also thieves?

[artemis]

@yosemite

Ah, and if a site decided that if you had ad-blockers they wouldn’t let you see the free ad portion of their site? Would that be okay? It would still offer the visitor a choice—they could still pay the membership fee and see the site, with their ad-blocking on. But they couldn’t view the free ad-supported portion of the site, because they would be blocked.

Sure would be fine by me. I still have a choice: pony up some cash, or temporarily turn my ad-blocking software off so I can view the free side of the site.

Now, if the site blocked me just because I had ad-blocking software installed on my machine (even though it was turned off while I was trying to lok at the free side of the site), I’d be a bit grumpier. But as long as the “pay to look sans ads” side is available, I can’t really complain too much, can I?

@yosemite

I’m not talking about essential as in life-or-death…

Then you’re not talking about anything I NEED to view. The question then becomes, do I want to view it badly enough to be forced to look/listen to ads? With the level of obnoxious advertising that’s flooding the internet right now, my answer would be no.

@yosemite

But nobody is asking you to spend money. They are not even asking you to click on the ads. Only to be open to the option of clicking on them if you find something that interests you (which is how the “unobtrusive” ad programs like Google Adsense work).

And to be open to the option of being infested with spyware, or having my browser hijacked, or being forced to download huge graphics for 10 minutes before I can see content that will take me only 1 minute to read, or being swamped by a blizzard of pop-up ads that come so fast and furiously they obscure the content I want to view.

Until the more obnoxious forms of internet advertising are brought under control, consumers are going to resist being forced to view ANY advertising. After all, when I go to visit your site for the first time, I have no way to know whether the ads you will have up are the obnoxious sort or not. And after one or two experiences cleaning out spyware and booting browser hijackers off my machine, I’m probably not going to want to find out the hard way.

[Declan]

@yosemite

That’s true. One site I can think of offers free access to those who are willing to view ads, and a no-ad alternative to those who buy a membership.

Yup , I am pretty sure thats the way that Salon has it set up

What would you think of a webmaster saying that either you view the ads (for free) or pay for an ad-free membership, but you can’t use ad-blockers on the free section because we’ll shut you out? Would you consider that acceptable?
Fair enough. That’s a choice you make, just like the webmaster chooses to block you out.

Meant to ask you , how are the alt tags on those ads set up , I am pretty sure that one of the ramifications of that may be that a person who is handicapped might cause complications using a browser like links and some sort of voice software , being denied access.

Now the easiest thing to do , would be to have some sort of alt text on the main page that warned these folks of this , but even if they were willing to pay , any way around this for them ?

What would you do if, however, the site had some one-of-a-kind information that you could not find on any other site? Would you think that the webmaster has a “right” to block the ad-blockers, if indeed he is not inclined to set up a donation or membership scheme?

You would not even have to do that , instead just have the main page link to a login page , otherwise its just a war of technology , just like the major browsers and pop up blockers were coded , just to get around the ads in the first place.

If it is proprietary and custom content , then people will pay.

Declan