Is it immoral to block advertisements?

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

This is a big flaw of mine. I can’t let a debate rest.

You could use the same argument against the 10,000 courtesies that make our society a bearable place to live.

“I feel like taking up three seats on the subway. You don’t like it? Well, I never signed a contract saying I was limited to one seat.”

Yet, everyone here would agree that this is immoral.

Similarly, the ad revenue for content system is a courtesy compact that has played a large role in making the internet function as a community.

I don’t understand. We are talking about content you are viewing. You think it’s worth viewing, you just don’t feel like looking at the ads.

Thank you for being honest. After so many people in this thread pretended they blocked ads because if they didn’t their computer would crash from malware (I’ve never used adblock, and this hasn’t happened to me since the early 2000s when I used IE and Windows 95), someone finally fesses up to the truth behind adblock - people use it because they can’t stand the slight annoyance of ads.

If you don’t mind, please don’t break up my posts.
Yes you are correct. I don’t feel like looking at ads and I won’t look at ads and I’m not obliged to look at ads just because I look at your website. It is a courtesy to look at your website in the first place. I know this is hard for you to understand being on the other side, a beneficiary of those ads, but if you support yourself with ads it’s not my fault. It doesn’t matter why I don’t want to view those ads, but the idea that they might mess up my little eMachine is more than enough to block, and on top of that I don’t want to see them. I don’t want to click on them especially. Why would I when I’m not interested in the product they’re selling?

I’m a courteous person by nature, but if I’m against something such as online advertisements I will stand up for what I believe in. I’m sorry you haven’t found a way to earn your living without people clicking on ads for something you’re not even selling, but that’s not my problem.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

I never said to hell with your opinions. I understand your point of view. Maybe you should try to understand ours.

I understand yours as far as I understand all who earn money by invasive ads. I understand the plight of the telemarketer too. I understand product-placement and the like.

You have said to hell because you’re making us out to be bandits for stealing view of your content without clicking on your ads. Are you honestly trying to see our side or are you just here to argue?

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

Let me think. I know I learned it at some point… Hmm…

Oh yeah. People subscribed to newspapers.

Then the internet came along, and newspapers started putting their content up for free (whether this was a mistake or not - whether they should have all adopted the paywall system - is still debated within the industry).

They tried to support themselves with internet ads, and it sort of kind of worked, but now that adblock is becoming the norm this is becoming more and more difficult.

Not so fun fact: the newsroom where I work has a hiring freeze. No new photographers since around 2008. And I think we’re lucky compared to what’s happening elsewhere.

When I was young I was a teacher’s aid for CDC classrooms. After mainstreaming became popular first we had hiring freezes, then transfers, then lay-offs. I lost a job I really loved and I felt helpless because I’d dedicated my life to those kids. Some of them I’d been with for several years and they’d bonded with me too. It was very hard, but I learned a new skill and started working in construction.

Sometimes change is sad indeed.

But that still doesn’t mean I need to click on ads for things I have no interest in.

My local paper has a deal. Three free articles a month then you pay, or you can pay every month for full access. Back when I subscribed to the paper newspaper I paid every month (and there were even ads!). If I want to continue doing that and get access I would pay for online access (which also has ads that I block). That’s the logical way to do it. I can’t help that some sites don’t work that way and decide to rely on ads alone.

Like I’ve said several times now, if your work is worth paying for, people will pay. I’m sure you’re frustrated that nobody is actually paying for your work but it’s not my responsibility to pay you by clicking on ads.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

I don’t expect you to click on our ads. I expect you to not interfere with the presentation of our website so the ad simply appears on the screen, and the website makes a little bit of money to support the work you are consuming.

Well then I suspect you should try something new because your viewers don’t appreciate your ads. That’s why we block them. We don’t want them there. If you want us to support your work, charge or at least request donations. What you’re doing now apparently will not pay your bills.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

I never said to hell with your opinions. I understand your point of view. Maybe you should try to understand ours.

By the way I do find it ironic that your cited journalist was speaking on NPR, which doesn’t rely on commercial advertisement.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

You don’t have to pay. You just have to not interfere with the website’s presentation so that the ads appear on your screen, as the people who made the website intend for it to be and as they expect - or, in other words, consider reasonable, courteous, reciprocal, etc. - for you to do.

I could use your guys’ arguments to justify all sorts of selfish and immoral things. What if I decide to park my bike horizontal on the rack, taking up all the spaces? You come up to me and say, “please don’t do that. It’s immoral. You should use one slot so we can all use the rack.” Well, buddy, just because you want it to work that way doesn’t mean it does. I can choose to use the whole rack if I want.

That’s actually nothing like this. It would be like say there’s a bike rack and someone says “Hey if you use that bike rack you need to look at this ad which has a small chance of giving you an eye infection and probably will not be for anything you want, but you need to look anyway, not because it’s the law but because that’s how we want it to be”.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

The compact does exist between millions of people and it is the essence of the website. It is just as real as the compact that exists among millions of bus riders. You are not the judge of whether society has created a compact or not.

Let’s see if saying it again will help, because you saying it again doesn’t help.

There is no social contract when I click on a link and go to a website where I’m obligated to view ads. My contract is click and read so you get noticed. I have no moral obligation to view ads I do not want to see. I didn’t ASK to see ads, I asked to see content.

Now the reverse is happening. People are telling you (and voting) they refuse to pay your bills by viewing your ads, however safe and unobtrusive you claim them to be. You need to find a new way to earn your money because this one is not working because we are disagreeing with your rules that we never agreed to.
Are you morally obligated to listen to your viewers and find a new way? I think so.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

Then don’t use their website!

And that’s all this comes down to really. You have no use for us readers unless we click on your ads. I don’t know who you write for, but I’d very much like to know who not to visit anymore.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

Go back and read my dozens of posts in this thread about the compact that exists between content creators and their readers and how by making use of the website this compact is implicit. You should care because by breaking this compact you are showing a lack of character in the same way you are when you eat a messy sandwich or have a loud cellphone conversation on the bus. You are breaking an exchange of courtesy that exists for the benefit of our community, freeing yourself of the burden while increasing it for everyone else.

“Shit all over their readership.” Give me a break. Like I said in my post above, ads on decent websites aren’t that burdensome. The best way to avoid obnoxious ads is to browse the internet in an intelligent way.

And I am, by using an ad blocker.

[Mathematics]

@Rushgeekgirl

And that’s all this comes down to really. You have no use for us readers unless we click on your ads.

What use is a newspaper supposed to have for their readers other than to make money?

Moral support? Constructive criticism? All that is great if they can keep their doors open.

As I say, I don’t really agree with Isaacedwardleibowitz fully on this, but I don’t see how that’s a valid point.

[Rushgeekgirl]

@Mathematics

What use is a newspaper supposed to have for their readers other than to make money?

Moral support? Constructive criticism? All that is great if they can keep their doors open.

As I say, I don’t really agree with Isaacedwardleibowitz fully on this, but I don’t see how that’s a valid point.

Well I don’t know why you’re confused when I’ve said repeatedly he should charge. I don’t object to paying for good work, I object to ads. It’s really that simple.

[DocCathode]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

Because that’s the way the site is designed. The ads and the content are bundled together. The ads are the cost, the content is the benefit. The ads make the money to pay for the content.

You could say exactly the same of television. But, you have already said there’s nothing immoral about blocking commercials by leaving the room. What precisely is the difference?

[Isaacedwardleibowitz]

@DocCathode

You could say exactly the same of television. But, you have already said there’s nothing immoral about blocking commercials by leaving the room. What precisely is the difference?

As I said above, the advertisers are paying for the ad to be displayed - to physically exist, to be able to be seen. They count on a very small percentage of viewers responding to the advertisement, increasing their business. You have every right to leave the room, to mute the television immediately, to cover your eyes.

The problem with adblocker is that it systematically removes the possibility of the ad being seen at all. It negates what the advertiser is paying for - for the ad to physically exist on your screen - which has allowed for the website you are enjoying to exist.

[Smapti]

To which I say again that it is the advertisers who are screwing the producers, not the viewers.

[Isaacedwardleibowitz]

@Smapti

To which I say again that it is the advertisers who are screwing the producers, not the viewers.

Could someone point me to a legitimate, non-porn, non-illicit website that has such horrible ads? I am honestly curious about what you guys seem to be experiencing.

[artemis]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

Could someone point me to a legitimate, non-porn, non-illicit website that has such horrible ads? I am honestly curious about what you guys seem to be experiencing.

You’re posting on one right now. See the sticky in ATMB for a discussion of the issue. And people have repeatedly mentioned other sites where they’ve had trouble. You just refuse to believe us, which is your problem, not ours.

[Cazzle]

Mainstream websites more likely to harbor malware.

Surfing the net without ad blocking is as moronic as not having virus protection installed. The type of Windows users who say “I’ve been on the internet for years without a virus scanner and I’ve never had a virus” are either stupid or liars or both. I count the anti ad block people among their ranks.

[Isaacedwardleibowitz]

@artemis

You’re posting on one right now. See the sticky in ATMB for a discussion of the issue. And people have repeatedly mentioned other sites where they’ve had trouble. You just refuse to believe us, which is your problem, not ours.

I can’t recall any other specific mentions of sites in this thread. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry. That ATMB thread is hardly bustling, and most of the complaints seem to be cases where the browser alerted the user to the threat of malware.

I don’t not believe you, although I think there’s been some exaggerating by some posters because I haven’t had any problem with malware in recent years using Chrome and Firefox. My belief is that a blanket ban of all ads, withdrawing support of all the ad-revenue-dependent sites you use, isn’t an appropriate response to a couple bad ones.

[artemis]

@Isaacedwardleibowitz

I can’t recall any other specific mentions of sites in this thread. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry.

I specifically mentioned that my malware infection came from browsing The Atlantic Monthly’s website.

Read the link Eliahna just posted. Read it now. Your belief that legitimate sites are safe is simply false.

My belief is that a blanket ban of all ads, withdrawing support of all the ad-revenue-dependent sites you use, isn’t an appropriate response to a couple bad ones.

Come back and say that after you’ve had a rogue ad screw up your computer.

[Isaacedwardleibowitz]

@artemis

I specifically mentioned that my malware infection came from browsing The Atlantic Monthly’s website.

Read the link Eliahna just posted. Read it now. Your belief that legitimate sites are safe is simply false.

Come back and say that after you’ve had a rogue ad screw up your computer.

The only source in that article is a study conducted by Cisco, a networking company that sells security software - pretty shoddy reporting. Forgive me for not accepting its conclusion as definitive.

I don’t appreciate Eliahna referring to anti-adblock people as “stupid” and “liars,” by the way. I’ll keep defending this position because I think it deserves a defender, but the attitude of some of the other posters in this thread toward my position has added more stress than I need right now.