If you need proof that other people feel the way I do, listen to NPR’s recent On the Media program. Adblock was one of the topics (I think it might have provoked this thread). The host, Brooke Gladstone, pretty clearly feels the way I do.
You have a cite for that?
Prove that was due to the use of adblockers.
I believe other people agree with you. They are also wrong. No compact exists.
I’d like to return to this because I think what I said came out wrong. I don’t think you or anyone in this thread who thinks adblock is okay is of poor character. Since you’re Dopers, I assume you’re decent people.
Most likely, you only have your opinions because you haven’t thought much about what it’s like to be one of the content-producers for the websites you visit. If you spent hours producing the content, instead of having it magically appear on your computer screens when you push a button, you would feel differently about this.
I’ve thought about it plenty. I know that the artists behind, for example, the web comics I love work very hard. That doesn’t change the fact that I never agreed to pay them for the right to view their work.
I said “very likely.” I don’t have proof, but it seems certain to me that adblock has contributed to journalism’s struggles today. Practically every newspaper in the country (even the New York Times) is dealing with declining revenues now. Since a large portion of internet users use adblock (as this survey shows), and all newspapers depend on online ads for part of their revenue, the use of adblock has contributed to newspapers’ declining revenues.
You don’t have to pay them. You only have to let an ad occupy part of your screen for a little bit.
You are probably aware that the people who produce these websites expect you to view the ads, right? Since you are taking something from them - their content - don’t you think the right thing to do is to do what they expect of you, especially when it’s so easy to do so? In fact, you can passively fulfill their expectation!
Doing so would expose me to malware.
I disagree. The folks whose work I love are smart enough to realize people use adblockers.
What am I taking? I take nothing. The content is still there, unharmed when I’m done viewing it
[/QUOTE]
Again, they do not expect me to do it.
And exposing myself to malware doesn’t rate as “easy” in my book
Not at all. I’m still processing the arguments in this thread.
I’m pretty happy with it though. I’m surprised this many people are interested in this.
In general, I guess I’m swayed to the idea that it is not necessarily immoral but it is in my best interest to support sites I enjoy one way or another.
I should really sign up for a membership to this site, by the by . . .
Using the internet exposes you to malware.
Everyone who produces web content knows people use adblockers. But they would rather they not, and they expect them to look at the ads in exchange for consuming the content.
We can quibble over the definition of taking if you want. It took someone hours of work to make something, and you are using it. The consumers of the content are, as a whole, taking the hours and the effort it took to make the content.
Do you think it’s alright to download music or books without giving something in return? The same argument would apply there.
I try to minimize that risk. Did you not see the cite about ads and malware posted in this very thread?
They expect them to look at ads? Horse manure! They might hope and wish people looked at ads. But they don’t expect them to.
The hell it would. If I view content on a website without viewing ads, I haven’t violated copyright laws. If I download music or books without paying, I have violate copyright law.
Yes, some ads carry malware with them, but that doesn’t justify blocking all ads across the internet. There are services that warn you when you arrive at a website that is known for carrying malware. If a site does that, don’t go to it.
They do expect them to. They know many of them won’t, but they put up the ads in the expectation that readers who consume their content will support the site by allowing the ads to appear on the screen.
It’s basic kindness. People have spent hours making something for you, and they expect - maybe you would rather I use the word hope? - for you to view some ads in exchange. Be nice, and do what they hope for you to do! It’s not too much to ask!
Do you base your morality on written laws? Do you think that downloading music and books without giving something in return would be alright if there were no laws against it? It’s the same thing. You are taking content someone worked to make, and you should give something in exchange. Lucky for you, people who put content on websites only expect you to glance at a couple ads.
After spending a couple days as the sole advocate of beleaguered journalists and other internet content-makers in this thread, I feel I’ve laid out every aspect of my argument and am now just rehashing things I wrote two pages ago and quibbling over definitions. I’m done now. I hope I’ve at least persuaded people reading this thread to think twice about the effect that adblocking has on people who get their livelihoods creating the content you consume and seem to value so little.
Yes, it does.
Have you not read this thread? The sites get their ads from a third party site. The Straight Dope has been known to have ads that carry malware.
Yes, you should use the word hope. They don’t expect us to view ads. They expect us to use ad blockers. They do however hope for us to view ads. Remember, say what you mean and mean what you say.
I value the Unspeakable Vault Of Doom a great deal. I still won’t view ads.
Since you insist on writing in this arrogant way, I’ll pop my head in to say one last thing.
One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of expect:
to consider reasonable, due, or necessary <expected hard work from the students>
This would be more believable if you hadn’t admitted yourself that you should have used the word hope.
I asked if you would prefer I use hope because you didn’t seem to be familiar with that definition of expect. I always used it that way and I used it that way again after the clause asking if you’d prefer hope. After your post, I went to Merriam-Webster because I knew that was one of the definitions, and voila, I found it there.
I, for one, totally believe that last post.
Just as I expected.
Your problem is you’re seeing contracts where there are no contracts. You thinking something is a contract is not making it one, no matter how hard you focus your energy. If you want your product to be seen, you best make it worth viewing. You’ll get what you deserve. Your ware is not what your ad is selling. See that’s where you’re confused here. We click to view your work we’re entering a “social contract” to view your work, not to view your advertisements. It’s rude of you to assume it’s our responsibility. Face the facts. Most of us have no qualms about blocking ads, mostly because they’re annoying. Even if they’re short and DON’T screw up our computer. I hate them because they’re distracting and often they slow my poor old eMachine to a halt for much longer than if I was running high dollar internet on a new machine. I don’t get much time to enjoy my surfing and I damn sure don’t want to waste it waiting for ads, and especially since I will never, ever purchase anything from an ad. I don’t buy junk food, I don’t need a car, I have my personal favorite hair and skin products, I don’t need coupons I don’t care if my cereal is “heart-healthy” and the ten foods for “superhealth” don’t interest me. Ads are crap, and I am not the least bit interested in crap. If you have ads on your site I will block them. If I can’t block them I will not view your site. If your product is worth purchasing and I can afford it, I will gladly pay. I paid to be a member of SDMB for a while, and I’d still be one if I could afford it, because this site is worth that little bit of money. If they had unblockable ads though? I would not come back.
This is your public speaking. Listen, don’t argue.
No, no NO. Someone has made their site only possible through advertising. That is failure on the part of the provider, not the consumer. Find a better way to do your business if you want your product to be seen.
You’ve seen now by this poll that you’re fighting a losing battle. Accept it and find another way to afford sharing your content. Most of us refuse to accept the terms of the contract you’ve imagined. The sites that get my donations are worth it.