Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc and blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance).
It's not like GA is the only way to gather statistics, there are other vendors and even the access logs for your server itself.
I'm not willing to let Google follow me everywhere on the internet and if that is detrimental to the sites I visit then they are welcome to block me if they detect that I'm blocking GA.
When you run a website, you have two choices: spend a bunch of time implementing log analysis and paying for all the storage necessary, or using GA, which already exists and is free. If log analytics isn't my core business, why should I spend time implementing it?
And if you choose GA, you accept that some people will block it, the same way they might block your javascript, your cookies, your css, your images, or anything else they don't want to download.
No, you should buy something that does log analytics for you without shafting your viewers. The existence of deceptive-but-gratis services like GA means there is almost no market for proper analysis software, which is a scandal.
There is a very good reason why GA is free to use. It involves building profiles of your users for Google's benefit. Don't be surprised or upset if some of your users don't want to participate in that privacy shit storm.
I used one site which would throw an javascript exception and break because it called part of google analytics from some other function that was needed to make the site work. I ended up opening it up in a private browsing session, and I've got my script blocker disabled there.
Actually, because of this, I tend to temporarily disable blocking at the moment of payment, because there are too many redirects and reloads happening at that time to reliably use a blocker. It partially defeats blocking, but at least they aren't tracking me during regular browsing.
The travel sites I saw blocked didn't fail because of GA blocking I believe, but they were depending on various other scripts. I believe they just had messy code that relied on callbacks from third party scripts -- some of which were blocked by uBlock.
Might be worthwhile finding a different online travel company, if they can't get this right I can't imagine what else they'll stuff up when you make a booking!
Many sites? I've been blocking GA through ghostery for years and haven't had any problem ever. Only problem with Ghostery i've noticed is blocking Adobe Typekit and some other UI-framework i can't remember the name of, and that is extreeemly rare. Besides, as many others have said, if a site is stupid enough to rely on a third party server for analytics that is their problem, not mine, there are plenty of good analytics alternatives that can be hosted by yourself easily, and there are plenty of good websites out there that i can visit instead if one is not working without GA.
>which is the only way they make money other than ads.
Yeah.
> So, you use the site resources
Yeah.
>don't see ads
Yeah.
> don't add to their user/page view numbers.
Yeah.
>Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc
Yeah.
Well you know what ? I wouldn't be doing this if ads provider didn't abuse my trust and displayed popup ads. I wouldn't be doing this if ads were actually targeted (lol jk). Early ads providers fucked it up for everyone. Not only do I hate the very principle of ads, I go out of my way to avoid them.
And most of all, I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't Google Analytics. Use piwik, use whatever you want as long as it's selfhosted and doesn't report to <gigantic database of users> and I will allow it. After all, I have no way of knowing if you're selling my data back anyways. It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. You want stats ? Use your own server.
Good. I don't want to contribute to your analytics. I don't want ads. I just want to browse the web without being tracked. I don't care if that means you can't pay for your site, other sites will spring up that can without annoying users with ads and without tracking them.
The "other site" in the area I'm operating in is Google. So the situation is more like "other sites will continue to dominate by cross-subsidising from their core business, namely annoying users with ads and tracking them".
No, he wants free content without any convenience to him. He doesn't care about the so-called bigger picture, just the instant gratification he's been entitled to.
This isn't true, I'm perfectly willing to pay for content. I just don't want ads and I don't want to be tracked. Thanks to browser extensions I don't have to no matter how much that hurts your feelings. You say I'm entitled but it's actually you who isn't entitled to control how the software works on my computer.
I'm perfectly willing to support business models that aren't terrible. Perhaps you might also consider users not wanting to install rootkits, spyware and adware to support content entitled? It's the same, it's a shitty experience people don't want.
OK, I'll answer this one. No software I own installs adware/spyware that I then uninstall or circumvent. This includes "free" commercial stuff like Chrome, Steam, the Kindle App, and Spotify. And then stuff I purchase licenses for, including Transmit, Sublime Text, Lightroom. The free consumer software that I do use, KeepassX and Handbrake, don't currently install adware/spyware. If they did, I wouldn't use them.
So no, I'm not being a hypocrite in the same way as the GP is being, unless he has restricted his consumption of Internet content to Wikipedia and pastebin
That wasn't directly targeted at you - but more the "pro-ad" people who support it as a business model. Many of them (not all, as you yourself prove) will uncheck the "install this" for bundleware. Which hurts that business model for software developers.
Now the main difference is that users can uncheck the bundleware in most installers. Few sites offer a pay-to-opt-out option against ads. So what options do users have to disable ads? They're forced to use an Adblocker to opt themselves out.
People turn to alternatives because it provides an easy-access alternative. Netflix soared in popularity and put Blockbuster out of business because you didn't have to visit a brick & mortar store to rent movies. Many people will pay to use Netflix rather than torrent for free, because Netflix provides a no-friction way of consumption.
Provide a way that's frictionless for users to disable ads. A once-a-year payment for $10-$20 does the job fine and likely makes you more per user than ads would. Give them a little flair badge or something trivial and cosmetic and you might convince even the Adblockers to impart some of their money to you.
There are other business models other than Ad Revenue. Many of those business models have been time-tested and work. Ads are the "lazy" way out that shows a lack of care towards your audience.
I'm glad that you don't use Flash or Java. However, I'm sure you can understand if they're (a) very common, (b) bundled with adware, and (c) make one of many fine counterpoints to the "you have a moral obligation to view ads in order to support the artists who made the stuff that you're consuming" argument.
That might not be your argument, but it is an argument that's in the atmosphere. This is a thorny problem, not a cut-and-dry case. The greater good is supported when artists can be fairly compensated. It is also supported when we annoy the art-consumers less. It is probably also supported when our political stances are small, simple, and ideologically pure. It is probably also supported when poor people can consume art. There are a lot of different factors that play into the "is it OK to block ads?" question, and it's not obvious that there's a simple solution which resolves all of them.
We show an ask for donations in place of the ads for users who block our ads (Simple, subtle, using the same colors and fonts as the rest of the site so it isn't distracting). A handful of users do donate. The vast majority do not. Interestingly, the users who donate are also the ones most likely to whitelist our site.
Most (but not all) users today feel entitled to content, games, music, etc for free and get mad when it isn't granted to them and turn up their noses at things like ads that support the content for the price they're willing to pay (free).
Sounds like you've come up with a nice comfortable rationalization for creating bad experiences for your users. How convenient for you. You don't seem to think very highly of your site's visitors.
> Most (but not all) users today feel entitled to content, games, music, etc for free and get mad when it isn't granted to them and turn up their noses at things like ads that support the content for the price they're willing to pay (free).
This is an obvious generalization and an opinion you have. People who block ads do so because ads have been and continue to be annoying, exploitive, invasive and vectors for viruses. I am not sorry I block them, and you're not going to make me feel bad for making decisions about what my computer does or doesn't do.
On the contrary, I think very highly of my site's visitors. That's why there's no banner ad across the top of the page. That's why there's only a single ad above the fold (within the sidebar away from the content so it doesn't distract). That's why I've never done popups, popovers, popunders, etc. That's why I have a script to detect adblockers that, instead of blocking content, just shows a nice simple request for either whitelisting or donating if they can that also cleans up the remnants of the site design left behind by blocking the ads for a cleaner page view for them and specifically reserves space for the message so the laid-out elements don't jump around and distract from viewing the page sans ads. That's why I have 60+ domains blocked within AdSense because I found they were showing fake Download button ads that were trying to trick users into downloading crap instead of free software they were after... even though these were the most high-paying ads available. That's why I've avoided doing bundleware despite the fact that it would make me a millionaire within weeks.
Much of what I said was more a generalization of online users overall. And I'm lucky that many of my own users fall outside of that generalization due to the niche of what I do and the type of product I offer (free open source software, utilities, etc). Sadly, it doesn't matter how responsibly you try to show ads as adblockers don't discriminate (except for AdBlock Plus which allows some ad networks due to payola). And doing ads on your own without a 3rd party service is nearly impossible for an independent site these days due to the nature of the ad industry.
All that said, it's not like I'm giving up. I'm working with my userbase to come up with additional revenue streams to allow the site/project to continue and the millions of users to keep using the software. Including things like paid services, merchandise, sponsorships, etc. Honestly, if we can arrive at one that'll let me ditch ads entirely, I'd be happy to.
Don't confuse the desire to not see ads with a feeling of entitlement. I fully support a website operator's right to detect that I am blocking ads and hide the content, or to make unblockable ads. I don't feel entitled to their resources. But if they do show content I'm interested in, I'll consume it. It's not at all a feeling of entitlement.
Most users don't share your sentiment. There are pre-bundled blocklists in most adblockers to block websites' JavaScript designed to detect adblockers and block content. uBlock includes two such lists by default. Adblockers vary whether these are enabled by default or must be enabled by the user.
Watching an ad is paying a price. If it's possible to get something for free without breaking the law and without other tangible negative consequences for yourself, why would you pay a price? Altruism, right? So watching ads is my altruistic duty now?
The respondents have a solid point. You can't criticize them blocking ads, if they're willing to see degrading service because of it. What we lack that would be ideal is full transparency from the site's point of view to know which user is blocking ads and, if they choose so, prevent that user from viewing any content. It should be illegal to 'fake' watching ads just to get the content.
This imbalance is indeed a big problem imo: essentially any scheme from the site is permitted to be circumvented without giving them knowledge: this can create an unhealthy market dynamics where ads get more aggressive (to generate more revenue per user), every user installs ad blocking software (note that once installed, most users won't ever uninstall ad blockers), and websites are eventually forced to chose from only two models: mediocre service (low operational costs) or paywall.
I personally would gladly accept targeted minimalist ads, which I would prefer to having to pay to access most sites. Nowadays I use an ad blocker though since some ads are far too intrusive for my liking.
I think the whole internet industry needs urgently to discuss mechanisms for this problem though.
> It should be illegal to 'fake' watching ads just to get the content.
You mean, like, by-law illegal? Or just something more like "an illegal state" in a program? Because if we're talking about by-law, that's an awful sentiment and you should feel awful for expressing it.
If you mean by-program-state illegal, that's not actually too complicated: add a software dependency on your ad-generation or analytics code to all of your run-time code. You'll pay the corresponding cost in performance that any such paranoid solution is going to cost you anyway, and you'll be vulnerable to highly-targeted blacklisting of your ads anyway, but you can block those general ad rules and force ad-blockers to include arbitrary executable blacklist-code in their browsers, which is sufficient.
As a user you can always fake watching ads, there's no technical solution from the server side -- you have complete control of your browser (actually just controlling the display is sufficient). That's why websites don't even try to deny service for ad-block users -- it's a waste of time. So yes, I think a legal in the sense of law solution is the only way out. Unless you want to propose something like full DMR'd computers being the norm (essentially iOS everywhere), which I wouldn't want.
So you are saying it should be illegal for me to mute TV when ads are displayed? I must carefully listen to ads and periodically pass an exam to ensure that I indeed listened to them and not thought of other things. What a wonderful feature. For ad companies.
No, I what I mean is TV manufacturers/broadcasters, if they so chose, could make it so that if you use their TV and press the mute button, you accept the TV will inform the broadcaster -- who may deny you service in the future. They should be free to decide if the consumer who doesn't want to watch any ads can watch their content, or if he has to pay subscription.
As a consumer you're not being "forced" anything: you can always subscribe or not watch the channel. Ideally broadcasters would tolerate muting/black-screening many ads up to a point, and if they see you're automatically blocking every ad they may ask you to subscribe.
You can't be seriously arguing for that TV muting analytics thing! That'd be, in my opinion, a terrible invasion of privacy.
Also, what if people have their TV plugged into a separate sound system? They could always use the mute button on that. The only way around that would be to equip the TV with a microphone, to check if the expected sounds are in fact audibly in the room ... (I kid)
(Another thought, would they also block deaf people for using the mute button on their TVs? But maybe they could request a special permit or something ...) (again, I kid)
1) We are using TVs to extrapolate what's acceptable for the internet. Why not just argue about internet directly?
2) If you want to keep using the TV analogy, ad blockers are like distributing a device for automatically muting/blacking out every TV ad, for free. Do you think free over the air TV broadcasts would exist for very long if such a device were the norm?
False identity is already illegal. You don't have the right to fake you're not who you are for anything legally binding. Is the law currently nightmarish?
I don't think this is a necessity for TVs, I was just playing along the extreme example.
I meant you can stop your TV from phoning home, just don't complain if they stop providing you service. If you instead falsely convey you are watching their ads, that is what would be illegal. Ads are a form of payment so to speak, and by actively concealing it you are making a false payment -- I'd expect that to be illegal just like false identities are.
Seriously if ads were just like unobtrusive text ads I would be ok with it. I have never minded advertisements in dead tree news papers and magazines (they also don't track users). Online ads are toxic.
OK, I'll bite. So what kind of Internet content have you paid for? And how do you pay for it without being tracked? Because you know, credit cards payments transmit your personal information. Or have you successfully transitioned to a Bitcoin-only currency lifestyle?
A recurring monthly payment doesn't track my activity does it. It just tracks that I've paid for something. Many sites offer PayPal so there's no personal information conveyed at all.
I pay for a lot of Twitch subs. I am currently subbed to like 7 channels. I've also payed for the NYTimes and Washington Post through Amazon's payment system. I've paid for Ars Technica. I pay for Pandora. I pay for Reddit gold. I also buy skins and mounts in free to play games like Heroes of the Storm and TF2.
I'm sure you're not seeking my approval, but it genuinely bemuses me that you're happy for your shopping purchases to be tracked by Amazon and PayPal, two giants with a history of privacy-insensitive behaviour, yet not for individual sites to run JS-based, self-hosted, same-domain analytics simply to count whether you're one or 10 unique users within a month.
I don't see how PayPal can track anything other than what I've spent money on. My bank can track that too. There's no control over this. I'm not sure there are any viable alternatives to Amazon or PayPal for what they do. There's very little inconvenience to run adblock, it would be a huge inconvenience to boycott major sites to avoid them knowing what kind of shampoo I buy.
The sad truth is that adblockers are not a good thing. The value exchange with online content is free access for ads. Adblockers are just incredibly simple to install and use which allows people to skirt this agreement without issue, however just because something is easy doesn't make it "right".
It's always interesting when people argue about privacy without really knowing what ad networks store (which is just a random ID number and some interest categories) vs what they willing give up to social networks. Not to mention that payments are not more private, in fact payments = credit cards = everything including address, birthday, purchase history etc all tied to a real identity. Browsing via ads is far more private than browsing via paid access.
I agree with that as ads support the content rich internet we all know and love
However ads have become just too much annoying with all the pop left and right and other shady tactics to steal your eyeballs or get you to dow load a virus
It is time user started pushing back, since content owners are currently little to no incentive to push back to ads provider for getting high quality ads.
Adblocking puts the right incentive where its due. They should however play nice to web site owners. If the content owner wants not show content unless an ad is displayed, the ad blocker shouldn't circumvent that
They aren't gonna fixing ads provider getting too far by getting to far on the opposite direction. That will just put more content behind paywalls in the long run.
I think the users always had the same choice, don't visit sites where you don't like the experience. Sure adblockers are finally pushing for better sites and ads but the blunt force approach of just blocking all ad scripts is actually causing more harm then good.
Nowadays, hosting is so cheap that independent blogging is not really at risk, everyone can publish anything anytime. The risk is really with top and mid-tier publishers who produce content for money. These guys will be squeezed and what we're headed towards is both paywalls everywhere and a walled-garden approach where Facebook or other big central apps/sites will control access to everything else. Not sure either is a great option for the future.
Note: Yes micropayments/universal "internet" subscriptions might work but this is a far greater problem than people make it out to be. Any company attempting to do this will need massive scale, perfect tracking (again privacy issues here), secure access to billing and identity and ease of use for users. They will possibly help from either ISPs or some other infrastructure layer to actually make this work and even Google is having trouble with their 2nd try at a micropayments model in their new Contributor program. It's just not an easy thing to solve, definitely not as easy as just putting up a few ads and making the content free.
I'm getting dismissed too, and people won't even admit it's a problem, much less give a coherent rebuttal: how are we not headed towards a classic 'Tragedy of the commons' type of scenario where no one wants to compromise (watch ads) but everyone wants free content. I can only conclude quality will degrade and we will get either behind paywalls or crappy content. Serious journalism is clearly suffering imo, for example. In this scenarios privacy degrades, since behind the paywall the provider knows your full identity along with all your browsing habits.
We need solutions for this, not a dismissal. No large company is engaging this in the public because there will be obvious backlash from adblocker users: they are currently fine, getting free content and seeing no ads -- why would they want change? While they don't see the trend is probably unsustainable, in the sense that services will generally be worse than they could have been.
My opinion is that some unobtrusive ads is a price that is worthy of payment, but this scenario is running out if we don't change some rules of come up with solutions. I'm very open to alternatives also such as some kind of internet-wide subscription model. It needs to be discussed, not tossed aside, imo.
Agreed. There are really 3 things they argue for: performance, privacy and security.
Performance is a given, loading less = faster. Same with security, its just a few bad actors who keep allowing 3rd party content and malware. Many networks dont allow for anything other than text + images which have no malware possibilities.
Those two issues are starting to be solved by this consumer backlash and its a good thing. However when it comes to privacy I never understand how people think paying for things with their credit card is somehow more private (especially with all these data breaches) than some random ad network tracking script. The 3rd party cookie was actually a great thing that could easily be deleted and also stored any opt-out settings for users who wanted to skip tracking. Now with random out-of-context "privacy" reasons, browsers have ruined the effectiveness of cookies which means most networks cant even store a proper opt-out preference and they're also resorting to fingerprinting and other signals (at the ISP level) to track users no matter what device/platform/browser.
What the industry needed was more regulation and better standards, not this brute force guerilla warfare which is really harming the entire industry and leading to an eventually smaller and "closed" web.
Some of the ad-block using crowd say that this is not about getting the content and avoiding the ads - it's just about avoiding the ads. I've started asking people who use an ad-blocker if there are any sites they no longer visit.
piwik is essentially a self-hosted GA. So it uses JS (like GA) but tracks to a DB on your own server so the data on your visit remains private between you and the site-owner (rather than also being provided to a third-party like Google)
What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.
It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are seen, then there's no reason to continue paying.
If web ads were more like newspaper ads, I think I would find them more agreeable.
Newspaper ads don't animate and distract me from what I'm reading. When I flip to a different page in the paper I don't have to "wait ten seconds" to start reading. I've never had an ad spontaneously appear in front of the newspaper article I'm reading.
Newspaper ads don't track me, and no matter how sketchy the ad is, it doesn't put me a couple of clicks away from installing malware on my computer.
I agree that ads are annoying and unpalatable, but I don't think that absolves consumers from behavior that I see as a clear responsibility of consumers to uphold their side of the bargain. We have content providers, that choose a business model that allows them to provide content without requiring payment as long as there is advertising. We then have consumers taking this content and automatically removing said advertisements. When the terms of a deal are seen as disadvantageous, it's the right of either party to not enter into that transaction. It is not their right to renege on their side of the transaction while receiving the benefit from the other party.
I understand many people do not see this as a contract between the consumer and the content provider. I just haven't heard a justification for why it's not that I can agree with. To me, it clearly is.
Imagine a newspaper trying to go after someone for not reading the ads in the news paper, or for cutting the ads out before reading the paper.
That's what you sound like to the rest of us.
When my browser asks for a page from your webserver, I'm under no obligation to render or even receive the packets that you send back to me. If you seek further guarantees or protections I encourage you to find a different medium.
> When my browser asks for a page from your webserver, I'm under no obligation to render or even receive the packets that you send back to me.
Of course, just as if you receive mail you are under no obligation to read it. But I'm not talking about that level. I'm talking about the contract the consumer and the content provider have. You either believe there is one or you don't. I believe there's a reason that the content provider is giving me content, and it's not out of the goodness of their heart. What reason is that, and what strings are attached?
How can you possibly believe that there is a contract. If I send you a link to an article I think you might like, and you click on it, do you really believe that in doing so you have just agreed to whatever Terms & Conditions are waiting for you on the other side of that link?
No, I don't believe the loading of a website automatically confirms my agreement with the terms of a contract. On the other hand, when the contract is made clear, if I take what is offered then I believe I am bound to the terms. Inthe case of website advertising, it's ambiguous, which allows people to hand-wave it away, but not so ambiguous that you can't realize you are taking something without having to pay the costs. So who's paying the costs? There is an implied contract[1] when you take services from someone who expects compensation in some form.
> It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people.
What you've just described is me, taking the content from your site, stripping out the ads, and re-posting it on the Internet for others to consume sans advertisements.
This is very clearly different from a single person using ad blockers on their own computers, and you know it.
However, this is equivalent to everyone who reads you newspaper cutting out the ads from their own newspaper before reading it. Which, perhaps, should tell you something about the ads in your paper.
No, the difference is we're distributing devices that, at no effort whatsoever, strip out all the ads. An ad blocker is literally a few clicks away on google chrome to never see ads again. His analogy is pretty solid compared to that. It's so easy to use an ad blocker that there's no reason not to, no matter how low impact the ads are. And no single user can make a measurable impact on a website's revenue through advertisements, so his actions don't have a direct content degradation impact either.
Of course, the collective actions do degrade quality. It's classical 'Tragedy of the commons' [1].
Me using an ad blocker on my computer is in no way equivalent to me reposting that content, and trying to claim it is causes me to lose respect for the person who holds that opinion.
I get the tragedy of the commons, but far as I'm concerned the impact on content producers is not my problem, the abusive ads they used to employ are. I now have protections against such abuse and I will not feel sorry for them for it.
They chose to use abusive ads. They made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.
It's just a matter of semantics. It's a "device" that strips all ads at no effort, by default everywhere, forever. It's definitively not equivalent to cutting out the ads yourself since that requires significant effort. If you don't like the phrase that "someone is redistributing the content without ads", just replace it with "someone is distributing a device that strips all ads as soon as you see the newspaper". Semantically different, effectively the same.
True, it is bad for the advertiser and the ad hosting site. But it is good for the person annoyed by the ads. There is no objective value in blocking ads, it depends on the party. Since there is no objective valuation, it is not bad manners; it is merely an ability of consumers that is undesirable to advertisers and the ad hosting companies.
> It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people.
Nice try at an analogy, but removing the ads from free newspapers and giving the results to people could be seen as conspiracy harming the newspaper, because there would be party doing the removing and taking over the distribution. With online ads, nothing of this sort happens, because the consumer requests the newspaper company - not some other ad-removing party - for the newspaper article, the newspaper company sends it to him with hope he will pay attention to ads and the consumer displays only that part of the sent document which he deems worthy of his attention. He does this with help of his computer in which he is entitled to process and filter information in any way he deems useful. No organized action destroying the business is happening, the consumer himself removes the part he does not want on his computer, he does not remove ads for other people. This is virtually the same as when the person buys a newspaper in store and skips reading the ads, which everybody who would read the newspaper is entitled to do. All people are entitled to filter the information other people, companies and government try to feed them, irrespective of the channel, be it paper, audiovisual channels or the Internet. Otherwise our brains would get really dumb from all the fatuous ads.
You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers aren't getting much value from the newspaper.
If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money they would have otherwise wasted.
I'm making no argument that they have to survive on their current business model, or that the current business model deserves to survive. I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract, and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed.
I don't see this as any different than if you were at a conference, and someone offered you a free book which you were interested in if you talked to them for thirty seconds about their product. Taking the book without hearing the pitch is not what I would consider acceptable behavior.
In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content.
Some people have made arguments about how intrusive some the the advertisement tracking is as a justification for blocking it. This is a perfectly acceptable justification for blocking that tracking, but it does nothing to address the further consumption of the content. The correct response to the abusive shopkeeper that berates you in line is not to steal his goods, but to leave the goods and refuse to give him your business.
> If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners.
How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not? In any case, the market decides this. You are just making information in the market harder to come by, making the market less efficient.
> In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money that would otherwise be wasted.
Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.
I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract...
Well, there isn't.
...and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed.
If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though.
In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content.
Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others; maybe something important to them. They often work hard to produce the content in their spare time. They put ads on there as an afterthought to help cover the maintenance costs, but they would never do that if they thought it would turn visitors away.
I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets, especially when - in the case of advertising - they're assets I have no control over and may be advertising products I don't even support.
How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not?
I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad.
Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.
Are you sure? Why do you think the content is being provided then? Presumably there's a reason they've put the effort forth to make it available?
> If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though.
You shouldn't feel compelled to honor a site's acceptable use policy? In some cases violating the AUP can result in legal action, so in at least some cases you are legally compelled.
> Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others...
> I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets
These aren't your sites. It's not your right to make choices for other people. You can accept what they want to bring to the table, or you can decline to trade.
> I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad.
You've made it easier on yourself. How have you helped anyone else out? The content provider wanted to trade you content for attention, and you took the content without providing the attention. In what way does that help anyone besides yourself?
> I don't even know what to make of this.
People are susceptible to rationalizing their current behavior, regardless of whether it's truly beneficial in the ways they think to the parties they think. Doubling down on behavior that a content provider may not like with the excuse you may feel morally obligated to save them money by doing so is ridiculous. What right do you have to dictate how they run their business, as long as it's within the law?
All of this is implied by you. Neither of us knows what motivates the publishers of websites. But you are missing the point entirely, which is that they all chose to publish to the web - a platform that by definition gives publishers very little say over how their content is consumed.
To complain that some users don't consume your content the way you expected is just really naïve.
For example, let's suppose you expect a user to download your animated gif advert. How do you know that the user isn't on a network that filters out all images to save bandwidth?
This isn't about a producer complaining about users not consuming the content the right way. I'm not a producer, I'm a consumer, but that doesn't prevent me from noting when people are not acting in good faith. And that's how I see this, a lot of people not acting in good faith and rationalizing it through various excuses (myself included). Producers produce content and attach ads as a way to recoup the cost of producing and delivering that content. I feel confident in saying the vast majority of consumers understand their desire and motivations, even if they don't value those desires and motivations much. To take what they are offering while rejecting their conditions is not acting in good faith.
Having read your exchanges with Quadrangle and Baddox, I think I get where you're coming from.
The trouble with your reasoning is that it only considers the point of view of the publisher and ignores the consumer entirely.
It's not practical to enter into an agreement with every website you visit (in fact half the time you're downloading assets from websites you don't visit!) so let's not even go there. Let's just consider the consumer who wants to use the web but doesn't want to see ads. What should he do: disable ads or stop using the web?
I guess your argument is that he should stop using the web because he is morally bound to honour the wishes of the publisher providing the content. Effectively you're placing the publishers' right to advertise ahead of the visitor's right to consume content on the web.
And this is my problem with your argument. I just can't feel guilty about defending the rights of one person to have free access to information over the right of another person to advertise. As far as I'm concerned, where these 2 rights clash, the advertiser should forfeit. Since I feel no guilt, there is nothing to rationalize.
Anyway, I sense this won't be enough for you, so in order to regain the moral highground, I have modified the header of my HTTP requests to include the following statement
By responding to this request you agree not to send me
advertising and accept that I may, at my discretion,
block any advertising included in this or any other
response.
> Let's just consider the consumer who wants to use the web but doesn't want to see ads. What should he do: disable ads or stop using the web?
Well, find a source to pay for the content he wants to see, find a truly free source of information, or yes, stop using the internet. I'm not sure how this is any different than anything else in life. "This man wan'ts to read in the library, but doesn't like other people around, so he breaks in at night. What's he supposed to do, keep breaking in, or stop using the library?"
> I guess your argument is that he should stop using the web because he is morally bound to honour the wishes of the publisher providing the content. Effectively you're placing the publishers' right to advertise ahead of the visitor's right to consume content on the web.
I'm actually not making any argument that people should stop, just that they should recognize their actions. I don't expect the world to change, but I do expect people to be cognizant of their actions and the consequences. Additionally, I'm not placing the publishers right to advertise over anything, I am placing the publishers right to control their content over the consumer's desire to see said content.
> And this is my problem with your argument. I just can't feel guilty about defending the rights of one person to have free access to information over the right of another person to advertise. As far as I'm concerned, where these 2 rights clash, the advertiser should forfeit. Since I feel no guilt, there is nothing to rationalize.
Do people have a right to free access to information? If I know something you don't know, but would like to know, do you have a right to that information? I'm not arguing someone has a right to advertise, I'm arguing they have a right to control their property. Ad-blockers effectively remove content provider's ability to control their property, which I think is their right.
> Anyway, I sense this won't be enough for you, so in order to regain the moral highground, I have modified the header of my HTTP requests to include the following statement
That's a start, and I think it is, until there is an acceptable way to broadcast to a site you are unwilling to view advertising, a good compromise. This brings up an interesting question though, which I think sheds light on what I'm trying to get at; If there were a box you could toggle on your browser to send an industry standard header that indicated your refusal to view advertisements as payment for content, and some site owners decided to withhold content based on this header (and I suspect others would redirect you to a payment portal), would you browse with it on, if it meant not getting some content? Or, more importantly to my point, do you think the populace at large, even if reduced to the set that understand the flag's meaning and import and refused to view ads, would browse with it on?
I suspect the answer for the majority of the group in question (I don't presume to know your actions) would be to browse without that indicator but with an ad-blocker. I think a lot of the pretense would be gone though.
P.S. I occurs to me this discussion not only parallels one about pirating movies, but is indeed the exact same, in my eyes. Content producers work hard to restrict their content, and users bypass those restrictions to view the content. Sure, content producers are assholes in this case, but being an asshole doesn't restrict your rights. It does help people feel justified in actions that hurt you though, even if they are illegal.
I would pay the premium for newspapers without ads. In fact, I do -- I support news organizations that aren't driven by advertisement.
If you can't find a business model that doesn't antagonize me, then you haven't found a business model that I care to support. If capitalism is failing to provide us with even basic methods of producing quality works, then that's a problem we should tackle at a larger scale.
But this isn't about you choosing to pay for a source without ads, this is about people choosing the source with ads, and then removing them. Those are entirely different things.
> It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people.
No, it's more like asking the newspaper publisher if you can have a version of their newspaper (for your own use) without ads, and them obliging. Blocking ads has nothing to do with redistributing someone else's content.
> Blocking ads has nothing to do with redistributing someone else's content.
You're right, it's like subscribing to a service that does it for you.
> No, it's more like asking the newspaper publisher if you can have a version of their newspaper (for your own use) without ads, and them obliging.
No, if they had an easy way to enforce your viewing of ads that scaled, I think it's fairly obvious they would (as many of the blocked ads are indeed an attempt at this, such as the timed overlay). It's more like the distributor responding with both marketing material and content with the understanding you are to view the marketing material along with the content, and you routing the marketing material to the trash from the post office (or somehow tricking the system into not sending you the marketing material). The expectation you are to view the marketing material is still there, even if you've somehow removed your ability to receive it.
> You're right, it's like subscribing to a service that does it for you.
You mean the blacklist services? Those are just a list of URL rules for your browser to reject. You still request the content from the web and the content provider obliges.
> No, if they had an easy way to enforce your viewing of ads that scaled, I think it's fairly obvious they would
Given that I have seen several websites that do this, I think you must be wrong.
> It's more like the distributor responding with both marketing material and content with the understanding you are to view the marketing material along with the content, and you routing the marketing material to the trash from the post office
Yes, it is like that, and I having no qualms with doing that. If I received a free magazine full of good content, along with a separate booklet of ads that are intended to be views with the content, I would have no problem reading the content and ignoring the ad booklet.
That's your choice, but I don't think it addresses whether the action is moral or not (unless you also ascertain that you refrain from all morally ambiguous actions), or whether it's bad manners (as the initiating comment termed it). I think there are a great many slightly immoral things that people do every day and justify by weighing how small the moral infraction is against the perceived benefit to themselves. The perceived benefit of not being annoyed by ads outweighs the slight immorality of circumventing those ads.
It feels like a negligible harm to the other party, so we justify it to ourselves as victim-less, but it's not. The combined harm of all those that do so adds up the what is certainly a non-negligent level of harm in many cases. This is not unique to advertising, we fall prey to this reasoning in many ways, and in some ways we've seen that harm manifested in obvious ways that have then changed our behavior. Consider littering. The harm of a single person dropping a small amount of trash on the ground is negligent, the cost of most of a nation's population doing so is definitely not.
Mr. kbenson, you and many of your kind are trying to foist on the idea that people filtering the information companies give to them are doing something immoral. I do not think even you believe that, but perhaps there is a profit-seeking based incentive to seed a feeling of guilt in the people who avoid ads, or perhaps to make yourself feel good by verbalizing your frustration with decreasing profits from online ads. Whichever the motivation for such church-like patronizing and false analogies, private profit from ads is not and will not be more important than fundamental freedoms of people to read only that which they want. My recommendation to you is to stop crying and seeking the ones guilty for the decreasing profits from online ads and think of some different business model that instead of bothering people with ads, does something good for them.
> Mr. kbenson, you and many of your kind are trying to foist on the idea that people filtering the information companies give to them are doing something immoral.
That's a simplification of my argument as to be meaningless. The information was not given, it was traded. The consumer's portion of the trade is paid in viewing the advertising.
> I do not think even you believe that, but perhaps there is a profit-seeking based incentive to seed a feeling of guilt in the people who avoid ads, or perhaps to make yourself feel good by verbalizing your frustration with decreasing profits from online ads.
Do I believe in your rephrasing of my argument that drops the salient points? No. Am I in an industry that does advertising in any way? Also no.
> Whichever the motivation for such church-like patronizing and false analogies, private profit from ads is not and will not be more important than fundamental freedoms of people to read only that which they want.
Meaning you have a right to content which is owned by someone else without compensating them? I don't believe that is a fundamental right or freedom. If you mean something else by this, which I hope and assume you do, then please elaborate.
> My recommendation to you is to stop crying and seeking the ones guilty for the decreasing profits from online ads and think of some different business model that instead of bothering people with ads, does something good for them.
I'm not in advertising in any way, I don't care if advertising as a form of revenue survives. I don't like advertising most of the time. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said. I haven't made a case that advertising is good, or advertising is moral, or that you should choose content with advertising and them watch the advertising. I'm simply saying that if you agree to content in return for viewing ads, and then you deliberately prevent your viewing of those ads, then I view that as a slightly immoral thing to do.
Maybe it's my terminology that offends you, by using immoral. I could use different terminology, if any lended itself to this that I knew of. I'm using it as a way to describe behavior where one party reneges on a contract with another. I could has used unethical instead, but really that's because I think it's both. I think it's immoral, and additionally societally I think it's unethical.
But it's unethical and immoral on a very, very small scale. That doesn't mean many of those actions from many individuals don't have a real cost.
We have an attention economy. You try to get my attention so you can sell it to advertisers. My attention is scarce, and I don't want to sell it so readily. I don't know whether your content is great until I experience it, and I have little power in negotiating my side of the bargain of what you do with my attention aside from taking more control over my attention.
The practical side of it is this: You want as much attention as possible. If I give you my attention but block your ads, it could still mean that if your content is good, I promote it to others and the net effect is a win for you.
I try to pay attention only to people who respect my attention and don't sell it to the highest bidder. However, I don't wish to be excluded from the common discourse of society around me, so if my attention is brought to a site that wishes to sell it, I may give my attention but retain as much control as I can. I did not agree to the sale of my attention. There are better and more respectful ways to build our economic support for creative work.
> We have an attention economy. You try to get my attention so you can sell it to advertisers. My attention is scarce, and I don't want to sell it so readily. I don't know whether your content is great until I experience it, and I have little power in negotiating my side of the bargain of what you do with my attention aside from taking more control over my attention.
And yet, that's the deal which is on the table. You feel justified in selling your attention, and then not delivering? Keep in mind that the content provider is rarely making any statements as to the quality of the content )in the subjective sense. There are of course often guarantees as to measurable qualitative attributes, such as resolution and/or bitrate in some mediums).
> We have an attention economy. You try to get my attention so you can sell it to advertisers. My attention is scarce, and I don't want to sell it so readily. I don't know whether your content is great until I experience it, and I have little power in negotiating my side of the bargain of what you do with my attention aside from taking more control over my attention.
Since when is it the right of one party in a contract to withold their goods because they feel it's better for the other side? That's the right of the other party, you've already given up your claim on that resource.
> I try to pay attention only to people who respect my attention and don't sell it to the highest bidder. However, I don't wish to be excluded from the common discourse of society around me, so if my attention is brought to a site that wishes to sell it, I may give my attention but retain as much control as I can. I did not agree to the sale of my attention. There are better and more respectful ways to build our economic support for creative work.
Yes, there are. I'm not arguing in support of ad-based revenue systems. I'm arguing that there's a contract between the consumer and the content producer (which not everyone agrees with, but I believe), and that by entering into it with no intention of following through with their side, content consumers running ad-blockers aren't exhibiting the best behavior.
Indeed, I run an ad-blocker, so what I'm saying is that I'm not exhibiting the best behavior. I'm not willing to stop, but I am fully willing to admit it's not very fair to the content sites.
I didn't sell my attention so readily. I didn't sign any contract. My attention is constantly being asked for. It's a sellers market here, sorry. I choose to most readily give attention as a gift to those I like most and who respect my attention most. Wikipedia has no ads.
There are cases where the business model of ads has near monopoly. I use Pump.io but most people and connections are on Facebook / Twitter etc. — it's completely unacceptable for those entities to demand that they have power over censoring my access to interact with my friends who those companies have captured into their system. I don't want Facebook or Twitter at all, I want to interact with other regular people in the world. I'd prefer to do it outside those platforms and do when I can. Blocking ads on those sites is perfectly reasonable, a tiny defense against powerful offensive entities — this is not an exchange between two parties with equal power making an agreement.
Meanwhile, efforts like https://snowdrift.coop are in the works to fund creative work from reasonable and respectful people.
> I didn't sell my attention so readily. I didn't sign any contract.
I think there's an implied contract from not your acceptance of the content, which happens before you necessarily know the terms, but from when you can see it and the ads[1].
Regardless of how you feel about specific cases that may be a monopoly, that doesn't work as an argument for running an ad blocker for general viewing, as it's obvious every site you visit is not a monopoly.
If a site could be certain to show only ads that do not track me, that the site operators actually are comfortable endorsing (i.e. not some targeted ad system where the site owners have no control over what ads I see), then I would consider not blocking their ads.
This is effectively a matter of social breakdown. I wouldn't bother blocking ads if they were few, privacy-respecting, responsible, etc. But, tragedy of the commons and all, shitty ad-pushers and privacy-invaders ruined the game. Now, sorry to say, this hurts others who try to be more respectful. Not their fault, but that's how the world goes sometimes.
I agree with that sentiment, and indeed maybe I would browse without an ad-blocker as well if the costs could be lowered, but that's not really what my argument is about. I'm making no claims as to how feasible it is to browser without an ad-blocker, but on the moral and ethical implications of browsing with an ad-blocker. I don't think it's right to pre-judge all sites based on prior experiences with some sites, and to then resort to an unfair exchange for goods and services. I do it, you do it, but I still don't think it's right. That said, the (small) amount that it's wrong and the level of inconvenience (or worse) that ads cause leaves be unwilling to change my behavior and stop using an ad-blocker. That said, I still recognize the unfairness, I try not to justify my actions post-facto.
Yeah, I used to think it was wrong to drive past the speed limit even if everyone else was. I hate when functional rules and norms break down. But you know, we live in the real world. It's not wrong to drive the speed of traffic and be safe, and it's not wrong to try to find the best and most sensible way to support things you care about, have a positive impact on the world, and take measures for yourself to protect your privacy and sanity.
If everyone used an ad-blocker, it would change the way the market works. It would actually reduce overhead where advertisers are fighting for attention in a noisy world. It would restructure how the flow of money works. We'd figure out other and better ways to deal with funding things.
So, I don't think it is wrong to use an ad-blocker. I think it is socially responsible. Even when other people fail to use adblockers, it gives more power to the advertising industry, and thus hurts society. I say: Thank you for doing your part and using an adblocker!
> The information was not given, it was traded. The consumer's portion of the trade is paid in viewing the advertising.
For something to be traded, there needs to be negotiation between the parties and agreement on the price. Ad hosts usually do not require any agreement from the consumer, they send the web pages anyway (with exceptions). The sole act of requesting the information (HTTP request for an URL) does not imply the requestor agrees with conditions the provider may store somewhere on his web. As far as I know, most ad hosts do not even ask consumers to agree with reading ads, far from requiring they comply. So not really - no trade is happening when I download a web page from an ad hosting website.
> It feels like a negligible harm to the other party, so we justify it to ourselves as victim-less, but it's not. The combined harm of all those that do so adds up the what is certainly a non-negligent level of harm in many cases.
Think of it this way. Ad revenue is based on CPM, or cost per thousand ad views [0], which is itself based on the expected return of an ad view. The expected return obviously depends on how many people make purchases for the products advertised to them. So, using your same logic, you could conclude that refraining from buying a product that you see an advertisement for is causing harm to sites that are ad-supported.
[0] Yes, most web advertising is not CPM. I'm simplifying for the sake of the analogy, and the same analogy holds for other ad models.
That only follows if you believe that viewing an advertisement is a discrete event with a discrete outcome, and has no outcome on future actions. Considering how much advertisement happens when you aren't in a position to immediately buy something, and how much research has gone into advertising and human perception, I don't believe that. Brand recognition works, at least in a lot of cases.
But that doesn't even matter. I believe you agreed to a trade, in this case attention for content, and what justification do you have for not following through on your end? It's not within your rights to decide that your portion of the trade doesn't really benefit the other party so you will withhold it, if they have delivered on their portion. That is their decision to make.
It sounds like this is our fundamental disagreement. I do not believe that requesting an HTML resource is an agreement to load all external resources and execute all JavaScript referenced in that HTML. I submit the request, and the remote server returns some HTML. In my view, that is a complete interaction with no unfulfilled obligations.
According to your argument, I am not within my rights to cURL a URL if that URL happens to point to an HTML that references some ad-related JavaScript.
So how does it affect your argument if the page was returned in it's entirety with all content inlined? If the ad-blocker could detect ads through some heuristic that was accurate enough, would that then change your view on its use? At that point you would be presented a singular resource. Is that enough to change your thoughts on what is acceptable? I suspect we are getting closer to the specific place where our beliefs and assumptions mismatch, but I'm not sure we've found it quite yet.
> So how does it affect your argument if the page was returned in it's entirety with all content inlined?
No, that doesn't change anything. I already mentioned executing JavaScript.
What are your thoughts on my mention of cURL? Do you think it's acceptable to run `curl www.cnn.com` from the command line? How about browsing the web with JavaScript turned off, or using a text-only browser?
What does javascript have to do with it? It's trivial to display images inline through data URLs. Javascript provides for some of the more onerous types of advertising, but it is by no means necessary to the process. We've all seen plenty of ways CSS could be leverages as an alternate solution.
Re: text only browsing, that still allows for advertising, and it's up to the content provider to either take advantage of the mediums available to the client or take steps to attempt to block that access. There are plenty of legitimate cases for text only internet (such as access for the blind).
Re: cURL, now we are getting more into scraping, and I think it's event more clear cut that it's not the intent of the provider for their content to be used that way, and there are much more often AUPs that specifically cover this in a non-ambiguous way.
This is something I've thought quite a bit about, as at times some of my major work projects have been based around web scraping. I've come to terms that some of the things I have done, and do, for work, are morally ambiguous (or even immoral) to a degree (although others may not see it that way at all).
Similarly, I myself run an ad-blocker, as I find the web untenable without one. I'm aware of how hypocritical this is. My argument has never been "do not run ad-blockers", it's always been just to point out what I see as a set of troubling behavior that I see, which I also contribute to. I would prefer not to block ads, but I don't see that as a strategy that's currently useful. That may make me worse than those that I view as ignorant of their actions. I'm prepared to live with this, at least in the short term.
Really,I'm just pushing what I see as introspection.
> What does javascript have to do with it? It's trivial to display images inline through data URLs.
My point applies to that too. Images, text, CSS, video, etc. I'm saying I don't have a problem with requesting an HTML file, receiving it, and then choosing to not render/execute/display certain parts of it.
> Re: text only browsing, that still allows for advertising, and it's up to the content provider to either take advantage of the mediums available to the client or take steps to attempt to block that access.
I agree, but that doesn't sound like your previous position.
> Re: cURL, now we are getting more into scraping, and I think it's event more clear cut that it's not the intent of the provider for their content to be used that way, and there are much more often AUPs that specifically cover this in a non-ambiguous way.
I'm not talking about programmatically requesting large amounts of content. I just meant a single individual running a single cURL command.
> My argument has never been "do not run ad-blockers", it's always been just to point out what I see as a set of troubling behavior that I see, which I also contribute to.
I guess I'm arguing that you don't need to be a hypocrite, because it's not troubling behavior.
> My point applies to that too. Images, text, CSS, video, etc. I'm saying I don't have a problem with requesting an HTML file, receiving it, and then choosing to not render/execute/display certain parts of it.
I think this is a fundamental difference. I think there's an implicit contract. Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit? If there was a preamble to every page that said you were licensed to view the content only if certain conditions were met, such as all included ads were displayed, does that change what you feel comfortable doing or not?
> I agree, but that doesn't sound like your previous position.
I don't think it's any different. It's about intent. Is someone using a text browser specifically to bypass ads? Then the text browser is in essence an ad-blocker (to the degree it works). If it's used because other circumstances that make it desirable or necessary, then it's up to the content provider to either disallow that access mechanism, or provide ads that work. This is the difference between a party failing to collect on their side of a contract, and a party failing to fulfill their side of a contract.
> I'm not talking about programmatically requesting large amounts of content. I just meant a single individual running a single cURL command.
It goes back to intent and text browsing. Any ad that could be made useful in text browsing would be just as applicable to what you got back from cURL. Either it's plain text, or you can parse the output. If oyu can parse it, you can see any included ads.
> I guess I'm arguing that you don't need to be a hypocrite, because it's not troubling behavior.
Eh, I think it is, on a small scale. Similar to littering occasionally with very small items.
And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract?
> Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit?
Yes. If there were an explicit contract requiring the viewer to view ads in order to view the content, then using an adblocker would be a violation of that contract and would be liable for whatever damages the contract stipulates.
> If there was a preamble to every page that said you were licensed to view the content only if certain conditions were met, such as all included ads were displayed, does that change what you feel comfortable doing or not?
It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract.
> It's about intent. Is someone using a text browser specifically to bypass ads? Then the text browser is in essence an ad-blocker (to the degree it works).
I don't think intent is relevant in this case, because I do not believe there is anything resembling a contract.
> And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract?
Depending on the site, yes.
> It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract.
How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand? Is it any different if it's a sign that says it instead of a person? In both cases, I view taking the book while not reading the pamphlet stealing. You were only granted a copy of the book if you performed an action, and in both cases you failed to carry out the action, so a book was not granted. Thus the taking of the book was stealing.
> I don't think intent is relevant in this case, because I do not believe there is anything resembling a contract.
And that is the fundamental difference in our points of view. I believe there is an expectation on the part of the content providers for what they are providing, and as long as the consumer understands this expectation and purposefully ignores it, they are acting dishonestly.
> How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand?
Because order is important. On the web, you ask a server for something and it gives it to you. If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. And, of course, physical books are scarce, but that's another issue.
> I believe there is an expectation on the part of the content providers for what they are providing
I don't dispute that there is an expectation on the part of the content providers. I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract.
> If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract.
I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book.
> I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract.
I think this is relevant[1]. I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting. Why is this content being provided? To assume it's freely available without any cost is a very self-serving view.
Well, then the sites should buy a service that gives them more features. If the existence of GA means there is no market for such products, then GA should go away.
That's a pity. This gives me an extra reason not to use blocklists maintained by anyone but myself. (I currently don't use uBlock, but RequestPolicy + NoScript, but am considering switching.)
Would you block any analytics tracker - even one that didn't share data with 3rd parties? (i.e. a tracker that was purely to enable to site owners to gain insight into their visitors)
Me too. If I'm visiting a website, I don't mind the operator of the site knowing about my visit or getting some basic stats about usage. It's when they compare notes to make a larger map of my visits across the web that I start getting nervous. And when they use that data to target advertising to me, I start blocking them.
