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.
> I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book.
Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre.
> I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting.
Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent.
> Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre.
I believe we should. I think we rarely do (including myself). The terms were clear. I'm not arguing my point in the hope that we all stop using ad-blockers, I'm arguing my point in the hope that we we can realize that there's a bit of bad behavior on our part as consumers as well (that there's bad behavior from purveyors of ads or that it started with them I believe and accept as fact, but I don't think that entirely alleviates our culpability).
> Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent.
I have no problem with you withholding your consent. I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for.
I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it. I can lay it out in myriad different ways, with different goods, difference services, but in the end, I think they are all the same thing. There's a trade going on, and if you aren't fulfilling your side, you have no right to the goods of the other side. That you've received the goods makes no difference to me. I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it). Your consent matters only as to whether you want to complete the trade. You consent has no bearing on whether you have right to goods after you've chosen not to trade, at least not legally, or I would submit, morally.
But that's just it. The terms weren't clear when the transaction occurred. To me, temporal order is important. It's basically the concept of "informed consent."
> I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for.
Again, the order of events matters.
> I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it.
I disagree about whether I'm "supposed" to have it. I don't have a problem with acquiring something in a transaction (and agreeing to all terms at the moment of the transaction) and then using it in a way the other party did not intend.
> I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it).
But in your analogy, I bought the fruit at the time. The store teller told me the price, I paid it, and the teller sent me on my way. Then I got home, opened the bag of fruit, and found a note that says "the purchaser of this fruit hereby agrees to not bake this fruit into a pie." My position is that I simply do not care about this note. I acquired the fruit in a transaction which clearly did not involve that term. I will not return the fruit and I'll bake it into a pie if I please.
Only inasmuch as when you decide to continue or bail on the deal.
> But in your analogy, I bought the fruit at the time. The store teller told me the price, I paid it, and the teller sent me on my way. Then I got home, opened the bag of fruit, and found a note that says "the purchaser of this fruit hereby agrees to not bake this fruit into a pie."
That's not my analogy at all. I think my description fits rather well. When in the store holding the fruit prior to paying, is equivalent to the point you've retrieved content but have not yet viewed it. At the register is when you are presented with the choice, view with ads, or go somewhere else. By running an ad blocker, you skip the register entirely. You pick up fruit, and walk out the door.
> My position is that I simply do not care about this note. I acquired the fruit in a transaction which clearly did not involve that term.
In my example, the payment is at the register is the only transaction. If that's not money, then maybe it's the clerk saying "you can have that fruit free as long as you promise not to cook a pie with it." You've apparently convinced yourself it's okay to agree to this and then ignore the stipulation later.
> I will not return the fruit and I'll bake it into a pie if I please.
If you paid for it, yes. But somehow you've paid for it AND gotten a rider on it's usage, which has never entered our discussion until this point, and is not something I've been arguing.
