Slashdot Mirror
Does Adblock Violate A Social Contract?
almondjoy writes "Newsforge is currently running a story on Firefox extensions where the author states the following regarding use of the AdBlock extension: 'If you use this tool ... there are those who would assert you are not holding up your end of a 'social contract' between yourself and the Web site that you are browsing' Would you be volating a social contract hitting the 30sec skip button on Tivo? Or putting a strip of paper across the bottom of our TV screen to block out those super annoying scrolling banners? I have found that using the combination of AdBlock and FlashBlock extensions in Firefox has greatly enhanced my browsing experience. Has acceptance of web sites crammed with advertising content become part of my social contract with society?"
I currently have firefox blocking all the ads that are displayed on Slashdot. Does anyone here have an objection? Is that violating any sort of slashdot user code of ethics?
If I create an entry in my host file like so:
127.0.0.1 ads.osdn.com
127.0.0.1 clk.atdmt.com
I don't have to install any software to block ads and I don't have to waste CPU cycles animating their ads either. This saving of CPU cycles is expecially vital while playing those CPU munching JAVA games at sites like zylom.com and xgenstudios.com.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
You don't see people going to extreme lengths to block Google text ads. Why? Because they are fairly unobtrusive, yet still visible enough for people to see them.
Actually, most of the prepackaged adblock rules such as the one at http://www.geocities.com/pierceive/adblock do block Google text ads.
Norton Internet Security does actually download DATs for adblocking, and the 2003 release had this fully functional long before Adblock came along. Are people outraged by a free tool but not a commercial one?
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Using commercial time to go to the bathroom
could get you sued, then. I guess.
Actually, according to the MPAA's Jamie Kellner, "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom."
You can find this quote on this page or any number of other sites.
But why is the rum gone?
And yes, Firefox is a threat to my site with the combination of Adblock. But still, I encourage my users to opt to use Firefox instead of IE, because it's a better browser. I will at some point, just put a little section on the site that asks visitors not to disable ads, as this is how my site would produce revenue, especially since the ads I would introduce would be non-intrusive. I don't turn them off on sites I visit if they are not obtrusive.
To those that liken the act of blocking ads to 'Oh, do you get up and walk away to use the bathroom during commercials?' well... that arguement is pointless. Whether you are sitting in front of the TV or not isn't the importance in ad recognition, it's that your TV set is on. When you are tuned to a channel, watching it or not, you are showing say, ABC's advertisers that the show Lost has 20 million viewers. Advertisers look at that as signs of potential market penetration, and do the age/sex/lifestyle demographics to target their products appropriately. That's what you tuning to that channel will do for that station, increase their ad revenue because of PERCIEVED ad benefit to ad companies.
If you turn off the TV every time an ad comes up, that might be a fair comparison, but I highly doubt anybody does that. And since internet sites are integrated with ads and do not generally have a 'commercial' in between them, you can't fast forward and the other alternative -- blocking the ads -- only hurts a site that may give you some information you crave. For example, Anandtech, a site I have grown fond of over the years I've read it, has lots of ads on it. I even click some of them when I find them to picque my interest even slightly, knowing that by doing so, I am helping out the site, and helping to keep information from that site flowing. Granted, Anandtech is probably a bad example because he is flourishing compared to other sites like his in terms of ad revenue, but the point I'm trying to make is still valid.
Moral of the story is, that if you enjoy the site, you want it to stick around, don't disable the ads on it. Hell, even click on them once in a while if they are even remotely interesting to you. Your actions can make or break a good source of information and entertainment, so use your web surfing skills wisely, and use Adblock to properly remove annoyances so that the annoying websites do not garner any more cash by resorting to obtrusive and offensive advertising.
Admittedly, I do think that advertising as a whole is going to be coming down, and coming down hard because of the emergence of 'blogs' and expert reviews on damn near anything you want to buy. When the emergence of blogging meets the Joe Schmo who doesn't know diddly about computers and the internet, prepare to see all advertising start having a null effect.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Targeted doesn't always equal intrusive. Targeting can simply mean ads appropriate for their placement. An ad for feminine products wouldn't make as much sense in Playboy as it would on the Oxygen Channel, for instance.
I'd say that reading a book review from a trusted source while having an ad linking to the book on Amazon (via Google Ads or whatever) would be well targeted, unintrusive, and perhaps even helpful to most reasonable people. This is why Google's advertising model works so well as compared to companies that just annoy the heck out of people to catch their eyes or trick them into following a link.
The answer is that with information I can obtain, I can manipulate that information in any way I want. I just can't pass my manipulated information off as though it was the original.
I a site provides information, I have the right to receive that information and do whatever I want with it (with the above proscribed limitation). If I want to remove every 5th word, I can. There is no lgocial reason I should not be allowed to do this. If I want to record something off of the TV and skip every other 5 seconds of information, why should I not be allowed to do this?
An ad is just a piece of information. Just like any other piece of information. I am not changing the original information, just my version of it. To filter information comes very naturally. I don't have to watch TV commercials, I change the channel or go do something else, or skip ahead. If I'm reading the newspaper, I do not have to look at every add in the paper, I just look at the information in which I am interested. For the newspaper, my only obligation to obtain the information was the 50 cents I put into the machine.
If a website requires money from readers in order to survive, then they need to figure out the best way to obtain said money. If they think advertising is going to work, that's fine, but they have to figure the percentage of readership that will actually see the ad. Just like over-the-air television. TV stations/networks can't make you watch the very thing that is paying their way. All they can do is tell advertisers approximately how many people watch, and use statistical modelling to determine how many of those watch the commercials.
If a website wants to charge users for access, that is fine, and would be along the lines of HBO charging for access to their information.
Just like in over-the-air television, I cannot steal (or break a social contract) if the information is offered free in the first place.
As for newspapers, am I breaking a social contract by leaving the newspaper I read at lunch for someone else to read? Or what about libraries? Are they breaking a social contract by letting multiple people read the same copy of a book?
Like I said above, modifying Firefox or creating software that retrieves available information in a manner I desire is up to the me, as long as I don't pass off that modified information as the original source. What would be a problem is if the ISP that provided the website the hardware and IP connection, choose to modify the information before being sent out, simply because this would then have the ISP transmitting modified information as the original source. (I am not talking about mail or http headers. The headers should be considered public access, but rather the actual content as created.)
It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
Because of the commercials DVDs don't cost that much.
/. discussion on why the Industry is trying to ban community-based ISPs). This is about squeezing the most money from the user, leaving him no choice.
No, unless you get frustrated for not being allowed to fast forward for the Nth time, forcing you to use illegal practices that end up taking the money away from... guess who? The same people that paid so you would be FORCED to see a commercial in a product you purchased.
This isn't about any "social contract" (for social issues and contracts read the previous
It's not a fair fight. They're the ones with the money in the first place.
Also, people who use Adblock didn't download it to get rid of "nice, non-intrusive ads" that decorate a webpage. They did it to get rid of the ANNOYING GARBAGE THAT THEY _DO NOT_ PLAN TO BUY ANYWAY!
I'm glad for adblock. It'll teach the sponsors that pay-per-click advertising wasn't such a good idea after all.
If the owner of the website is getting paid on the basis of ad views, then there would be some expectation that the ads would be loaded and displayed with the page. However, virtually all online advertising is paid on the basis of click-throughs, not page views, because the advertiser can collect their own data from their site showing that the click-throughs actually occurred. With webpage advertising being paid on a click-through basis, I fail to see any fundamental difference in the business model between someone who views the whole page and doesn't click on any of the ads, and someone who views the page with the ads blocked, and doesn't click on any of the ads; the only difference is that, when you block the ads, you don't have the ads distracting you.
Before we filter internet ads into oblivion, I suggest you consider the consequences of an ad-free web.
How many of your favorite open source projects would wither away if the ad revenue dried up, not to mention your favorite web sites or TV programs?
I work full-time on a popular open source project, and I can say from personal experience that ad revenue from the website is often my primary source of income -- visitors are much more likely to click on an ad than leave a donation, by a factor of hundreds to one. I literally eat based on the income from that monthly AdSense check.
Consider the bigger picture -- much of the creative output of human beings today: actors, musicicans, web designers, search engine hackers, GPL programmers, etc., is funded by advertising. It's a terrible generalization to conclude that advertising is all about lining the pockets of spammers and evil media corporations. Yeah, pop-ups suck and will probably be relegated to the dustbin of history by the sheer power of the negative emotions they elicit, but there's a lot of reasonable, targeted, non-intrusive ads out there, and many of them are supporting your favorite web sites, TV shows, and GPL-based projects.
Advertising, as much as it is often reviled by slashdot posters and other intellectuals, is actually a rather innovative form of funding for the creative arts. It allows many of things we love to be free while still providing an income for the creators of those things.
On my work computer, a SunBlade 150, I basically have to block ads, especially the flash ones or else my computer is rendered unusable. The amount of processing power wasted on the ads brings my workstation to a halt. Now, don't get me started on how much Sun hardware and X server suck.
Ad blocking is a godsend. I run Privoxy for using Konqueror and use Adblock in Firefox.
I do not mind ads that are static, i.e. not constantly blinking or animated. It's the animated or pop-up ads that drive me crazy. Since they're so pervasive, I just block all ads, including Slashdot's. Only Google's ads get through, and I do click on them periodically.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
IANAL, but I suspect you're incorrect.
There is an oral contract between you and the restaurant in agreement to get food. When you order your sandwich, you're asking them to prepare you something of value and expend their valuable time.
Time is money and the ingredients for the sandwich cost money, therefore, you're a cost to them until you pay up. I would bet that the ordering of any food or drink constitutes an oral contract for a good (food) and service (food preparation).
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I didn't choose to browse to their linked ad site, and it wasnt intended for my browser to go scooting off to it. Its as simple as that.
a dserver_attack/
They are a security threat.
Case in point, for which there is many: The Register.
Their ad served website got compromised, and users that were running IE got compromised if they werent patched. Trojans and keyloggers were installed.
Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/21/register_
I fully support the use of AdBlock, and I surely run it in my security courses that I have been lecturing for years.
The "social contract" approach is a nice way of speaking very philosophically about this, but the real issue is: when everybody blocks ads, most of the web-sites (like Slashdot) will lose income, and most of them will simply stop publishing or start asking money to their readers.
So, if you block ads, you have to ask yourself if you would like to do that.
For the philosophically inclined: look up Kant's ethics, or for the religiously inclined: think of Jesus' "Do not do onto others..." (if that's the correct wording).
>>If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.
/. was subject to that level of thought control.
What you fail to realize is that there is no such thing as "ad policies" laid out for the visitor. The site manager might have a business model, but how this is implemented is not the visitor's problem.
This is in fact exactly the core of the problem: There isn't any way that either party can know what the other one is doing. I don't have any way to tell your browser what my ad policies are, and your browser doesn't have any way to tell my server what ad policies it would accept. I'd like nothing better than to have some sort of easy-to-implement protocol that would let websites and readers negotiate this sort of thing. (Any FireFox developers listening?)
There is no "moral code" for readers: If a magazine has a product flyer in it I can throw it away without even looking at it; The magazine publisher still got paid. The "moral code" error is on the part of the online advertisers which do not trust "visit counts" - and with good reason since the numbers can be fudged. So they count actual ad views instead (something that cannot be done in the magazine example).
The magazine got paid for delivering the flyer to you, what happens after that is up to you, and largely dependent on how good the advertiser was at crafting the ad piece. Nobody is talking about forcing people *read* ads, the only issue is whether readers agree to accept delivery of them or not.
>>But in the meantime, if you block ads from a site, yes, you are in fact ripping them off and freeloading on someone else's nickel.
Or, in other words: Web technology can not be forced to support our business model, so we will try to insult people and see if that works.
Excuse me, where's the insult? Am I not allowed to think that people blocking ads are ripping off content? I didn't realize that
Bottom line, the arguments trying to find moral support for reading site content while blocking ads all come down to "Because you can't stop me from doing this, and because I didn't sign a contract with you, I owe you nothing."
How about this: Having read this discussion, if you visit a site and see that your popup blocker is blocking ads from that site, why not just go find some other site to visit? I'd be happy with that. You didn't know coming in that I was going to use popups, that's fine. You blocked them, that's fine too, none of your bandwidth or time was wasted. But if you see that your browser has blocked something, why not just go away?