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?"
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.
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?
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.