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?"
Doesn't SPAM violate the same contract.
The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people. Pop-ups, pop-unders, floating ads, the all singing all dancing flash ads, anything that blinks or wants you to answer a trivia question, ad infested web pages that have half a page of text and require you to hit the next button to continue to the next page. These are all ANNOYING, that is why people are blocking or otherwise avoiding them.
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.
If advertisers don't want me using Adblock they should use small, unobtrusive, static images and I will happily turn it off. But until then, they can whine and complain all they want. Just my two cents...
What gets me is that arguably, social cotract was first violated by offending websites and ad-server ppl in general, with things like popups, glaringly bad animation (ie, flashing colors, etc). Not to mention the EVIL doubleclick and their "we will track your ass... try and avoid us, punk" attitude. Which is what I believe the adblock authors were trying to control/avoid/defeat.
I won't adblock a server/ad that's generally nice or doesn't get in the way of my browsing... think google or other text-based adverts, or even non-animated, "non-epilepsy inducing" image ads. THATs a real social contract... because google/etc know that their revenue relies on their good behavior. I respect that.
Finally, on a dialup (like at my parents place), adblock SIGNIFICANTLY improves performance. I think removal of bloat is impressively important for non-broadband folks, and that's another case of advertisers "messing with social contract". I especially hated it when the page would load fast, but the ad at the top woudl sit there and hold up the entire page from rendering. WTF.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I also don't feel bad about not watching most commercials on TV or ripping the DVD's I buy and removing al the crap from them. I paid for the product, I don't want to see more ads. I pay about $140 a month to my cable company for Digital cable, Digital Broadband and a Digital phone. The least the cable company can do is get rid of ads for me, though I know that day will never come.
The only ad content I don't make an effort to block are text based ads like Google uses. I have no problem with those types of ads since they do not distract me. The day most/all web ads are text based and don't flash to "get your attention" is the day that I will stop using adblock and flashblock to block web ads. Oh, and adblock has two modes: "remove images" and "hide images". The "remove images" option doesn't download the images and the "hide images" option downloads but doesn't display them. So if you want to surf a site and still help out the web advertiser, just use "hide images", though I use "remove images" so I can get faster page load times.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
If a commercial website can't support itself via its audience, that website should die. If the users of the website are sufficiently motivated to pay for content, they will, and it will survive. Here's a hint: if you need to be paid, then be up-front and honest about it (eg: LWN). If your worth preserving, you'll be fine.
There is no such thing as an implied or "social" contract - by their very nature, contracts are not implications! The whole terminology is a marketing exercise designed to appeal to the "guilt" that just because someone is giving you something, you ought to pay for it.
Sheesh! Social contracts! What next ? Breathing contracts ?
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
could get you sued, then. I guess.
Well in such case I have a brilliant idea.
Why don't all the website owners that feel cheated by those who use Adblock put a clear, visible banner that says it's illegal to view this website with advertising stripped off?
As soon as I see one of those, I will put their hostname in the proxy's blacklist forever. Problem solved.
If the webmasters think they can force people to read their website in one particular way that's most benefitting to them, I'll be among the ones glad to remind the webmasters that I, too, have a choice of throwing their website into a blacklist and advise other people on not using it.
I don't care if it violates any social contract. I don't even agree that there is any contract. As long as the website is
publically available, I can do whatever the fuck I please to its contents on my own machine. The website owners should shut the fuck up and be grateful I spared a minute of my time to even pay attention to their little shitty website, and sure as hell I don't feel indebted to them for anything. Unless they're paying ME to have it their way, I'm going to strip their ads, block their cookies, apply my stylesheets to make their shit readable, and if they're uncomfortable with that, why don't they just let me know so that I can continue ignoring them some more and care even less?
If they feel deprived of revenue, perhaps they should reconsider the field of businness they're in, because I'm most certainly not here to pay their bills.
So here's how Internet works: when you put something into a place where everyone can have a copy, it's none of your business what people do with their copies. For those of you cretins who still have the brick-and-mortar mentality, I dont owe you anything at all and you should thank me for even considering your shitty website.
And what about a simple pop-up blocker, especially now that Microsoft includes one with IE? Does this violate a "social contract?" How is blocking any other type of ads different than blocking pop-up ads?
It's no more a violation of a social contract than having a popup blocker built into the browser...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Stated that websites weren't allowed to pop-up advertisements. When they started to do so, a renegotiation of the contract became necessary, and the new contract states that while web sites may attempt to pop up windows, I am free to disallow that on my system.
If web sites have a problem with this, they need to learn to read the fine print before they sign.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
It doesn't matter.
Until websites trying to enforce ad-views, it won't matter.
Any website who tries to aggressively force ad-views will be left alone in the dust, so I don't think it's much of a problem
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
If I could violate the social contracts of every advertiser out there, I would be a happy man. I just hope that someone somewhere is angry that I've blocked their crappy flash/gif advertisement.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
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?
Social contract or not it is really my choice whether or not I want something displayed on my screen. If the revenue generated from ads on a particular website is suffering to the point of not being profitable then perhaps it is time to look at new ways of making money. You can't try to enforce some form of draconian control over everyone's computers. This is my machine and I will decide what is downloaded, displayed, and run on it.
I would have to say that the social contract that's being broken are by the people advertising. I've been browsing the web since it's inception with HTML and the like. The things that's been invaded is my space, not the other way around with me blocking it.
Adblock, flash block, block images from this server will always win out with me.
There's an old saying that seems appropriate here:
Free speech is the right to say whatever you want; it's not the right to make people listen.
There are always bozos who actually buy things they get spammed about, which is why spammers continue doing what they do. It would be nice to fine the companies whose products are being pushed by spam as a way to combat this, but then of course companies would aim to have their competitors fined. Better, I think, to just shoot the spammers on recognition :)
In any case, using Adblock is a good way to deal with things until a more permanent and global solution to end internet advertising can be found.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Why should this be different on the internet?
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
This "social contract" BS is something marketers dreamed up to make it "bad" to block their ads. The TV people say the same thing about how you're "breaking contract" by muting commercials, getting up off your duff for a drink, or skipping past them on a recording you made.
I didn't sign any contract. I didn't agree to any ToS. I don't want to see your commercials, so poo on you.
This is a simple case of market forces, like a fuzzbuster or other "arms race" involving technology and those who feel they are circumventing something they find annoying.
Evil sig is livE.
Same thing can be said about.. Popup blockers and Spyware removers. Are they breaking a "social contract" by removing the spyware/blocking popups that some sites/apps use? I understand what the article is saying but but they could have worded it better.
The idea of a "social contract" is just a scam some people use to con other people into thinking they have obligations that they never actually agreed to. Any real contract is written down and signed by the parties agreeing to it.
And conversely, should we implictly pay for the bandwidth to receive content we neither requested nor wanted? I think not.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Now I use userContent.css found at here and flashblock. It doesn't block EVERY ad but damn near everything, and no updating the blacklist, though if you want even more you can use the userContent.css + adblock + flashblock + firefox popup blocker for the ultimate protection
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Advertising exploits a coincidence. It is not an obligation on the viewer. I don't enter into any agreement, implied or otherwise, with /. when I come here looking for content. That I happen to look at the ad on the top of the page as a consequence is a side effect that slashdot and other web sites choose to capitalize on them. Good for them. If and when most or all users start blocking ads, they'll have to find another means to survive, or just close up shop.
It isn't your customers obligation to fund your business. It's your obligation to satisfy your customers sufficiently well that they fund your business. Not many companies seem to remember that.
Adverisers took the social contract, ripped it into fifty billion pieces, then get upset when we don't abide by our side of the contract?
Look, I am perfectly willing to see reasonable, well placed ads. I am seeing a Vonage banner ad above Slashdot write now. I am NOT forced to see intrusive, obnoxious crap that intereferes with the reason why I use the service. Anything that requires me to "click" on it to send it away qualifies as abusive intereference, and should be outlawed.
Morons think "If I can get them involved, they will pay more attention to my ad" Instead most consumers get ANGRY at both the site that is abusing them and the moron company that thinks "bad pr is better than no pr".
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"Yes, your honor, I was honoring my social contract by carefully reading all the roadside billboards and advertising when I accidentally drove my car into that Denny's."
The Social Contract cuts both ways, and I don't see advertisers holding up their end of the bargain with truthful ads. Are the boobs in True's advertising blitz actually using the service? Methinks not. Does clicking here actually get a free iPod? Methinks not. Does whatever those damn strobing ads ... nevermind, no.
When media sites start carrying advertising that's not disrespectful of their audience's intelligence, then I'll worry about bypassing it disturbing a social contract, but while its not adhering to the social contract itself then they can bite my shiney metal ass.
Indeed, ignoring the gratuitous reference to a "social contract": put simply, AdBlock is not in any way "unethical" because advertisers pay on the assumption that they'll make money. If they don't think a certain type of advertising will generate revenue, they won't use it. Why won't advertisers mount megaphones on the top of cars screeching "NIVEA HAND CREAM!" in residential areas? Because it would piss people off, make them less likely to buy Nivea hand cream; or, more importantly, just be ignored. I use AdBlock not primarily because I don't like having to see advertising per se, but (A) because busy, moving, flashing ads interrupt my browsing experience and (B) because I have never clicked on an ad in my decade-plus internet experience. Most advertisers pay on clickthrus, and I bet that most AdBlock users, like me, would never clickthru anyway. Indeed, if I didn't use AdBlock I'd end up making more corporate enemies than I do by using it--"Eugh! That Pepsi Flash ad is horrendous! I'm never buying Pepsi again!" If AdBlock use affects advertising revenues, then advertisers will come up with a better way to sell their product. If it doesn't, they won't. Somewhere in the middle, they'll make advertising even more pernicious; but Mozilla's development platform means they'll always be someone around to program a way to get around their get around. Isn't OSS great?
I block any ads that are annoying. That means:
popup, popunder: My popup blocker handles these. It's my broswer and desktop. You don't get to pick what's displayed, I do.
audio, animated, layer ads: These are distractions for me. I simply can't read a web page with an animated ad moving around off to the side, or wedged into the article, or some sliding ad box covering the text. I can usually tune my junkbuster file to get all of these.
IntelliTxt: This is not only annoying, it's almost criminally wasteful of bandwidth. I block this with junkbuster, so the requests to the IntelliTxt servers never happen.
Interstitals: Most sites are designed such that I get a JunkBuster display before moving to the main content. Sites that don't work that way, I simply ignore.
Basically, if I find something annoying enough, I block it. I won't spend more than a minute or so setting up my blocks, though. If it takes longer than that, I just won't go to that site anymore. There's too much content available from too many sources for any one site to command my attention.
Has acceptance of web sites crammed with advertising content become part of my social contract with society?
The answer is yes. You get the content for free, the ads pay for the site.
Of course, "social contract" is just a PC euphamism for "not being a dick".
Blocking the ads makes you a dick, and does violate the "social contract". Lots of good sites are gone forever because of the attitude that "nobody has the right to show me advertisements".
However, when a site is "crammed with ads", or has popups or hijacks your browser, tries to mislead you, etc, then the webmaster has violated HIS side of the social contract (that is, he's being a dick).
There are worse atrocities in the world than a little advertising. I don't know why everyone has to be such a douchebag about it. I mean, having a speakeasy ad at the top of this page isn't going to be the end of my world.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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 -
I don't think it's about a social contract, what it comes down to is that I will NEVER buy something simply because I saw it in an ad. I don't buy things based on ads, I buy things when someone cool says it's cool (Penny Arcade is a good example.) I can't remember ever buying something because of an advertisment. Even a TV commercial. (The exception, I think, is the Saturday/Sunday newspaper ads from CompUSA and Best Buy and Circuit City, but that's only because I'm already looking for something and they just happen to have it on sale) Since I'm NEVER going to buy something based on an online advertisment... aren't I saving the advertisers bandwidth from not downloading their ad? More to the point, aren't Adblock users as a whole saving advertisers a quantifiable amount of bandwidth (money) by not downloading ads for things they aren't going to buy?
Finally, on a dialup (like at my parents place), adblock SIGNIFICANTLY improves performance.
Thank you!
I'm still on dial-up (free from university), and I often use Adblock in this way. Many pages I frequent have some images that simply waste bandwidth. For instance, I have blocked a lot of the images on my on-line banking website so that the response time is better. Getting rid of those images cuts down how long I'm dialed in.
Social or not, a contract represents an *agreement* among people or groups. To have a valid contract, first there must be a common agreement that the terms of that contract are actually valid. Our at-large social contract works because, on the whole, people agree that there are certain rules we must live by in order for society to work.
However, there has NEVER, implicitly or otherwise, been any sort of common agreement that society *must* endure advertising, regardless of degree of intrusion or method of delivery. When TV and radio were first brought on the air, the idea that commercial advertising would allow them to survive was not a given. The fact that it *did* allow them to survive happened to come to pass, but then again, there were no technological means for the public to manipulate the medium for their own benefit - for a while. However, there was no obligation for society to absorb content broadcast to them, and indeed when options became available, they were used.
When the first tape players became available, there *were* arguments and court cases regarding recording off the air, whether it was "legal" to listen while skipping recordings, etc. These arguments have all been had before. And consistently, it has been recognized that people hvae no inherent "obligation" to absorb content in any way other than however they see fit.
I have no obligation to read the ads in a magazine. I have no obligation not to turn down the dial on the radio when commercials come on. I have no obligation to sit by idly while pop-up windows dance across my desktop. THERE IS NO SUCH CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, social or otherwise. If my actions, and the actions of millions of others, somehow cause those broadcasting content discomfort or loss, that's their problem, not mine.
I have no obligation to support *any* business model for anyone else. Indeed, if there were such an obligation, then society could never evolve or adapt to change, could it?
In short - that's just plain old horse manure.
Ignoring expicit ads on web pages will drive the adoption of ads embedded in the content, which you will be impossible to block.
Be careful.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
What is wrong with the adblock home page? It gets the job done. Also, what would be the rush on adblock 0.6? Adblock 0.5.x works great and I have not had one problem with it. As for Filterset.G, what problems do you have with the filters or the person who makes them? I just started using Filterset.G and it blocks a boat load of crap in a small filter set.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
A point that is missed by lots of people, and even myself when I don't actively think about it, is that since we're using web browsers that aren't subject to hijacking or spyware, we don't see the other reason to get mad at web site owners and advertisers.
As far as I'm concerned, they've violated any form of 'social contract' en masse by hijacking peoples' PCs for new ways of delivering ads. I believe that installing software through bugs in the web browser is tantamount to breaking into someones' computer. Companies that design and implement such software, and other companies that contract for their ads to be delivered should be prosecuted and their owners/directors jailed for their abuses.
I also have an opinion about software companies leaving their products vulnerable for years like this, but that's for another debate.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Reading the content of a web page may not be a right, but they do NOT have the right to use up my bandwidth (and if I view over my cell phone, they are CHARGING me to do it).
Look, what they are doing is far worse than what we are doing. Why?because I did not sign anything/click on anything that said I agree to see their ads. Neither did any governemnt agency say, hey that's OK. They did NOT even warn me before making money off of my time that they were going to force me to see the ad.
Contracts are things BOTH people agree to. There is no "implicit contract" unless both sides are acting reasonable, and the advertisers ceased to act reasonable a LONG time ago.
By showing their web site to people WITHOUT getting agreement before hand to show me the ad, they accept the fact that I am under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to see the ad. Instead the ad is treated just like any other content - it is something they are offering but NOT requireing me to see. I am perfectly within my rights to see some of the content on their pages but not all, and perfectly within my rights to see only the non-ad content.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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
Web site owners have the right to display whatever they want on their pages whether I want to see it or not. Nobody's stopping them from doing that. And I can choose not to see it. Nobody should be stopping me from doing that either.
It's entirely possible for websites to not serve up content unless you've viewed ads. The webserver serves up a page along with ads. If your ad blocker isn't loading the ads, the next page will say "Hey, here's some in-your-face ads since you won't view the ones we show you." Then, of course, your ad blocker will download the ads in the background but just not display them. Eventually, the advertising arms race gets to the point where the site has done all it can do technically and it doesn't know if you actually are seeing the ads or if they're invisible. When it gets there, I don't think the site cares one way or the other. It still counts as an impression, only their click-through rates suffer. Maybe, after time, the ad blocker will simulate click-throughs as well and then everybody but the advertisers will be happy. So it'll get to the point where you drink a refreshing Sprite because the advertisements have to be embedded directly in the content you're viewing on Amazon.com, the world's greatest bookstore, thereby ruining the notion of free websites.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Some advertisers think that the only way to sell to people is to get in their face, and demand their attention like a screaming child. Hence, you get crappy ad formats like Eyeblaster and Pointroll. This is a way to piss people off, more than a way to induce them to buy your product, and I think their high click rates are only due to people trying to find the "Close" button to make the ad go away. Fortunately, not all advertisers are like this. Many are starting to recognize that something big and flashy is only "cool" once and otherwise subtle and contextual is really the only way to endear you to your customers online.
Meanwhile, some users think that there should be NO ads on the internet. They think that it's their right to access their favorite sites for free and they shouldn't be bothered with the ads that actually pay for the site to exist. Many content publishers work hard to make sure their ads aren't obtrusive, fit well within their site and they fight back against the Bad Advertisers (see above) by refusing their business -- but that doesn't matter to these users. They demand free stuff!
Fortunately users and advertisers recognize there is a middle ground, and so there's still a lot of harmony in the advertising-supported-website / good-user-experience world.
But the lunatics on both sides are forcing the issue to a head. They're starting an arms race, between the AdBlock/FlashBlock software, and designing a site around advertising (instead of vice-versa). If these people keep pushing it, soon lots more free sites will be entirely done in flash (or some other proprietary format) where you can't disable the ads; and the ads will become the content itself. Increasing product placements on tv shows are just a natural evolution of advertising supported broadcasters losing money from increasing use of commercial skipping systems. Pay-tv like HBO is one answer but not the answer to everything. There can be a middle ground, but both sides have to work for it.
Source, please.
<p>Research is pretty clear that text based ads have a much higher rate of success than any other form of internet ad.</p>
Sorry, but I signed no "social contract". I am not obligated to look any ads.
I hate this mentality that companies have in that "consumers" are expected to devote their lives to VIEWING ADS. Companies are just pissed that they can no longer make sheep out of those who acknowledge the problem and use wonderful tools like AdBlock.
Besides, if someone uses AdBlock, it means they don't WANT to view your ads, and if someone doesn't want to view your ads, guess what the chances are of them buying something from it? Oh, pretty slim to NONE.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
A social contract is between ALL people, the whole society. It is why we can punish people, even if they disagree with a law.
I won't adblock a server/ad that's generally nice or doesn't get in the way of my browsing... think google or other text-based adverts
Are the adblock programs smart enough to know what to block, and what not to block? How do they learn? Do they have some algorithm. It is a big, large web out there.
Have adblock programs ever blocked content you want?? I am assuming they block third party content, like a banner originating from a different IP address than the one you are surfing. If that is the case, won't it ban all content from third parties? Or does it have a list of advertising domains, and blocks those?
What gets me is that arguably, social cotract was first violated by offending websites and ad-server ppl in general, with things like popups, glaringly bad animation... Not to mention the EVIL doubleclick and their "we will track your ass... try and avoid us, punk" attitude
I agree 100% with everything you wrote. The advertising can be annoying.
But the problem is something different than advertising. It is a content problem. I remember when the web first went live (in the early 1990's). I can't remember any advertising. I can't remember any spam. NONE!! I don't remember websites with only one purpose, to send you to a different website. Now these websites use tricks to get a high return on google, and there are so many, it is hard finding legitimate websites. I'll give you an example- there is only one bangbus website, but there are 1000 websites trying to lead you to bangbus, each probably getting a penny for a refferal. I'll give you one more example, a better. Try doing a search for alaskan crab fishing jobs. They pay between $20,000 and $100,000 for 3-4 weeks of work. And they can't get enough people because of the high-risk nature of the work (I think over 100 die each year, tides get to be 100 feet high, you are 100 miles from shore, it is ice cold, you are wet, people lose fingers easily while trying to grab the big cages in the ocean filled with crabs). Anyways, I did a search, and outside of the State of Alaska, there is not one website I could find in the first 500 returns by google that was not selling "Make $200,000 in Alaska fish industry, send $29.99 for my book". It is all bullshit. I tried to search using words like "blog" or "experiance", I tried to limit the search to "site:edu". Then I tried searching for cruise jobs... it is even worse.
The problem is THERE ARE TOO MANY JUNK WEBSITES.
Oh, I promised to tell you what is comming next. People will hate this. Some websites are going to 100% flash for all content. They integrate their advertising in the flash. You either have to have flash turned on, or you can't use the website at all. The worst ones are where you get a 1 minute commercial flash before the website appears. Yahoo is now doing this with fantasy baseball stat tracker. You pay 7 dollars for this tool, it used to be a java applet, it is now flash. The stat tracker is a real time update of scores. The old java applet loaded quickly, and went straight to scores. The new flash now has a 30 seconds screen for GM cars, then it goes to scores.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
After some consideration, I'm going to say "No, it does not violate the social contract."
Here's why:
1. There is no such thing as a social contract, as the word contract suggests that there is a fixed and unalterably correct way of doing things. What we have are social conventions, which are flexible and ever-changing, and generally vary by region and by circumstance.
2. If one person (or corporation) decides that a certain behavior is the "appropriate" or "right" thing to do, that doesn't mean the rest of society agrees. In fact, the "right" or "appropriate" thing to do can be defined directly by whatever the majority of people are doing. By that definition, the day the majority of people skip or otherwise avoid/reduce exposure to advertising is the day that doing so is considered socially acceptable. I believe we've already reached that day.
2b. However, the link between majority behavior and socially conventional behavior is even more tenuous than that, because the behavior in question doesn't have to actually occur within a majority -- it simply has to be considered acceptable by the majority.
In the case of blocking ads on web sites, here's how this all pans out: the person presenting the web site, and paying for it with ads, would prefer that people do not block the ads so as to increase revenue. But they have no more claim to the moral high ground than someone who presents a web site and pays for it by selling personal information, and would prefer that people do not withhold their personal information so as to increase revenue.
Does that mean that lots of web sites may shut down if they can't gain enough revenue from web ads? Absolutely. But that's because the business model is flawed, not because a theoretical "social contract" has been broken.
All this seems to be is an attempt to make people feel guilty, so that they will behave the way the web site owner(s) want them to. But that's nothing more than peer pressure, except that for most people the web site owners are not considered peers, and thus their attempts to pressure will have little or no impact.
Mind you, peer pressure can be powerful, and is certainly one of the mechanisms that determines social acceptability of a certain behavior...but advertisers and content providers are not and will never be "peers" of consumers in that sense.
If you refuse to see the ads, you should find your content on another website.
I take it, then, that you will never:
I mean, you wouldn't want to be exploiting those providers by not viewing their advertisements, would you? Somehow, you're asserting that advertisers/providers have a right to force you to look at them.
Just like downloading music on a p2p system is a violation of copyright law.
What a broad generalization. Ever tried getting some legal tunes from indie artists? Or being in a country that allows downloading music?
You have no social right to listen to that music.
Yes, but your analogy is nothing close to that. A more appropriate analogy would be purchasing an album by $BAND and being forced to listen to $TRACK1_ADVERTISING_SPIEL_FOR_3:00 each time you attempted to play the disc.
No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If this were true, then I shouldn't be watching UHF television if I walk to the bathroom during each and every five minute commercial break (that comes up every five minutes), and that simly is not the case.
Websites (and TV shows etc) are supported by ad revenue, but they are paid for (and expected to be paid for) by the owner, not the consumer. The ad revenue assists in paying for their website, but is NOT anything that is gauranteed, nor is it expected that a user sit there and start at it (then purchase something to make it work).
People bypassing these are excercising their individual right to not purchase something.
Your argument is like saying we all shouldn't enter a store without purchasing anything we look at, as "browsing" violates the store's social contract to sell us crap.
The second I have to sit in the sanctity of my own home and listen to a door-to-door salesman because it is "his right" to hock is crap at me is the day I purchase a shotgun.
Unnh. I think you mean three rights make a left. Still stupid and senseless, but at least more accurate. (And that's what we strive for on /.)
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Unfortunately you are incorrect. Rights are granted by default and only removed under certain conditions. Our society does not operate on social contract; we (the US) have codified it into law and a large part of it is called the Constitution.
Another part of our law is called Contact law, which states that no mutual obligations can exist between two people without being formed explicitly (written or verbal). I have made no such arrangements with any websites I visit.
I did not sign a document or even click an "I Agree" button to terms of service obligating me to look at their advertisements in exchange for their content. Therefore, it is my right and privilege not to look at their advertising; yes, I can modify their website in any way before viewing it. No laws or contracts prevent me from doing otherwise.
If website authors began switching to such systems, where users must agree to Terms of Service in order to view the site (which includes agreeing to download advertisements), I would sympathize with you. But that is not the situation. I am free to do what I want.
I hope that you do realize that this will eventually lead to having a quiz on the ads delivered before you are able to see content on pushy sites. It will also lead to the automated fusion of normal content and advertising content; for example gluing an ad image to the top or bottom of another image so that if you do not load it, you don't get to see the image you actually wanted, either; Or replacing story images with flash animations that play an ad with a button you must click to see the image. This is, of course, the only way to be sure that someone had to sit through your advert.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No signature, no verbal promise, no handshake, no nothing.
Frankly, I hate the idea of "free" websites with ads. You want to espouse your views? Pay to do so. You can share a server with a bunch of folks for a pittance a month. Blogging can be had ad-free cheaply.
I wanted more than that, and I know what I'm doing, so I bought a used server and pay for rack space, and so far there are no ads. There probably will be at some point, but they'll be low key, and they won't pop up, pop under, grab, track, or anything else. They'll just sit there (like google ads do). That'll be to help cover costs on the public service site. Or I may just do a PayPal donation thing like some sites do; I have had folks send me money and gear in appreciation.
But my personal stuff? I pay for that. Why should someone else have to pay for my "right" to express myself? That's INSANE.
I pay for my internet connection. I pay for my server. I have *zero* obligation to allow myself to be annoyed by anyone else's choices.
I think the web ads do sell products and services, otherwise no one would bother. However, by using an extension like adblock, I am simply removing annoying advertisements that I will never click on to purchase an item. As a general principle I do not click on these ads and would never consider making a purchase based on a banner ad or popup that I saw. If a company wants my business they better find more creative ways of marketing. And some companies get it. Offer competitive prices, great customer service and a quality product and then make your site easily reachable through google searches, word of mouth, price searches, etc. Get some good reviews by reputable sources. When I want to make an online purchase I do research, google searches, and talk to friends about what their experiences have been. Then I make an educated decision. To summarize: no company is losing any revenue by my using adblocking software.
Celebrate the finer things in life
I hope this is a troll, because it disturbs me you might vote.
The page authors chose to put those ads there.
Good for them. And I choose not to view them. Isn't choice fun?
Reading the content of a web page is not a right, it is a privilege afforded to you by the website's author
Yes. And the author afforded me that privilege by placing the site on a publicly available server. The author could have set up a subscription system, but chose not to. Instead, he's hoping that I will view the ads, but that hope imposes no obligation on me whatsoever. It's the same business model as a store selling a specific product as a loss leader to get you in the door, hoping you'll buy more expensive stuff as well. It is certainly not immoral or unethical to only buy the cheap stuff.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I'm using a browser which is deliberitly not able to display image and flash ads. Am I violating this so called 'social contract' also? Not likely.
You bought something you didn't really need. By doing so, you prop up your corporate masters. That makes you both suckers.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
$30 rebate at Fry's for a really cool computer tower box. 5 minutes, enbelope and stamp. Two weeks later a check for 30 buck-o-roonies. You must really make a lot of money per hour to top $30/5 minutes! In that case I wish I had your pay scale! You must be a lawyer or something. ;-)
Consider this: the webpage (with ads) is purposefully placing itself in the public's view. This is done with the hope that people will go to the page and incidentally see ads. This is their business model. They have chosen to expose the content. We, the viewer, can do whatever we want with the information streaming towards us. We can look at it, we can ignore it, or we can selectively look at some parts and ignore (or even block) other parts.
As I walk down the street, I can look at billboards or I can purposefully ignore them. That is my right. The ad company decided to put the billboard there in the hopes that they would make money... but they put the billboard in a public location.
In the event that the companies in question decide that they are not making enough money off the ads (that people are not looking at the ads), they are free to change their business model, take the webpage off the net, start charging for access, or whatever they want.
If you don't want to see the ads, then you have no right to view the content.
I disagree. Again, the webpage is purposefully made easy-access to encourage people to access it... but there is no guarantee that people will look at the ads. If the company doesn't like it, then they can tune their advertising methods (or business model in general) until a useful compromise is reached. The onus lies with the company to come up with a viable business model, not with the consumers to play by the implicit rules of a particular advertising scheme.
Amen. Does it mean that I am violating a social contract if I run a website and don't put advertising on it?
Advertisers made their own bed. I remember a few years ago, there was a website up that hosted clips of funny TV commercials. They had a rating system in place, and it was really cool. Then they were shut down, for rights infringement of some kind.
So let me get this straight - advertisers create commercials for their products, and they do so in such a way to get people to watch them. But then they shut down a website that was giving them FREE advertising of their products. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and speaks to the general lunacy of advertising in general.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I think most folks out there browsing web sites are willing to put up with some degree of ads. And I've even clicked one or two.
But a few ads spread here and there is quite a bit different then big javascript or flash popups, animated flashing GIFs, intermission pages, and other obnoxious adversisements (like keyword highlighting, OMFG I hate it. I will not visit Toms Hardware anymore because every mention of "Server" or "Network" or "connection" is highlighted with some popup ad.)
People will only accept so much before seeking alternatives, and when they do, sometimes it's too late to go back.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Since no site will warn me about ad content prior to visiting their site, no 'social contract exists', and I can freely block them as I please.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
BTW, is that blinking ad illegal in some countries and harming people with eye sight disability?
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Choicepoint gets to collect and sell all kinds of information without your knowledge or approval, and there is no punishment when they sell it to criminals.
By the way, Microsoft owes me $4.27 rent today for having their software on my disk drive. Hey! They didn't sell it to me, it is just a license.
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.
Just this morning, I noticed that my previously favorite travel website now has a pop-up ad that circumvents the standard pop-up blocking in Firefox (not AdBlock or whatever the extension is). I sent them feedback letting them know that as long as they were not respecting the clear wish of their customer not to be bothered with a pop-up, I would no longer be using their services. I could (and may) install the AdBlock, but I won't return to their site until they fix the real problem which is disregard for their customers wishes. If they decide they'd rather have the ads than uptight customers like me, then I'll use other services.
Much as I can opt out of using their service if I am unwilling to put up with ads, the service provider should be able to opt out of providing me with a service if I am unwilling to accept their terms. It's no different than a a fancy restaurant with a dress code that requires a jacket and tie. If you want to wear a t-shirt and sandals while you eat, go somewhere else.
However, unless they notify me of these terms, there is and should be no rule that says I must view every bit of data they throw at my web browser. If they do notify me, then I should respect their wishes. I don't see it as a "social contract" so much as common sense and courtesy.
Its interesting to note that some guys have written an Adblock detection script (test page here). Haven't seen one of these being used on a web site though.
My computer is MY computer. I assert the right to retain control over it. Your server is YOUR server, you have the right to assert control over it. The problem is, there is no way for me to know ahead of time, often times, if a website will have annoying popups or popunders. Or flash adds that do annoying things and can't be 'paused' in their animation, or easily muted without muting my whole computer.
This is where Adblock type technologies fulfill the other end of the "Social Contract" - letting me control my computer. If you don't want me viewing your content unless I view the ad also, fine, then give me a way to decline both. Come up with a way to deny the content if I don't view the advert, and instead just return a generic page stating, "This site uses {insert ad-type here}. In order to view the content, you must allow this type of advertising."
Then I can choose whether to accept the popup, or browse on to someone else.
The problem with this "social contract" theory is, I never *agreed* to this social contract. One can argue that by viewing the content, I am implicitly agreeing to it. But the problem is, until I actually go to a site, and either get a popup, or block it, I don't know what the 'terms' of this social contract are.
It's like saying you have to accept the terms of any contract, without even knowing those terms ahead of time.
I REFUSE to give up control over my computer to any site on the internet just because I followed a link to them.
What I do click on are those text ads that Google places on the side of its page. This is actually a convenience for web browsing. First of all, it stays out of the way, doesn't take any time to download, provides useful information, and leads folks to products and services that might actually be useful.
Therefore, I am saying that I have no problem with web site owners making money off their creation, but please do it in a way that is comfortable for the readers, too.
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.
If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.
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.
People seem to think that because something is electronically based, it's subject to a different moral code.
You have obviously not read the discussion; Try again.
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).
Popunders are a case in point. Used appropriately, they can be a very good thing
Popunder ads are like the flyers mentioned above, except ten times as annoying.
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.
(If you want revenue, a programmer can set up automated ad "showers" and "clickers" for you. To the "web technology" it will look like any other ad view, so you should be happy. Yes? Ad blockers use technology to filter them out, you can use technology to pretend they don't. Remember not to "show" or "click" too often or the advertisers might become suspicious. And use different IP addresses.)
Good point. And even if you never see the menu, we all know that's how the system works; it developed over time and became a part of everyday life. The closest I can see with the web is a server. If I go park a server in your rack and start using your space, electricity, bandwidth, A/C and so on, I can jolly well expect to pay for it. Random, public content off the web is hardly the same thing.
/. are a great example. (It helps that I sometimes find /. useful. 8^) The first time I saw a Barracuda ad, I checked out their site. Within a couple of days, I had contacted them. Within a week, my free demo unit was on the way, and within a month we had bought that unit. We love it; it works as promised, they have great support, it makes our sysadmin lives easier, and our users are despammed, devirused, d dewormed, etc.
/. has real value, so I come here every day.
There are also laws regarding restaurants, precisely because people came up with reasons they didn't think they should have to pay. In at least some states in the USA, these are a subset of "defrauding an innkeeper" laws which go well back into English history, and tend to still be very harsh. There are no such laws governing the reading of public content on the net. There are laws to deal with content that requires payment or contract to pay.
The only extant contract here is between whoever is providing the content and whoever is storing and/or serving it. It's up to the content provider to come up with a viable system that gets their content viewing paid for. It's one thing if you can convince me to agree to watch the ads on your site; if I agree to that, I should be bound to do it. But my entering a URL and hitting return, or clicking on a URL someone sent me, of I found on google, or whatever, doesn't obligate me to anything.
Some sites (please note correct spelling 8^) have a reminder like "If you found this site useful, please support my sponsors". In such cases I'm fairly likely to at least look around and see if their sponsors hold any interest at all. In fact, I tend to do that anyway, if I find the site useful. If not, I'm unlikely to pay attention to their sponsors unless the sponsor has done something worthy of my attention.
Barracuda's ads on
HOW did this happen?
1)
2) Barracuda had a good ad, which wasn't intrusive (I will no more buy from annoying advertisres than from spammers).
3) Barracuda followed up.
4) Barracuda provides something I needed at a price I was willing to pay.
If all advertisers followed this model, which has worked very well for Barracuda, I suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion!
The only problem is, as Spurgeon noted, that 90% of everything is crap. This includes web content, products being marketed, and the advertisements themselves.
OK, so you host a website. A popular website. So your host sends you a big bandwidth bill every month. How do you pay for that?
Interestingly enough, all your viewers have flat-rate broadband, and, individually, don't expend a whole lot of bandwidth on your site. They could use four or five times the bandwidth on it, and wouldn't notice the difference.
I have an idea - how about, instead of annoying us, you let us help you host your website and take some of that burden off of you?
The solutions are still taking shape (things like Dijjer), but soon there won't be much excuse for ads anymore as a way to pay the bandwidth bill.
But do you really think websites will take the ads down once distributed tech thins down your bandwidth bill?
How about we make a deal - you take off the ads, and we'll host your content. Now THERE's a real social contract.
No one has agreed to the trade-off between content and ads, not even implicitly. It's a gamble on the part of the business owners, like many other things. Many stores and restaurants give out free samples, in the _hopes_ that people who were lured in will buy their product. If you don't buy anything, you're not breaking a "contract", it's just that their gamble didn't pay off.
If a business decides that they can lower the price of their product by including ads, that's a business decision that carries some risk. It's not a requirement that consumers must follow. If a business came up with the idea that they'd give a free car to everyone who came into their ice-cream store, they'd go broke. That's not "breaking a social contract", that's bad planning.
"Your failed business model is NOT MY PROBLEM."
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
A 'social contract' isn't a contract at all. You're thinking of an 'implied contract'.
A social contract is the thing everyone participates in to make society work correctly, and is not a 'contract' at all. They are simply polite behaviors.
You walk on the right, I walk on the right. Look, we no longer run into each other.
You don't be annoying with your cellphone, I don't be annoying with mine.
You tell me if you see me walk off with my headlights left on, and I do the same for you.
You refrain from killing me, and I refrain from killing you.
Etc, etc. When violation of a social contract causes serious problems, we tend to outlaw it. When it's minor, we just call those violators assholes and shot them the bird.
Now...I refrain from blocking your ad, and you...refrain from blocking mine? WTF? I have no ads.
'Social contracts' have no bearing whatsoever to ads. Ads are unidirectional, from a very small subset of people to the population at large, and hence they can't possibly be part of any social contract.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
So your agurement is "Because someone else does it, it's ok for me to do it" ?
/rant
Bullshit, the internet is a chance we have to make things different. Look at maddox he nevers put ads up, and he gets tens of thousands of hits, or what about Wikipedia. They are doing what everyone should be doing, I provide you this content for free, in return you provide your content for free.
When adbanners first came out, people were fine with them. Then more and more came out, pop-ups, pop-unders, spyware, everything. Had it just stayed at adbanners everything would have been fine. Now we are left with no choice but to block them. Most people don't block text ads. So use them if you must. But first think about what you are providing, is it a "I want money" or a for the public good website?
The internet is one medimum that corp's haven't yet taken control of. Do you want them to?
Or would you prefer the people to remain in control, and live by our rules, not the rule of the almighty dollar?
By visiting my website you agree to accept and view commercial content on the site and to not block, remove or otherwise make inaccessible said material, bla, bla, bla...
By transmitting your website to my browser you agree to not transmit or attempt to transmit any commercial material to my system, bla, bla, bla...
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).