The Morality of Web Advertisement Blocking

An anonymous reader writes "There has been some recent coverage of the over-hyped boycott of Firefox, in response to the rising popularity of the Adblock Plus Firefox extension. A recent editorial on CNET looks into the issue, and explores the moral and legal issues involved in client-side web advertisement blocking. Whereas TiVo users freeload on the relatively fixed broadcasting costs paid by TV networks, users of web ad-blocking technology are actively denying website owners revenue that would otherwise go to pay for the bandwidth costs of serving up those web pages. If the website designer has to pay for bits each time you view their website without viewing their banner ads, are you engaged in theft? Is this right? "

Comments

Then don't go to the godammned site

[tjstork]

If things weren't so horribly intrusive and capable of tracking a user's entire internet experience, for the sole purpose of selling you stuff, people wouldn't bitch.

Don't go to the site then, and for sure, don't use their content!

What are you, like little mommy's boy waiting for the world to dance for you, for free, every time you simper and lose your blanky! Hey, people eat and want to send their kids to college.

Honestly, what they should do is make it so that a web browser / html protocol that is digitally signed so that ads -cannot be blocked-.

Re:Then don't go to the godammned site

[Trigun]

Oh fuck off with that. Take your capitalistic, and simplistic view of the world as seen through your ass, and jam it right beside your head. Not once have I ever been asked before going to a website if I was okay with a shitload of ads strewn about a website, let alone prompted that they would appear. Advertisers are small petulant children; they yell and scream, and when that ceases to work, they scream louder, or steal your car. They do whatever they can to get attention, and when they get it, they want more.

Should the few be punished for the sins of the many? If I were in charge, yes.

Re:Oh my.

[ShatteredArm]

I'd like to live in a fantasy world where I'm simply entitled by default to free content, and I only have to deal with insidious "detestable advertisers" who are "actively denying" me my solid gold razor scooter. Fortunately for web developers, in the real world, a user has to earn content by being potentially interested in products that advertisers are willing to fork out cash to advertise -- not by taking it for granted that the web developers are just willing to donate their time and money in building and maintaining a web site.

For a long time, users were not able to browse a very large number of frivolous web sites, partly because there was no viable way of profitably advertising. The collapse of the dot-com bubble created a more targeted, profitable way of advertising, and now it is a multi-billion dollar industry. Popup blockers are normal mainstream software, and Google has had significant success selling all-text advertisements.

The content moochers seem to think that they've pushed back hard enough, and should be able to just not have to look at the repellant Flash banners anymore. I guess those users are wrong, because clearly there are plenty of websites who are not willing to tolerate the barrage of unethical ad-blocking techniques. We'll find a balance eventually, somewhere in between no ads at all and the websites whose masters believe they are entitled to a tithe every time their server sends a 200 status.

Re:Oh boo hoo

[jp10558]

Sure, why not. I'll think they are a little stupid as I can just get around anything that isn't asking for a password before sending me info, but hey whatever they like.