Ad-Blockers

[Cunobelin]

I choose to use an ad-blocker

There are more and more sites including Channel 4 and Channel 5

I don't want my computer slowed down or exposed to adverts (and often software) that I do not wish to see.

If I want something I will look for it.....

It is however becoming continually more difficult to access content whilst using one.

What is the general feeling about this "conflict"

Is it appropriate to block "ad-block users".... and on the other side of the coin is ad-blocking acceptable?

[rusky]

I've noticed this too & in in agreement with you. I have a raspberry pi running pihole & while disabling abp gets around some sites,  they still detect pihole.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[dave r]

I've always used an ad blocker, ad's can get intrusive, if a site chooses to block me because I run an ad blocker I'll just go elsewhere.

[rusky]

That's fine until the site you need is the only place to get that info

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[dave r]

That's fine until the site you need is the only place to get that info

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Obviously! In that case, if its important, I'll have to turn off the ad blocker to access the site.

[Ben T]

In terms of whether it's ok to use it, I think yes, because ad-blockers (certainly the one I use, AdBlock Plus) claim they only block 'intrusive' ads, and they work with advertisers/publishers to arrive at the definition of 'intrusive' and also to help them produce ads that conform to it. There may be other more blackmarket ones that are more aggressive.

Some sites however obviously decide that they feel entitled to toss this consensually accepted definition of 'intrusive' out of the window, and publish intrusive ads, obviously not caring whether they annoy users - Bikeradar being a prime example.

[Cunobelin]

That's fine until the site you need is the only place to get that info

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Obviously! In that case, if its important, I'll have to turn off the ad blocker to access the site.

That was part of the point

Once when turned off i gotta marketing survey....

I was quite honest, I would boycott any company that foisted it’s adverts on principle

That is my default position.

If the adblocker is off I blacklist

[Kim]

Barakta uses them as an accessibility tool - she can't read properly if there are moving images nearby on the screen.

[ian]

I generally don't. If you want content it has to be paid for, and that's the price of not paying subscriptions. We all, generally, expect to be paid. If you believe that all ads should be blocked, then I share the believe you also shouldn't be paid for your labours. It's only fair.

That said, I reserve the right to block obnoxious ads that invade my screen and take over my speakers. There's a balance.

[Kim]

Yeah, I don't mind static adverts (especially nice clean text ones), it's obnoxious moving images, bandwidth-hogging videos, anything that makes noise, and anything that steals input focus that I object to.

Anything that tries to trick you into thinking it's not an advert, e.g. by pretending to be a UI element or part of the website has gone beyond advertising and well into 'scam', and should be blocked with extreme prejudice.

[Plug1n]

I'm a ublock origin user.  Like others, I'm happy to accept some stuff that's not highly intrusive, but the inter-statial ads that take over the page and your bandwidth are not acceptable.  Pretty much the same difference to a road-side billboard and something that blocks the road for a minute.

I'm finding that Firefox "reader view" and the Chrome Distill extension are become very useful to bypass some of the post-GDPR cookie pop-ups.

[Cunobelin]

I generally don't. If you want content it has to be paid for, and that's the price of not paying subscriptions. We all, generally, expect to be paid. If you believe that all ads should be blocked, then I share the believe you also shouldn't be paid for your labours. It's only fair.

That said, I reserve the right to block obnoxious ads that invade my screen and take over my speakers. There's a balance.

Except for the fact that I am also paying to receive their annoying adverts. It uses up my data and there is a cost to me

It is a bit like going into a shop and being charged an undisclosed sum to cover the advertising in the store......... or going to the cinema and having a 5% advert charge added to your ticket. ITV should start charging for receiving their adverts?

This would be unacceptable, yet we are supposed to accept it own the internet?

[ian]

Well, using the same analogy you are paying to watch ITV. You paid for the TV and you pay for the electricity (and the house or flat, the chair you're sitting in etc.) Also the licence, which remember is the for TV, not just BBC/C4. That analogy breaks down. Your cinema ticket price pays, in the same way, for the adverts the precede your movie, not to mention directly for the usual product placements during the movie. That, I admit, I like less. I've paid for the movie, I don't need any adverts, but that's another MILR. Bring back newsreels.

People who block all adverts are doing the modern entitlement thing – they don't want to pay for the things they take from others, but they want to be paid for the things that people take from them.

[De Sisti]

If you believe that all ads should be blocked, then I share the believe you also shouldn't be paid for your labours. It's only fair.

[ian]

If you believe that all ads should be blocked, then I share the believe you also shouldn't be paid for your labours. It's only fair.

Who pays the journalists on your favourite news site?

[Ben T]

Well, using the same analogy you are paying to watch ITV. You paid for the TV and you pay for the electricity (and the house or flat, the chair you're sitting in etc.) Also the licence, which remember is the for TV, not just BBC/C4. That analogy breaks down. Your cinema ticket price pays, in the same way, for the adverts the precede your movie, not to mention directly for the usual product placements during the movie. That, I admit, I like less. I've paid for the movie, I don't need any adverts, but that's another MILR. Bring back newsreels.

People who block all adverts are doing the modern entitlement thing – they don't want to pay for the things they take from others, but they want to be paid for the things that people take from them.

Your theory is that by watching adverts you are being morally correct by 'paying' the journalist who researched and wrote the piece. That's a nice theory but a slightly rose tinted view of the world.
In reality, you are paying the 99 copycat sites who have copied the original piece and put it on their own site. Why else when you search for something do you get loads of sites with the same text but different names, borders and adverts?

Well, using the same analogy you are paying to watch ITV

Not if you record it and fast-forward the adverts, which  I always do.

[Kim]

Why else when you search for something do you get loads of sites with the same text but different names, borders and adverts?

Because an awful lot of modern journalism involves copy & pasting press releases?

[ian]

It's not rose-tinted. You, I assume, expect to get paid for your work. Believe it or not, so do everyone else. You can obfuscate that, but ultimately, when someone does something they expect to be paid (or they're doing it off the back of something else).

The reason a lot of modern journalism is copy and pasted press releases is that people are unwilling to pay for actual content. I don't, I'm looking at the Guardian now and not paying for it. Is being exposed to a few adverts a price worth paying? Yes. (OK, adverts aren't really paying the bills there either.)

[Ben T]

It's not rose-tinted. You, I assume, expect to get paid for your work. Believe it or not, so do everyone else. You can obfuscate that, but ultimately, when someone does something they expect to be paid (or they're doing it off the back of something else).

The reason a lot of modern journalism is copy and pasted press releases is that people are unwilling to pay for actual content. I don't, I'm looking at the Guardian now and not paying for it. Is being exposed to a few adverts a price worth paying? Yes. (OK, adverts aren't really paying the bills there either.)

There are two types of work. Contracted, and speculative.
I do contracted work, i.e. I only do tasks that someone, either my client, or employer, has requested me to do on promise of payment.
The only reason I expect to get paid for it is because I've got a contract saying that I will.

The other type of work is speculative, in that someone can embark on some work without any promise of payment, in the hope that someone will pay them for it. They may do, they may not.

If submit a GET request, receive some HTML, and elect to use some software to interpret the tags in that HTML - I have no contract with anyone that I must also use said software to view all the tags in that HTML, even less so submit new requests to URLs indicated by some of the tags and view the content received by those.
How I decide which of the received HTML tags I want to look at, and how, and which ones I don't, is up to me.
Am I being immoral if I use cURL? Where do you draw the line?

If journalists want to ensure they get paid per view for all content they produce - the answer is simple, do what the Times has done and implement a pay wall.

[Ben T]

It's not rose-tinted. You, I assume, expect to get paid for your work. Believe it or not, so do everyone else. You can obfuscate that, but ultimately, when someone does something they expect to be paid (or they're doing it off the back of something else).

The reason a lot of modern journalism is copy and pasted press releases is that people are unwilling to pay for actual content. I don't, I'm looking at the Guardian now and not paying for it. Is being exposed to a few adverts a price worth paying? Yes. (OK, adverts aren't really paying the bills there either.)

So if I did a (probably fairly crap, given that I'm not an artist) painting and stood outside your house displaying it, such that you'd see it when you came out - and held out an upturned hat, how much would you put in?


Although it is actually quite interesting that there is a legal difference between putting something on the internet, and, say - displaying fruit on a market stall.
It's interesting that on the internet, you have to physically prevent people accessing something if you expect to enforce a contract to be paid for it, but on a market stall where it is physically possible for people to walk up to it and pick up the fruit, there is an implied contract that if you want to take some fruit home with you, you are legally obliged to pay for it.
Will there be a time in the future I wonder when the internet is similar, i.e. a site that is publically accessible, but if you want to use it - you are not only (potentially, subjectively) morally - but also legally obliged, to pay for it? A bit like driving through that tunnel on the eastern bit of the M25?

[zakalwe]

Well, using the same analogy you are paying to watch ITV. You paid for the TV and you pay for the electricity (and the house or flat, the chair you're sitting in etc.) Also the licence, which remember is the for TV, not just BBC/C4. That analogy breaks down. Your cinema ticket price pays, in the same way, for the adverts the precede your movie, not to mention directly for the usual product placements during the movie. That, I admit, I like less. I've paid for the movie, I don't need any adverts, but that's another MILR. Bring back newsreels.

People who block all adverts are doing the modern entitlement thing – they don't want to pay for the things they take from others, but they want to be paid for the things that people take from them.

Your theory is that by watching adverts you are being morally correct by 'paying' the journalist who researched and wrote the piece. That's a nice theory but a slightly rose tinted view of the world.

That's not how web advertising works.  The most common pricing models for advertising networks actually count the number of "impressions" of an advert; i.e., how many times it's displayed in a user's browser.  Most ad blockers prevent the advert from being requested at all by the browser, and so an impression isn't counted by the ad network.

This means that the advertiser isn't charged, and the publisher receives no revenue, whether or not you as a user would've paid any attention to the advert.  So yes, ad blocking has a concrete and measurable effect on ad revenue.

[Ben T]

That's not how web advertising works.  The most common pricing models for advertising networks actually count the number of "impressions" of an advert; i.e., how many times it's displayed in a user's browser.  Most ad blockers prevent the advert from being requested at all by the browser, and so an impression isn't counted by the ad network.

This means that the advertiser isn't charged, and the publisher receives no revenue, whether or not you as a user would've paid any attention to the advert.  So yes, ad blocking has a concrete effect on ad revenue.

I know. But should I have to know that in order to be morally correct?

[Cunobelin]

It's not rose-tinted. You, I assume, expect to get paid for your work. Believe it or not, so do everyone else. You can obfuscate that, but ultimately, when someone does something they expect to be paid (or they're doing it off the back of something else).

The reason a lot of modern journalism is copy and pasted press releases is that people are unwilling to pay for actual content. I don't, I'm looking at the Guardian now and not paying for it. Is being exposed to a few adverts a price worth paying? Yes. (OK, adverts aren't really paying the bills there either.)

So if I did a (probably fairly crap, given that I'm not an artist) painting and stood outside your house displaying it, such that you'd see it when you came out - and held out an upturned hat, how much would you put in?


Although it is actually quite interesting that there is a legal difference between putting something on the internet, and, say - displaying fruit on a market stall.
It's interesting that on the internet, you have to physically prevent people accessing something if you expect to enforce a contract to be paid for it, but on a market stall where it is physically possible for people to walk up to it and pick up the fruit, there is an implied contract that if you want to take some fruit home with you, you are legally obliged to pay for it.
Will there be a time in the future I wonder when the internet is similar, i.e. a site that is publically accessible, but if you want to use it - you are not only (potentially, subjectively) morally - but also legally obliged, to pay for it? A bit like driving through that tunnel on the eastern bit of the M25?

The fruit store analogy is different when you look at internet advertising...... it is a bit like the fruit stall holder nipping into your home (without your consent or approval) having a good root through your cupboards, fridge and living room then  offering the fruits that they have then decided that you want.

[Ben T]

yes, true! 

[hubner]

It's not rose-tinted. You, I assume, expect to get paid for your work. Believe it or not, so do everyone else. You can obfuscate that, but ultimately, when someone does something they expect to be paid (or they're doing it off the back of something else).

The reason a lot of modern journalism is copy and pasted press releases is that people are unwilling to pay for actual content. I don't, I'm looking at the Guardian now and not paying for it. Is being exposed to a few adverts a price worth paying? Yes. (OK, adverts aren't really paying the bills there either.)

You have most probably paid the Guardian because you've bought products or services that advertises in the Guardian, whether or not you look at adverts in the Guardian.

I've also contributed to the salaries of eg footballers even though I never watch football.

Blocking internet ads is no different from switching TV channels or not watching a commercial channel al together, not looking at adverts in print newspapers etc.