Ad Blocking is Immoral
After a terrible write up claiming that Ad Blocking is Moral made the front page of Reddit, I felt obliged to respond.
First, a brief response. For lack of a better word, (actually, this is pretty much the perfect word), the piece is drivel. It cases the ethics of Ad Blocking (visitor) and Ad Serving (publisher) in terms of effectiveness, relevancy, and business modeling. While these may all be useful arguments of whether a publisher ought to use advertising to generate revenue, it does not create a meaningful ethical statement on whether subverting advertising efforts is moral.
Examples:
- Sarcastic Response: “In other words, people should support bad business models because it’s more convenient for the businessmen.”
Not supporting a bad business model means boycotting the store, not going in and taking all the free stuff.. If you think the advertisements on a site are terrible, email the webmaster or leave it in the comments, and don’t return to the site to read the content until they have been replaced with a better business model. [ I do take issue with the comment that ad-supported content is a bad business model. On the contrary, contextual-ads have single-handedly funded millions of pages of content creation ] - Webmaster Responsibility: “Frankly, as far as I’m concerned, if a webmaster runs a site that’s popular enough that the costs become at all significant, the onus is on him (or her) to find ways to cash in on that popularity to keep the site going.”
Yep, and the webmaster did find a way. Advertisements. And you, are subverting that. - Magazines vs. The Web: “Firstly, magazines have almost universally relevant adverts in them.”
What bearing does this have, to the ethics of Ad Blocking? Are you people not seeing this?
The Case Against Ad Blocking:
- The Implicit Contract:
When a content publisher places ads on his/her website, it is under the assumption that he/she is bartering with you. That barter is, in exchange for glancing over the advertisements (even if for only a fraction of a second), you can read all the content he/she has created. It is that simple.Some webmasters make you barter more – flashy advertisements with pop ups and pop unders. If you think this is a raw deal, don’t trade. No, don’t steal the content without receiving the ads. That wasn’t the deal. That wasn’t the contract he/she has put forward. The deal was ads for content. You can accept or decline that single proposition.
- The Stupid Response:
“But I never click on anything anyway.” You’re right, you don’t. You also don’t have a dog, but you have no problem going to PetCo and taking all of their free dog treats at the check out. This is unethical. This is immoral. Even if you have never clicked on an ad in your life, and it causes you great pain and anguish to do so, you are allergic to clicking on ads, you should still leave the ads up and let the publisher get that impression.
There you go. Unless a Publisher Says It’s Ok: Ad Blocking is Immoral and Unethical. It is stealing. Period.
About Russ Jones
124 comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Is Blocking Ads Ethical? » PC Mechanic - [...] that much different from those who work to use the government to get free handouts. A site called GoogleCache ...
- Pro Blog Design - Advice on building profitable, usable and attractive weblogs. - [...] For instance, one article says that ad blocking is not only moral, but needed, whilst another has replied back ...
- על העיוורון « - [...] בהקשר הזה זה הטענות שחסימת באנרים היא לא מוסרית, לא אתית, ובעצם משמעותה גניבה מאחר ואנחנו לא מוכנים לשלם ...
My sincere apologies for previous post. Have been unable to find a way to edit or remove post from this website. No direction toward any individual or malice was intended. I wish to retract comments completely.
The concept of morality is a social construct. You call me Immoral? Unethical? A thief? I could care less. I am a rationally self interested individual. Website owners X, Y, and Z are rationally self interested individuals . We make decisions based upon that fact. They place ads on their website to create revenue. I, thanks to adblock, am able to circumvent these ads and save myself time, and brain cells. Why? I am rationally selfish; just like everyone else. They would like me to stop? Make it illegal for me to do so or prevent me from viewing the content. It is that simple.
It seems that your claim of the moral high ground has provoked a knee jerk reaction in quite a few people, you won’t get that from me.
It is a social construct – one that has been accepted in one form or another by primates well before humans. I could use your exact argument to justify nearly anything that is short of illegal – if that is a world in which you are comfortable to live, then go ahead. Just don’t get upset when someone creates a solution that auto-installs adware on your machine. They are just being selfish too.
“It is a social construct – one that has been accepted in one form or another by primates well before humans.” Argumentum ad populum. This doesn’t change the fact that morality is an arbitrary concept.
“I could use your exact argument to justify nearly anything that is short of illegal…..” Argumentum ad consequentiam. That doesn’t make my argument any less valid.
“….- if that is a world in which you are comfortable to live, then go ahead.” Argumentum ad hominem.
“Just don’t get upset when someone creates a solution that auto-installs ad-ware on your machine. They are just being selfish too.” Argumentum ad hominem.
Why is it wrong to block ads,I’m glad Firefox blocks all ads for me.And also I have safe surf on.I got tired of losing control of my pc everytime I clicked on something I wanted to buy,or click on an ad I was interested in.Everyone knows now days,you click on an ad and 9 chances out of 10 ya got yourself a trojan,virus,worm or keylogger.If you have your pc taken over enough throughout the past few years,you learn to remove the temptation of clicking on ads,by having ads blocked.If you have a product you want people to buy,make up a normal webpage and advertise that way,it would be alot safer for your customers.
I block ads. Why? They’re almost universally annoying. The stupid smiley face banner that yells at you, the ad that spreads across the page and blocks the content until you pay attention to it, etc. Intrusive ads drive me crazy. As an individual, it makes no rational sense to just not visit a site because the ads are annoying – you not visiting doesn’t do anything unless everyone else behaves in the same manner. You just don’t get to read the content. I like reading good content and I don’t mind ads that stay out of the way and don’t try to disguise themselves or content or worse, replace it. (IE those sites that redirect you to a full page ad and make you wait 30 seconds to get to the content).
For that reason, I block all ads except for google adwords, which fit my standards of non-invasiveness. If you find that you’re not making money because users are blocking your ads, try not using annoying ads and maybe users won’t find the need to block them. Flash, animated banner ads, video, pop-ups, pop-unders, etc are all annoying to the user. Only neanderthals actually click them or pay them any attention other than getting rid of them. The onus is not on the user to make the website money – it’s on the website to figure out a way to make money without annoying customers.
I see intrusive ads online as the same thing as if theaters put banner advertisements in front of the screen during the movie and every once in a while interrupted the movie to pitch Coca Cola. Theaters would go out of business if they tried that, so why do people think it works online?
Author Response Yes, they would go out of business because no one would show up to pay to watch movies anymore. However, that is very different from what is going on here. You are sneaking into the theater to avoid having to pay at all. You are getting to enjoy the movie without paying and without the ads. The answer is simple: if you don’t like the ads, leave the site. Done deal.
The big issue is that practically all ad-blocking companies track their users using profiling.
For as long as this happens, I will continue to block them.
It’s nothing to do with the webmasters – I support them. But I won’t support multi-million dollar advertising/tracking companies which pose a threat to my privacy.
The other thing is advertisements that are extremely flashy, or move at all. I find these extremely distracting.
I would be happy to view any still advertisements, but not ads which distract me from my web experience.
lol. ABP FTW
Content on the internet, if it is not locked behind a “pay for me” barrier, is free. If you don’t understand that, you probably own a Mac. If I turn off the volume when a commercial comes on TV, it isn’t immoral…it’s an acknowledgement that I’m getting shafted at both ends. I pay for cable and then I pay by watching ads. On the webs, I not only do not have a mute button for all those banners, but those ads could be coming from sites I do not want loading in my browser or sending anything, sites that might even be malicious, but their url’s aren’t displayed in my address bar when loading a page. It is dangerous to my computer, my personal info security, and unless you tell me that I must view the ads to view the page, I have made no contract with you. Ad blocking doesn’t work if you host the ads locally. So, if you want users to pay for your content (note, it is not the users’ responsibility to make sure your site is paid for), then host those ads on your own server.
Re: “Author Response Yes, they would go out of business because no one would show up to pay to watch movies anymore. However, that is very different from what is going on here. You are sneaking into the theater to avoid having to pay at all. You are getting to enjoy the movie without paying and without the ads. The answer is simple: if you don’t like the ads, leave the site. Done deal.”
Blocking web ads is NOT equivalent to “sneaking into the theater to avoid having to pay at all”! I pay our ISP for internet access as do I pay our cable provider for access to TV programming.
I DON’T like ads on TV and I DON’T like ads on websites. However I’m not going to stop watching TV nor accessing the internet to avoid them. I’M the user – the “customer” – and control of the content of the media that comes into my home is MINE. So, I control what I watch and read by fast forwarding through TV ads and blocking ads on websites. Unless the legality of both ad-avoidance methods changes NO ONE will determine for me the content of the media I choose to enjoy.
This is not a question of legality, it is one of ethics. You are correct – no one will determine the content of the media you choose to enjoy, that is your decision. You just happen to decide to screw the content creators in order to create a better experience for yourself. Just embrace it, stop pretending that blocking ads is somehow your God given right.
Admin, There is no legally binding contract, and you are floating on the free market. Adapt or fail, if you find a good adaptation then you could be a millionaire. But just because you like spamming everyone and people start having spam filters, does not mean that the spam recipients are immoral.
It is a shame this is actually an issue and Capitalism is the root to blame. Unless you have a paywall or wall that only lets in people without Adblock there is nothing you can do.
Why is it wrong to block ads,I’m glad Firefox blocks all ads for me.And also I have safe surf on.I got tired of losing control of my pc everytime I clicked on something I wanted to buy,or click on an ad I was interested in. “Author Response Yes, they would go out of business because no one would show up to pay to watch movies anymore. However, that is very different from what is going on here. You are sneaking into the theater to avoid having to pay at all. You are getting to enjoy the movie without paying and without the ads. The answer is simple: if you don’t like the ads, leave the site. Done deal.”
Is it then unethical to turn the TV on mute during the ad break? Same logic bro. Not gonna stop me.
I have thought about this one quite a bit. I do believe that it is somewhat unethical, but on scale it is not quite as bad. Aside from the major networks, the channels get subscription fees from cable and satellite services (you are already paying the content creators to some degree). Additionally, with the regular product placement that is unblockable on your part, they are earning further revenue. However, I do believe that you generally should watch the ads, if we were drawing the line at being lily-white perfect.
That analogy is flawed (about not liking pets but taking the free dog treats).
Dog treats are material, and limited.
The information on the Internet is immaterial and practically unlimited.
You can’t steal information unless it’s classified, and information publicly available is information for free when it’s on the Internet.
I also think it’s nonsense calling web surfing “bartering” between the web surfer and the web service provider. The developers of a web page should take into account that once information is on the Internet, it is no longer theirs- and can’t be traded, but given away.
As the computer I use to access the Internet is mine, I have a right to decide what content it receives. This means I can alter the content if I want to. There are some families who do not like the bad language frequently heard in TV and movies, so they buy a language filter for their TV sets to block out bad words. This is completely ethical. Others might take it a step further and black out bad words, etc. they don’t want to read in their books. Again, this is ethical. The basis for you argument is that neither of these are ethical–that people shouldn’t have the right to alter the content their devices receive. Because I don’t like ads, I should not be forced to view them.
Also, there are companies who will go through your cookies and sell them to advertisers without your consent. In other words, they are stealing your personal data. In return, I block their ads. As long as they continue to do this, I will continue to block ads in the future. It’s only fair.
What’s unethical is creating ads that drop down and cover half the screen when the cursor accidently scrolls over them, or making ads that play obnoxious audio or those stupid banner ads that flash all sorts of colors. I used to tolerate internet ads but as they became more intrusive and annoying, I started blocking them because I couldn’t get anything done due to the constant garbage popping up on my screen. I really don’t appreciate ads containing sexual content or advertising porn sites appearing on a site where minors hang out either.
Author Note: I hate those ads too, so when I see them, I don’t go back to that site. If sexual content is shown on sites that are not adult in nature, I notify the webmaster. What I don’t do is just blindly block the ads and continue to consume the product of different webmasters regardless of the intrusiveness of their ads.
It used to be that the ads only took up one small corner of the page. Care to explain what was wrong with that?
I first started using an ad blocker after the ads started giving me viruses. I’ve got news for you, bucko. I have a right to secure my computer against harmful malware that these ads install on my computer. When advertising companies stop using unethical/sleezy advertising tactics like that then I’ll stop using an ad blocker. Until then they can go screw themselves. I’ll block their ads and have no shame about it whatsoever. And no, I will not stop visiting sites that I like. Expecting people to avoid the internet is completely unreasonable. And considering that I am the one who pays for the bandwidth, I have a say in what comes across my internet connection.
It’s a two way street. Creating ads that install rogue antivirus software on people’s computers in an attempt to blackmail them into buying stuff is not only unethical, it’s illegal but that doesn’t stop people from doing it. Often, they’ll attach these files to harmless ads and when the ad loads, it will install the malware. Expecting people to simply avoid any website that uses ads is ridiculous and unreasonable.
That’s the price the webmaster pays for relying on ads to pay the bills. Also, if I didn’t see anything in the terms of service on any website I visit about not blocking the ads, I go ahead and block them. If the webmaster has a problem with it they they should block people using ad blockers.
I’m actually contemplating adblocking at the moment (though I have yet to decide whether to use it or not).
For a long time I thought that I didn’t particularly mind the odd ad here and there and just let them sit there in the corner while I ignored them. I thought it’s just nice if the content provider could make the odd buck. The problem is that so many ads are taking the piss these days. (If you’ll pardon the expression.) There are the ones that play noises, the ones that blink and flash in a way that would send your average epileptic into a massive fit and the worst ones… the ones that give your computer all sorts of crap, track you and so on. At the moment I tend to report annoying/noisy/excessively flashy ads to the webmasters. (Which in itself is starting to feel like a job I didnt really sign up, and certainly aren’t paid, for.) In some cases they deal with it, in some cases they ignore the issue completely and in a few cases they essentially tell me to suck it up and sod off. The ones that actually make an effort to keep their sites free from crap-ads are the ones that make me hesitate, unfortunately they are few.
In my opinion, the advertisers have been shooting themselves in the foot by letting things get out of hand. If ads were generally unobtrusive (and didn’t carry all sorts of crap) most people wouldn’t bother blocking them. I for one wouldn’t be considering it if it wasn’t starting to feel like self-defence.
But, as I said, personally I’m still on the fence on whether to use it or not.
I only use an adblocker because of the irritating video ads.
Violating TOS is not illegal, its only infringment. Its only illegal if its proved in court. You are seriously out of your depth in making these comments.
As far as ethics are concerned… do you follow a completely ethical life? think back at the decisions you made, each day of your life. You did not.
Everything has two sides. Sides opposing and sides imposing. Which is what makes the world evolve and competitive. If adblocking wasnt there, ads wouldnt evolve.
As far as webmasters who rely on ads for food.. There s loads of other fields and jobs out there. If a business model is outdated, new business models arrive in its place. If you cant keep up, get another job. End of story.
The response about TOS was made in reply to a post by you, here :
Author Response: —– Sure, what you are doing is not illegal (which violating a Terms of Service would be), but it is unethical.———-
Did I say I was on a moral or ethical high ground? No. I really could care less if adblocking was immoral or unethical.
Google based text ads are less intrusive, and for which many adblock users whitelist them. Hence they have grown in demand. This is a direct cause of adblocking. Also, webmasters are taking a second look at the ads they provide and request users not to adblock.
Your Restaurant analogy is seriously flawed. In a world of consumer freedom, the consumer gets to set the price of a product, not the person who sells it. If a product is too expensive, it stops getting sold. So, on the so called price, I as a user decide what I want to browse at what price. I don’t like ads. I block them. If you decide you want to not serve me this content on this basis, block me.Or put up a subscription model. This is not me being an asshole. This is being technology at its best to provide freedom of choice.
And your restaurant analogy with respect to adblockers should be provided like this : Suppose you go to a restaurant, and eat, and the restaurant provides to you the option of payment as a session of really bad music and video to watch and listen…. and suppose you have ear plugs ? and selective vision spectacles ? Its not my fault that technology has evolved. Its your fault for not being able to keep up with it.
Note: there was some issue with posting . If you see multiple posts, its me trying to repost.
Continued :
I use a particular website on a daily basis. I whitelist their ads and click them too. Thats because I am impressed with what they offer me and I since they have a donation/ad model, and I am not willing to donate, I click their ads. However, The website has proved to me its value over years. I pay this price for them willingly, they neither force me nor attempt to circumvent any adblocker.
In spite of my unethicality about adblocking, I do this. This is not the case with all websites as you advocate for.