Is blocking ads from websites immoral?



  • I know this was in a thread that was locked recently, but I wanted to hear more thoughts on this.

    Personally, I don't think so.  I didn't blow $220 on a brand new graphics card just so Joe Salesman could use it to pump siezure inducing ads at me, nor another $280 on a new montior with higher contrast and more colors so his ads would look better.

    Plus, most ads these days come free with a gift basket of spyware, adware, and keyloggers.

    If they were simple adverts on the side of a page that ONLY did things when clicked, that would be another story.  But we all know such a thing is rare at best these days.

    If you ask me, one, and only one person should decide what is displayed on their machine.  And thats the person who paid for it.

    Thoughts?



  • Totally, dude. I just hate it when companies give me content or services for free, but then have the balls to try and recoup their costs. It's like their only thinking about themselves, you know? What about me? I'm way more important than they are. Joe Salesman is just so goddamn selfish, amirite?



  • @bstorer said:

    recoup their costs
    How exactly does a company go from "display an ad" to "get money from ad"? Do marketing guys just pay the company to display the ads like ads in newspapers? Or are the ads monitored based on how many people view or click them?



  • @Welbog said:

    @bstorer said:

    recoup their costs
    How exactly does a company go from "display an ad" to "get money from ad"? Do marketing guys just pay the company to display the ads like ads in newspapers? Or are the ads monitored based on how many people view or click them?

    In the old days, it was merely views. Now it's usually click-throughs. But it's awfully hard to click-through on an ad you never see.



  • @bstorer said:

    In the old days, it was merely views. Now it's usually click-throughs. But it's awfully hard to click-through on an ad you never see.
    Well, in that case no one gets revenue from me since I never click on ads. If I were to block them, no one would lose any money since I'm not a source of income in the first place. Most of the time I just ignore ads. If a site has ads I can't ignore then I stop going to the site.



  •  My view on this is very simple. I'll stop blocking ads the day they become unobtrusive, start telling the truth and can be viewed without goggles.



  •  @bstorer said:

    Totally, dude. I just hate it when companies give me content or services for free, but then have the balls to try and recoup their costs. It's like their only thinking about themselves, you know? What about me? I'm way more important than they are. Joe Salesman is just so goddamn selfish, amirite?

     

    So you purposely install programs like kazaa chock full fo spyware and adware so they can recoup their costs?



  • @DOA said:

     My view on this is very simple. I'll stop blocking ads the day they become unobtrusive, start telling the truth and can be viewed without goggles.

     

     Sounds good to me.

    As the old saying goes, if you have to lie through your teeth to sell your product, its obviously nto a very good product...



  • @Master Chief said:

    (...) most ads these days come free with a gift basket of spyware, adware, and keyloggers.
    That's simply not true. Stop pretending you have pure and righteous motives, would you?

    @Master Chief said:

    If you ask me, one, and only one person should decide what is displayed on their machine.  And that's the person who paid for it.
    You do realise that one could argue that by agreeing to view a website, you are expected to see it in its entirety, and that is the choice you get? And stop using "I paid for it!" as an argument, you intend to discuss morals here, or so the topic says.

    Having said that - I don't click through ads as a general rule, so nothing of value is lost by my ad blockage. If a page creator recommends something, it's never done through ads.

    I like the ad services out there that charge for the time an ad is on, not for the clickthroughs, and even though it's pointless from the page creator's point of view, I do unblock those. Still not clicking, though.



  • @DOA said:

     My view on this is very simple. I'll stop blocking ads the day they become unobtrusive, start telling the truth and can be viewed without goggles.

     

    And how will you know when that is, genius, since you've blocked the ads and can't see them? Didja think of that? ;-) 



  • You're wrong. If a site is important enough to you to visit often, you should want to support the site's author/publisher/whatever. If they feel they need ad revenue to keep it running or make it worth their time to continue, you should help them. If it's not important enough to you to do that, don't visit the site. 

     @Master Chief said:

    Plus, most ads these days come free with a gift basket of spyware, adware, and keyloggers.
     

    This is simply not true on any reputable site. OTOH, most reputable sites now are full of losers who complain about being asked to support the site by occasionally clicking through on an ad. Gee, even this one. 



  • @Master Chief said:

    So you purposely install programs like kazaa chock full fo spyware and adware so they can recoup their costs?

    What in the fuck are you talking about?  He didn't say anything remotely like this.  Are your reasoning skills so weak that you think that "if you take free content you should accept the ads" is the same as "go out and install spyware for the hell of it"?  Fuck. 



  • @Welbog said:

    @bstorer said:

    In the old days, it was merely views. Now it's usually click-throughs. But it's awfully hard to click-through on an ad you never see.
    Well, in that case no one gets revenue from me since I never click on ads. If I were to block them, no one would lose any money since I'm not a source of income in the first place. Most of the time I just ignore ads. If a site has ads I can't ignore then I stop going to the site.

    However you don't know that the ads are being paid for by clicks and not views or impressions.  What's more, the clicks are simply how the sponsors are paying, not necessarily what they are paying for.  In other words, the sponsors are paying to have people see their ads, but the best revenue model for ad networks is based on clicks because there is a stronger correlation between clicks and money spent by consumers.  I think a lot of people take the position that they just ignore ads, but the fact is even ads you look over have some influence on your spending habits and by blocking these you are acting counter to the intent of the sponsor which reduces the value of sponsoring that particular site for them.  I also believe this leads to more widespread blocking of ads -- perhaps you are the rare anomaly that isn't influenced by ads at all, but pretty soon people who only click once or twice a year are blocking ads.  This drives down the value of advertising for that site which means the content creator makes less and less money off of the site.

     

    In my mind, blocking all ads is unethical as it breaks the implied agreement between content creator and consumer that the content will be free so long as the ads are there.  However, it's also one of those gray areas where there is a lot of wiggle room.  For example, I refuse to block ads outright, but I do use Flashblock and NoScript which kills a large number of the more annoying ads.  Sometimes I find the text or simple banner/image ads useful and even click through, but not very often.  I block the more obtrusive pop-up, pop-over and flash ads simply because they annoy the piss out of me and are actually more likely to make me go out of my way to avoid doing business with the sponsor out of retribution.  However, when I watch free video content online I have no problem sitting through the ads, since I am already engaged in the act of watching.



  • @Master Chief said:

    So you purposely install programs like kazaa chock full fo spyware and adware so they can recoup their costs?

    I don't have any severe brain injuries that limit my ability to reason. Therefore, I can understand the difference between using somebody's product but denying them their revenue and using somebody's product so that they get some revenue.



  • @Master Chief said:

    Is blocking ads from websites immoral?

    It depends on which morals you go by. One might block ads on all non-Pastafarian sites because it serves them right for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    For me, it's reasonable to try and stop anything untoward happening to my computer as a result of visiting a website, so I use Flashblock and NoScript. If I want to support a site I'll try not to block its adverts. If it's some big corporate site in whose eyes I'm so insignificant as to not care that their scripty crap annoys me, then whether I block their ads or not is equally insignificant.



  • @wybl said:

    You do realise that one could argue that by agreeing to view a website, you are expected to see it in its entirety, and that is the choice you get? And stop using "I paid for it!" as an argument, you intend to discuss morals here, or so the topic says.

    Having said that - I don't click through ads as a general rule, so nothing of value is lost by my ad blockage. If a page creator recommends something, it's never done through ads.

    I like the ad services out there that charge for the time an ad is on, not for the clickthroughs, and even though it's pointless from the page creator's point of view, I do unblock those. Still not clicking, though.

     

    It is moral.  The owner of a computer should have the only say in what runs, is displayed on, and comes out of said computer.



  • @KenW said:

    You're wrong. If a site is important enough to you to visit often, you should want to support the site's author/publisher/whatever. If they feel they need ad revenue to keep it running or make it worth their time to continue, you should help them. If it's not important enough to you to do that, don't visit the site. 

    This is simply not true on any reputable site. OTOH, most reputable sites now are full of losers who complain about being asked to support the site by occasionally clicking through on an ad. Gee, even this one. 

     

    I'll support my favorite websites in any way I can EXCEPT that one.  I routinely send out 5 or 10 dollars to various sites through paypal when I can afford it.  It isn't much, and it isn't often, but I do what I can.



  • @Master Chief said:

    It is moral.  The owner of a computer should have the only say in what runs, is displayed on, and comes out of said computer.

    That is moronic.  By your reasoning child porn must be moral too because it comes out of your computer.  Ads on the Internet are no different than ads on TV -- they are both there to support free content and if you strip the ads out you are violating the agreement between you and the content creator.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Master Chief said:

    So you purposely install programs like kazaa chock full fo spyware and adware so they can recoup their costs?

    What in the fuck are you talking about?  He didn't say anything remotely like this.  Are your reasoning skills so weak that you think that "if you take free content you should accept the ads" is the same as "go out and install spyware for the hell of it"?  Fuck. 

     

    Whats the difference?  What his reasoning was was that companies use advertising revenue to recoup costs.  My line of thinking is fine, so that means companies can bundle whatever godawful software they can with their freeware programs and we're just supposed to sit back and watch because its them recouping their cost.

    The problem with this is any good adware program won't stop at some point, throw up a nice dialog saying "Company X has recouped the cost of producing Software X for you to use freely.  Our adware will now uninstall its obtrusive ass off your system."  At least no adware program I've ever seen does that.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Master Chief said:

    It is moral.  The owner of a computer should have the only say in what runs, is displayed on, and comes out of said computer.

    That is moronic.  By your reasoning child porn must be moral too because it comes out of your computer.  Ads on the Internet are no different than ads on TV -- they are both there to support free content and if you strip the ads out you are violating the agreement between you and the content creator.

     

    Incorrect.  Child porn is illegal for entirely different reasons.  If you're argument is so weak as to require absurdities to be proven, I think you need to re-examine it.

    If thats true then millions of people are doing that right now thanks to the new DVRs and whatnot available.  Also, I call bullshit on the free programming.  I pay for satelite and I still have seizure inducing shit pumped through.



  • @Master Chief said:

    My line of thinking is fine, so that means companies can bundle whatever godawful software they can with their freeware programs and we're just supposed to sit back and watch because its them recouping their cost.
    Of course they can install all the crapware they want. But, and here's the important part, so pay attention: nobody is forcing you to use them. That's right, you're free to use them or not. What you aren't free to do is to circumvent that crapware and continue to use the program.



  • @Master Chief said:

    My line of thinking is fine, so that means companies can bundle whatever godawful software they can with their freeware programs and we're just supposed to sit back and watch because its them recouping their cost.

     

    As bstorer said, you are free to just not use their software to begin with.  But to assume you have a right to use their software for free is stupid.

     

    @Master Chief said:

    The problem with this is any good adware program won't stop at some point, throw up a nice dialog saying "Company X has recouped the cost of producing Software X for you to use freely.  Our adware will now uninstall its obtrusive ass off your system."  At least no adware program I've ever seen does that.

    So you go up to your boss around the 20th of the month and say "Hey, I've paid all my expenses for the month and have enough cash to make it until the start of next month, so I'll be working the rest of this month for free!"  Obviously not.  The companies are free to make as much revenue off their content anyway they legally can.  Bypassing it only makes you a douchebag thief.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    In my mind, blocking all ads is unethical as it breaks the implied agreement between content creator and consumer that the content will be free so long as the ads are there.  However, it's also one of those gray areas where there is a lot of wiggle room.  For example, I refuse to block ads outright, but I do use Flashblock and NoScript which kills a large number of the more annoying ads.  Sometimes I find the text or simple banner/image ads useful and even click through, but not very often.  I block the more obtrusive pop-up, pop-over and flash ads simply because they annoy the piss out of me and are actually more likely to make me go out of my way to avoid doing business with the sponsor out of retribution.  However, when I watch free video content online I have no problem sitting through the ads, since I am already engaged in the act of watching.

    I agree with this. I have only blocked ads being served by, say, cpxinteractive as these guys have a tendency on using those "YOU ARE VISITOR #666,666 YOU WON!" or showing some "girl next door" thong pics which are usually NSFW. But most sites usually have the Google ads, which aren't intrusive, so those remain unblocked. Sometimes even the webmaster might notice about obtrusive ads, like what happened over here. (Aren't we all happy the Scientology ads are no more?)

    But blanket-blocking all ads, everywhere is just going to hurt the "free content" site, so that would be unethical.



  • @bstorer said:

    Of course they can install all the crapware they want. But, and here's the important part, so pay attention: nobody is forcing you to use them. That's right, you're free to use them or not. What you aren't free to do is to circumvent that crapware and continue to use the program.
     

    Which would be perfectly fine if they DISCLOSED that said product came with pc crippling adware and spyware and didn't sneak it in after the fact.

    Plus, nine times out of ten the crapware stays long after you uninstall the freeware program.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    As bstorer said, you are free to just not use their software to begin with.  But to assume you have a right to use their software for free is stupid.

    I never said I had a right to use ANY software, much less free software.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    So you go up to your boss around the 20th of the month and say "Hey, I've paid all my expenses for the month and have enough cash to make it until the start of next month, so I'll be working the rest of this month for free!"  Obviously not.  The companies are free to make as much revenue off their content anyway they legally can.  Bypassing it only makes you a douchebag thief.
     

    So by disabling their shitty adware I'm a thief, but they are perfectly justified in hijacking a computer I paid money for to steal my personal information, throw ads on my desktop, switch my home page whenever they choose, and making my ISP threaten to cut off my service because my computer is spewing enough email to fill paris hiltons vagina?  (true story)

    Does not compute.



  • @Master Chief said:

    So by disabling their shitty adware I'm a thief, but they are perfectly justified in hijacking a computer I paid money for to steal my personal information, throw ads on my desktop, switch my home page whenever they choose, and making my ISP threaten to cut off my service because my computer is spewing enough email to fill paris hiltons vagina?  (true story)

    Does not compute.

    We are talking about ads here, not malware or the like.  Obviously there is a significant difference between stealing personal info and showing you a fucking ad.  Your repeated inability to separate concepts like this is not promising. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    We are talking about ads here, not malware or the like.  Obviously there is a significant difference between stealing personal info and showing you a fucking ad.  Your repeated inability to separate concepts like this is not promising. 

     

    Adware IS malware given the right situation.  All it takes is one popup ad to:

    • Wreck an in progress 3D rendering
    • Crash a game
    • Crash a browser
    • Crash the OS iteself in some bad cases
    • Wreck any fullscreen application
    I do not distiguish because there is no damn difference.



  • @Master Chief said:

    I do not distiguish because there is no damn difference.

    We were talking about ads on websites (and presumably other digital content).  Ads that randomly pop up while you are doing something else do not meet this criteria.  However, to claim that you do not distinguish between annoying adware that inadvertently causes problems and malware that deliberately does shows how inflexible and immature your thinking is. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    We were talking about ads on websites (and presumably other digital content).

    Yes, and Master Chief is talking about a specific class of online ads, or sites.
    @Coding Horror said:
    But the unpatched browser spyware infestation from visiting GCW-- just from visiting the web pages, even if you don't download a single thing-- is nearly immediate and completely devastating.

    Of course he mentions unpatched browsers, however to just assume that a patched browser doesn't have a vulnerability that could be exploited in the same way is fallacious. Generally the ad companies are the ones that serve the malware infested ads.



  • @Master Chief said:

    Adware IS malware given the right situation.  All it takes is one popup ad to:

    • Wreck an in progress 3D rendering
    • Crash a game
    • Crash a browser
    • Crash the OS iteself in some bad cases
    • Wreck any fullscreen application

    And in other "mountain out of a molehill" news, feeding the homeless IS manslaughter given the right situation. All it takes is one tuna casserole to:

    • Give a hobo scombroid poisoning
    • Asphyxiate a bagwoman on a bone
    • Induce mercury poisoning in a drifter
    • Trigger a street urchin's seafood allergy
    • Fall, dish and all, off a second-story window sill and crush a man's skull

    Please, people. Do not feed the homeless!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    We were talking about ads on websites (and presumably other digital content).  Ads that randomly pop up while you are doing something else do not meet this criteria.  However, to claim that you do not distinguish between annoying adware that inadvertently causes problems and malware that deliberately does shows how inflexible and immature your thinking is. 

     

    Strictly out of curiousity, is it possible for you to return fire in a debate without resorting to personal attacks?

    Anyway, there is no difference in my mind.  Software that causes problems on my system is removed unless it is ABSOLUTELY CRTICAL to perform some operation.  If this software came with some freeware program, I'll find an alternative.  These companies should consider how many users dump them when they find out the host of crap that came with the system.

    Ads that come from web pages, as long as they don't:

    • Download/Install anything on their own
    • Don't cause seizures
    • Don't leave their nice little 500 X 100 area
    • Don't make noise
    Are more than welcome in my browser.  All others are blocked.



  • @bstorer said:

    Please, people. Do not feed the homeless!

    Shit, I've been saying this for decades but everyone just said I was a heartless sociopath who cares more about money and oil than human life. 



  • @Lingerance said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    We were talking about ads on websites (and presumably other digital content).

    Yes, and Master Chief is talking about a specific class of online ads, or sites.
    [quote user="Coding Horror"]
    But the unpatched browser spyware infestation from visiting GCW-- just from visiting the web pages, even if you don't download a single thing-- is nearly immediate and completely devastating.

    Of course he mentions unpatched browsers, however to just assume that a patched browser doesn't have a vulnerability that could be exploited in the same way is fallacious. Generally the ad companies are the ones that serve the malware infested ads.[/quote]

    The whole point of this thread is about discussing if blocking ads is immoral.  Nobody has advocated malware, no matter how hard MasterChief tries to set that straw man up.  As far as the article you linked, I fail to see how one company having their server hacked to serve up content that exploits browser holes for the purposes of installing malware means all ads are not to be trusted.  Plenty of Google search results contain malware and some legit, ad-free sites have been hacked as well.  The fact is, the Web has some nasty stuff on it but that is not an excuse for stealing content.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Nobody has advocated malware, no matter how hard MasterChief tries to set that straw man up.
     

    I think the "ads contain malware!" argument goes like this:

    Lots of malware comes from ads.  (not all ads contain malware, but malware can indeed come from ads).  Thus, blocking as many ads as possible while browsing might help to protect you against malware.  Thus, your intention for blocking ads is as a defensive measure against malware, not as an intention to "steal content", and therefore it is not immoral to block them.

    I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think perhaps that why all this malware stuff has been brought up. 




  • @Master Chief said:

    Strictly out of curiousity, is it possible for you to return fire in a debate without resorting to personal attacks?

    That's like asking if an attacking army could avoid actually hitting any civilians when mortaring a city.  Sure, they could, but that takes all the fun out of it.

     

    @Master Chief said:

    Anyway, there is no difference in my mind.  Software that causes problems on my system is removed unless it is ABSOLUTELY CRTICAL to perform some operation.  If this software came with some freeware program, I'll find an alternative.  These companies should consider how many users dump them when they find out the host of crap that came with the system.

    Ads that come from web pages, as long as they don't:

    • Download/Install anything on their own
    • Don't cause seizures
    • Don't leave their nice little 500 X 100 area
    • Don't make noise
    Are more than welcome in my browser.  All others are blocked.

    We have now driven into CrazyVille, Population: You.

     

    You started a thread asking if blocking ads from websites was immoral.  You said that Joe Salesman has no right to serve up ads on the computer you paid for.  Several people responded that it was depriving content creators of revenue and therefore was.  You fired back with some non-sequitur asking if we go out of our way to install malware like Kazaa.  We replied that we do not and that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  Then you fire back that adware is still malware and you consider them one and the same.  I pointed out that, once again, nobody said anything about adware.  I also pointed out that adware is not intentionally malicious whereas malware is, so there is a distinction.  Now you come back and say once again that malware and adware are one and the same.  You know what?  I don't give a shit, believe what you want.  Then you say that normal ads on websites are just fine by you, which is what we've been arguing all along (and you've been trying to argue against via the clever tactic of repeatedly invoking logial fallacy) and it is completely in contradiction with what you stated in your first post.  So, if I say that you sound nutty and immature, I don't think that is terribly uncalled for.



  • @Jeff S said:

    (not all ads contain malware, but lots of malware does indeed come from ads -- I think we can all agree on this).

    I don't agree with this at all.  Most malware probably comes from people installing the "1,000 free smilies" or what-have-you.  In the cases where the malware is injected via browser hole, plenty of malware comes from blogs and other sites that are hacked.  Google tries very hard to pull any sites serving malware from their index but they aren't always perfect at it.  Regardless, I would not say with any degree of certainty that most malware is injected via browser holes from ad sites.  Also, if you are going to defensively block ads you might as well defensively block everything.  Or better yet, use something like NoScript and Flashblock which will stop almost all browser hijacking attempts, no matter where they originate from.  I've never heard of anyone getting a virus or malware by viewing a gif banner image or by seeing some Google-esque text ads. 



  • Morbius, have I once stated what I actually block or not?  If I have I don't recall it.

    The original post was created to start a discussion.  It has.  But I never indicated what I actually use to defend against malware or irritating ads.

    FYI, I do the same as many here.  I block disruptive ones on a one by one basis.  I use NoScript on sites I don't trust, and keep a close tab on what Flash is doing in any particular page.

    So, with that in mind, why don't you take your self rightous holier than thou e-penis and cram it up your ass.  I'm sure you'll enjoy it more there than waving it around the empty room of people who care how big it is.



  • @KenW said:

    @DOA said:
     My view on this is very simple. I'll stop blocking ads the day they become unobtrusive, start telling the truth and can be viewed without goggles.
    And how will you know when that is, genius, since you've blocked the ads and can't see them? Didja think of that? ;-)
    Way ahead of you. I've written a program for this which regularly measures hell's temperature. When it reads a negative temperature it's set up to notify me via email.



  • @DOA said:

    Way ahead of you. I've written a program for this which regularly measures hell's temperature. When it reads a negative temperature it's set up to notify me via email.
     

    can you set up a mailing list ...id like to subscribe ...



  • @Master Chief said:

    It is moral.  The owner of a computer should have the only say in what runs, is displayed on, and comes out of said computer.
     

    And once again you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

    You, as the owner of the computer, [b]have[/b] the choice of what runs, is displayed on, and comes out of said computer. You don't want the ads displayed? Stay away from the site. There - you have the choice.

    Try an argument that makes sense. Made-up nonsense doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, no matter how fertile your imagination. 



  • @Master Chief said:

    I'll support my favorite websites in any way I can EXCEPT that one.  I routinely send out 5 or 10 dollars to various sites through paypal when I can afford it.  It isn't much, and it isn't often, but I do what I can.
     

    Right. Sure you do.

    I routinely feed millions of homeless people by inviting them to my house for a Sunday barbeque. It isn't often, but I do what I can. (It's as believeable as your story.)



  • @KenW said:

    I routinely feed millions of homeless people by inviting them to my house for a Sunday barbeque.
    Whatever you do, don't serve tuna casserole!



  • @KenW said:

    Right. Sure you do.

    I routinely feed millions of homeless people by inviting them to my house for a Sunday barbeque. It isn't often, but I do what I can. (It's as believeable as your story.)

     

    Look if you think I'm going to be hurt by anything said to me by some douchebag on a website, you're very sadly mistaken.  I have way too many problems right now that occupy much higher priority than people like you.

    I know I'm telling the truth, and since I don't know who you are, likely will never meet you, or ever be in a situation where your opinion will have even the slightest impact on my life, I really have no reason to value it.

    Also, FFR, if you're best argument is "YOURE LYING CUZ I SAYS SO LOL" just save yourself the effort.  Really, this is weak.



  • @bstorer said:

    @KenW said:
    I routinely feed millions of homeless people by inviting them to my house for a Sunday barbeque.
    Whatever you do, don't serve tuna casserole!
     

    Now that was funny! :)



  • @DOA said:

    Way ahead of you. I've written a program for this which regularly measures hell's temperature. When it reads a negative temperature it's set up to notify me via email.
     

    Damn! Wish I'd thought of that!



  • @bstorer said:

    @KenW said:
    I routinely feed millions of homeless people by inviting them to my house for a Sunday barbeque.
    Whatever you do, don't serve tuna casserole!
     

    :-) 

    I tried that once, but it's really hard to keep on the grates of the barbeque.

    I use stray cats now (that's why I don't do it often - it takes a while to collect enough stray cats to feed millions). 



  • @KenW said:

    You, as the owner of the computer, have the choice of what runs, is displayed on, and comes out of said computer. You don't want the ads displayed? Stay away from the site. There - you have the choice.
     

    Next why don't you educate me on how I can choose to not use free programs and free radio Captain Obvious?

    If sites want traffic and ads they should keep their ads un-intrusive and tasteful.  Hell, I run two websites and I don't have ads on either one.



  • @Master Chief said:

    Next why don't you educate me on how I can choose to not use free programs and free radio Captain Obvious?
     

    You know, I guess morbius is right. Trying to have logical, intelligent arguments with you is like trying to debate a cockroach.

    You win. You can be as immoral, asinine, illogical, repetitious, and nonsensical as you'd like. I've wasted enough time on you.

    Have fun. 



  • @KenW said:

    You know, I guess morbius is right. Trying to have logical, intelligent arguments with you is like trying to debate a cockroach.

    You win. You can be as immoral, asinine, illogical, repetitious, and nonsensical as you'd like. I've wasted enough time on you.

    Have fun. 

     

    And the general pattern for everyone on this site seems to be:

    1. Debate the point once.
    2. Get all high and mighty when you THINK you won.
    3. Get smashed down and cry.
    4. ???
    5. PROFIT!

    And again, is this supposed to hurt or something?  If you're done with the argument then stop responding.  No need to get all crybaby about it.

    Like this.



  • Although morb mostly covered my point of view in #[url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/9854/179220.aspx#179220]#179220[/url], I thought I'd add my two cents in anyway.

    From what I've seen, there are three main justifications that people seem to have for blocking ads. All are spurious, and using them simply makes you look like an entitled ad-blocking bastard. The whole thing is like abusing free samples* at the grocery store. You could come up with a million excuses like "oh, I spend $200/week, so I deserve to take seven potato skins" or "hey, the sign says FREE!"... but the reality is, you just want the damn free samples 'cause you're a free-sample abusing bastard. You know you shouldn't, and you know that if everyone did it, the whole system would collapse, but as a bastard, you simply don't care.

    The "Veiwers' Rights" Justification

    @Master Chief said:

    If you ask me, one, and only one person should decide what is displayed on their machine.

    Everyone knows that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but a handful (especially the type who ride with confederate flags on the rear window of their pickup) say that it really was all about States' Rights. And they're right... the states' rights to allow slavery.

    When you say adblocking is really an issue of "viewers' rights," you're technically correct... but it's really just the viewers' rights to block ads. Which brings us back to the originally "morality" of block ads.

     

    The "I'm Too Smart For Ads" Justification

    @wybl said:

    I don't click through ads as a general rule, so nothing of value is lost by my ad blockage.

    In survey after suvery, 90% of people say advertising doesn't work on them[citation needed]. The reality is that advertising works on everyone. Of course you don't go and buy ever product you see advertised, but the fact of the matter is that you have and will continue to buy products as a direct result of seeing them advertised. You just don't notice it because the ad-to-buy is so rediculously small (like 1/10000 small).

    And on the subject of "clicking" - please, please, please don't click on ads solely for the sake of supporting a site. If you happen to catch the ad in your peripheral and it piques your interest, by all means, explore the product/service further -- but clicking just to raise stats benefits no one.

     

    The "Goggles" Justifcation

    @DOA said:

    I'll stop blocking ads the day they become unobtrusive, start telling the truth and can be viewed without goggles.

    This is pretty close to "Viewers' Rights" only with more pretentiousness and even more entitlement. Here, the fault shifts to the service provider because they're not providing exactly what you want. Of course, it will never be possible for them to, because as soon as they do, you'll come up with another reason why it's not perfect, and therefore not worth paying for with your perhipheral vision.

     

    The fact of the matter is, that there is a social contract with ad-supported content. Everyone knows it, and everyone knows how it works: you can choose to consume the content at the "cost" of having ads. You don't have to pay attention to the ads, but they should be there. If you can't deal with the ads, then don't consume the content. That's just how it works.

    If you block ads**, then you are an ad-blocking bastard. It's that simple. There's no excuse, and no justification. You are a bastard, and you are ruining it for everyone else who upheld their end of the social contract. The "pop-up" ads we see on TV are your fault for using "automated ad skip" on TIVO or whatever. Not that you care, because you're a bastard. Don't try justifying yourself, just accept your inner-bastardness.

     

    * For the record: I am a free sample abusing bastard. I will take those seven potato skin samples*** and I do realize that I probably ruined free samples for everyone. I suppose I could appologize, but the truth is, I'm only sorry because now I get less free samples. I admit it. I'm a bastard.

    ** Technology blocking (i.e. NoScript, no flash, etc) is not ad blocking. If you choose to (or must) watch TV with closed captioning, it's the advertiser's fault for not CC'ing their commercials. Same thing with web ads that don't degrade gracefully.

    *** Also for the record: clearly, I have very little shame.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.