Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads.
And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
Targeted ads are worse than gambling. We made sure everyone's aware of the dangers of gambling, but everyone's in the dark about targeted ads. These companies know what they're doing. If people want to portray ad blocking as stealing, so be it. Steal from them. They deserve it.
No, but acting with honesty and fairness is. Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads. I think it's obvious that the "right" thing to do is to respect their wishes, not sneeringly defy them while using their resources and giving nothing in return.
You're giving them a lot, even if you don't click on ads or see ads. Is it not clear that your data is valuable? You're giving them personal information. Not that people that aren't developers care.
Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? And given how often the above describes the way businesses will treat me, why shouldn't I generalize that position?
Practically: because it leads to a race to the bottom, lowering to their level, the world just gets worse and worse
Philosophically: because ethics are a fundamental part of who you are, and strangers acting unethically does not relieve you of their burdens
Facebook will try to track me and my behavior, and tailor ads based on it, regardless of whether I'm a Facebook user and regardless of whether I'm logged in. In theory any link someone sends me might end up trying to connect to Facebook's advertising network and record information about my behavior.
At what point do I "agree" to this? What do I get "in return" for this? What if it's a crappy article that I close right away? Or the page load takes too long and I close it before it finishes (but, in true form, the ad code would already have run)? Since I don't know until I've loaded the page -- at which point you think I have an ethical duty to let Facebook serve ads -- whether it will have ads at all, or whether they'll be Facebook ads, at what point do I find that out and have an opportunity, in your model, to decide I don't want to be a party to that?
(in case you're wondering, the correct answer is "use an ad-blocker to pre-emptively ensure nobody can force ads on you without your agreement")
I'm talking about being a Facebook user, as in maintaining a profile and logging on and using the site. My contention is that by affirmatively choosing to use their resources, an ethical obligation is created.
There is no coherent position which creates an ethical obligation to view sites in full and unmodified (especially given that one of the primary purposes of web browsers, historically, has been to mangle what a site sent to you into something that's actually a sensible and renderable document tree).
No they aren't (at least, not yet). Where do you think it says this in their terms & conditions?
There is nothing honest or fair about dictating what happens on someone else's computer without user input. That's what malware does. Are you pro-malware?
Keep trying.
The fact of the matter is, most people waxing poetic here about ads infringing on their rights, will still use Facebook when their adblockers don't work. They are willing to pay, they just want to pay less.
This is a very hard position to justify ethically.
Ads are like a donation box, not like a price tag.
Am I being forced to donate?
Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. But realistically, we all consume content that is ad-supported that we might be paying for otherwise. The fact that so many ad-or-pay services exist is proof of this (Youtube with ads, Hulu with ads, etc.) The are both business models.
If you don't like the service at the price, don't buy it. Honestly, no one is forcing you and tons of people get on perfectly fine without Facebook (some people would even say they are better off without it).
Perhaps one day we (society) come to the conclusion that advertising, as a whole, is doing more harm than good and we decide to ban it entirely. Or we decide set a limit on how much advertising is allowed.
Right now adblockers are not against the law (afaik) so I don't see any problem using them. After all, they're a product of the somewhat free market that facebook is part of and they accepted the market price (which is that some people choose to block ads).
I'm not arguing that Facebook isn't allowed to try to stop adblocking. Only question is what means they're allowed to take. Just like security guard isn't allowed to shoot shoplifters on sight.
Here's my perspective: I would pay for an ad-free subscription, but they don't offer one. They literally will not take the money I have to offer.
Imagine walking into Stabucks and having them refuse to take your money but instead handing you a coffee and a booklet of ads. Is it bad to throw the ads in the bin? Would the barista become angry and start shouting ads at you too? Or, more likely, ask you not to come back?
Note: I don't use Facebook on the principle that they want to commoditise me instead of taking my money, but I see nothing wrong with blocking their ads should someone not hold that principle.
Walmart is free to open a business and allow people off the street to shop there, browse their wares, and buy stuff if they want. They cannot force people to buy something for the privilege of visiting, and while they could require a "cover charge" to enter, they're probably going to lose most of their customers if they do this. It's Walmart's job to attract people into the store, and then attempt to convince them to buy stuff when they're in there.
Other shops are the same, and small shops are probably an even better example: while most people will probably buy something in a Walmart if they take the time to go in there, if you check out some weird little specialty shop you happen to walk by in a shopping district, it's quite likely you're not going to buy anything in there.
Someone has to pay for that little shop's rent and utilities and salaries, but that's the concern of the shopkeeper, not the customers. If the shopkeeper wants to stay in business, he'll figure out how to get enough customers to buy stuff to keep the doors open. If he fails, too bad so sad. It's not the customers' fault for not buying enough stuff, it's his fault for not having good enough stuff to buy, having too-high prices, having crappy service, having a poor location or operating hours, having an ugly or dirty shop, having annoying workers, etc.
It's no different with websites. It's their job to figure out how to make money on the site, not yours. If they want to show annoying ads, that's their right. If you want to block those ads (just like refusing to look at aisle displays in Walmart), that's your right. If they don't like that, they can ask you to leave, just like a shopkeeper can ask you to leave. But if your browser makes a request, and their website services that request, then they are not asking you to leave, they're inviting you in. As long as sites don't turn away my browser requests, I consider myself welcome at their sites, even with my ad-blocking. If they (like Forbes) refuse to show me the site/article because of my ad-blocker, then I either leave or disable the blocker, depending on my whim (usually I just leave).
A small shop has a sign, and a bucket. "Put $1 in the bucket and test how good you are at some_game."
There is no one there - it's an unmonitored booth.
Do you try your hand at the game and not put in money? They lose nothing, it's a repeatable game with no consumables. There is no one watching you, and there is no line behind you either.
When I visit a website I have no idea what value I might gain from it so having adblock always on is just internet safety and privacy conserving measure, nothing else. If the website has a donation button or sells some services that I might be interested it becomes a whole other issue.
It's that targeted ads are meant to manipulate your decision making. In order to do that, you're tracked, yes. You can prevent them from manipulating your decisions (put your blinders/Adblock on), which is really great even if you can't prevent them from tracking you.
Targeted ads are insidious - as natrius says, they prey on your psychology. By comparison, non-targeted ads are generally just an eyesore.
Psychologists know that humans have certain exploitable weaknesses. I mean, think about any relationship. You become vulnerable when you expose yourself, and so a person has to earn your trust such that you expose yourself to them.
Today, advertisers have made you vulnerable without actually earning your trust. You could argue that "by using Facebook you're saying you trust them," and you'd be right... If humans all had the capability and willpower to understand systems as complex as ad targeting... One of our worst exploitable vulnerabilities.
Put another way, I would say that it's ethical for a team of scientists to sit down and interview you about everything you love/fear/want/need for the purpose of helping you to find more people like yourself so you feel less lonely. I would say that it's unethical for those scientists to radio down the street as soon as you walk out the door to tell street vendors to start hawking goods that play at your insecurities.
Not all advertising is based on exploiting people, but the most effective types are!
> Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid.
That is literally the goal of every merchant everywhere. They need to sell stuff for more than they paid, otherwise they don't make money. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. They aren't forcing you to buy things, their buyers think that what they're selling is worth the amount they're selling it for (or they wouldn't buy it). This is the fundamental basis on which all commerce everywhere operates.
As for the Las Vegas angle, that's complete bullshit. Gambling operates very differently from commerce, and there's really no basis to make this comparison at all. Seeing an ad that's relevant to your interests has pretty much nothing in common with gambling beyond the fact that both of them involve money at some point.
Profit-seeking has led to lots of progress in this world, but its record is decidedly mixed. Keep your eyes open.
This is not about the total gain of both sides: Almost every transaction is positive sum. However; why should I simply accept the 90/10 distribution of the excess in their favor when I can aim for a favorable distribution for myself too?
And I'm also confused by your talk about favorable distribution. Isn't seeing ads relevant to your interests better than seeing ads unrelated to your interests? The problem with targeted tracking isn't that it's targeted, it's that it relies on information whose collection is a privacy violation. But when we're talking about a company that you've already voluntarily given massive amounts of behavioral data to, then you've voluntarily given up your privacy so there's no violation going on.
Because I dont like looking at ads.
The thing is, this already exists and it's called native advertising. The trick is to create advertisements that, while endorsing a product, have real value for me.
A simple example: a tutorial on doing XYZ with Docker on Google Compute Engine might (A) be relevant to my interests and immediately useful, and (B) incite me to use GCE.
Ad-blockers block the scummy, bottom-feeder, AIDS-of-the-internet ads.
Ads don't have to look like ads. And ads can give value, too. Did the local tavern pay me to run a story talking about their new 1/2 off drinks special every Wednesday? They sure did. But people clicked on it and read the article and then visited the bar and took advantage of the promotion. Not because they were tricked into doing so, but because it was interesting to them and they got value from it. And those people will come back to the site again tomorrow and read the next one, because my advertising provides real value to them.
In most jurisdictions, it's a priori legal unless it falls under some special category (e.g. a political campaign ad).
FTC will regulate undisclosed native content advertising content in US: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/nat...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
The Advertising Standards Authority regulate it in the UK:
https://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-O...
About vlogging, but clearly applies to blogging and traditional print media: https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Maki...
http://blogtacular.com/sponsored-posts-ads-reviews-the-asa-a...
Honestly I'm not sure it is. Sure, it's deceptive, but he's not serving ads that annoy, distract and often serve as a vector for malware. It's not clear (to me) that it's worse than traditional web advertising, which tends to be deceptive, illegal, scummy and annoying, dangerous and distracting.
And again, the trick with native advertising is to provide valuable content for the users, otherwise it's just crap that nobody will read. I don't know if the poster in question is actually doing this, but if he is, I wouldn't be so quick to write it off as scummy; bear in mind that oftentimes such pieces are identified as "sponsored content".
I reject your assertion of "my taboola ads". I don't run any kind of third party ad scripts. All my sponsored content is written by me and labeled as such. And I immediately turn down any ad content I myself would not want to see (I run adblockers, too), since it wouldn't provide any value to my readers.
The browser is our user agent. Facebook can serve whatever it wants, but we're under no contractual or moral obligation to look at it.
Btw. the Black Mirror TV series is awesome.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/27/11795248/facebook-ad-netwo...
Also my country's civil law (along with any other reasonable civil laws) throws out the three links below out of our contract, as they're neither at a reasonable length nor clearness when the context is considered.
I think "they're welcome to try" is exactly the right response here. Nothing is "fair" or "unfair", at least not in a way that advertisers or ad blockers care about.
No matter what they do it's entirely possible to trick their scripts into believing I'm displaying ads, because they run not on facebook's servers but on my computer. Where I get the control.
I hope this is true. I still think Facebook can do much more devious things like having posts on your news feeds from friends which look like posts but are ads. Kind of like native advertising.
DRM-protected media extensions are almost uniquely positioned for this. They're designed around the abilities to uniquely identify the user and resist tampering. The only thing that's missing right now is interactivity.
I think you're completely right, btw. After AOL, it only took a few years for websites to become rapidly Flash-based. It looks like we're going back to that again (not Flash, but same thing - black boxed).
You have three choices:
1. Stop using Facebook
2. Pay Facebook to remove ads
3. Look at ads
I've opted for option 1, though I'll happily revisit this choice if Facebook (A) finds a way to make money without serving ads and without requiring me to pay out-of-pocket (unlikely) or (B) Facebook starts serving ads I want to consume. (Welcome to native advertising.)
No it doesn't, exactly the point, you can't pay them so you have no transactional or business relation, in fact one SHOULD block the ads that are forced upon you. Linkedin for example prohibit adblocking in their TOS, they can do this because you can pay them to get rid of the ads.
The point was that Facebook's problems are de facto the user's problems. Ad-blocking is, indeed, a solution, but one can't expect Facebook to (re)act in the user's interest.
The only real reason need your personal data is so they can show you Ads with presumably more effective targeting so they can get a greater share of advertising revenue.
It pays to remember that most forms of media - TV, Net, Print etc. are basically funded by money from advertisers.
For the follow up, I assume I agree with the parent post by reiterating that what Facebook does on its own site is its own business, but if the company lobbied for legislation that required people to look at ads online, then that would be a problem.
Besides, if Facebook made the experience so detestable that people were willing to leave for another social network, then Google and every other college freshman would leap at the opportunity to be the next big thing.
That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity.
It's not. Ads can be entirely successful without a click - sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. "Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway" is a pretty naive view of how the ad industry operates.
All it does is make me avoid the product out of spite.
Not many companies can take off purely on the quality of their product, especially in boring industries. I can't think of an insurance company which I learned about outside of widespread advertising.
Pretty much any advertiser who spends major money on TV is going for impressions - clicks have no real meaning and are merely a bonus.
For instance, think Coke ads - the objective is to create a certain brand association in your mind by showing you imagery in advertising. Your clicking and buying Coke the instant you see an ad is not an objective. They want to make sure you choose Coke when you buy cola, perhaps even think that you are a "Coke person" rather than Pepsi person.
A lot of money out there in the advertising business is ther for this kind of business objective.
Besides scrolling through your feed, is there much you do on FB? It's just a news aggregation site now.
tl;dw: Advertisers are untrustworthy and act in bad faith. Once we give them an inch, they take a mile. If you met a person like that, would you continue to socialize with them? I wouldn't