Hacker News Reader

Comment by muninn_ | Hacker News Reader

I prefer something like ublock as well, but I wouldn't call what AB+ is doing a morally ambiguous question. I think this is actually pretty straight forward all around. I can install or uninstall software on my computer. Websites can serve ads. Websites can block me from viewing their site if I have an ad blocker installed. AB+ can whitelist sites. A website can or can not pay AB+ to be whitelisted.

View on HN

What you described isn't complex logic, it makes sense, but that's not where the moral ambiguity enters. Abp is basically a cop that allows some criminals to slip through as long as they pay on the side... that's the moral issue.

Granting access for paying members simply means ABP has become a gatekeeper with its own power and it is now offering access at a price, unethically

as long as the ad lists are not kept private, but public/open and free, you as a consumer can always choose to use a different piece of adblocking software. This should create pressure where users decide what they would like their adblocking software to do (by voting with their feet).

> Abp is basically a cop that allows some criminals to slip through as long as they pay on the side... that's the moral issue.

Only if ABP states that they block ALL ads, full stop. But their website doesn't say that, it says "Surf the web without annoying ads!" which wouldn't exclude non-annoying ads.

Maybe that's not how the extension/service was initially introduced but at this point they're not lying to new users. The website even explicitly calls out that they do let some non-intrusive ads through. https://adblockplus.org/

If they didn't have the qualification language front and center on their site but rather had a bunch of asterisks to tiny, tiny footnotes hidden on a different page I might lean more towards agreeing with your assertion. But this information isn't hidden, it's readily available.

I'd like to comment on the non-annoying part.

I use uBlock (and previously, ADP) because of the fact that parts of the Internet will give you ADHD, no matter if you started with it or not.

Parts of the Internet are quite literally unusable without ad blocks. This should be a much larger discussion than it is, given how shitty sites don't get lots of views, ergo, who's actually viewing the ads to begin with?

Ads apparently work. Either by impression (you notice the ad, and the brand gains a tiny bit of reputation in your unconscious mind) or by directly engaging you (“40% off on 'item'! That's actually a pretty good deal!”).

Large corporations wouldn't advertise online if they didn't have metrics that back up that claim. If advertising online in November meant a significant rise in sales, then apparently buying the ads worked. People are viewing them.

This doesn't mean that ads work equally well with every viewer, and it certainly does not imply that ads are beneficial to the viewer, but it does mean that ads do generate income.

I agree that ads can be part of a problem for a lot of folk, and I recommend anyone I see browsing without an ad-blocker to install one of course.

What you're describing here isn't unethical. It's a business. I think people like you and me are disappointed that they've gone from being a "good guy" to just another business. The veil is lifted and our super hero is just human.

90% of the whitelist doesn't pay, though. And all have to meet certain standards, like no video ads.

There is no confusion as to what they are doing. That does not mean that there isn't any moral ambiguity.

What they are doing is akin to a racket protection. They place themselves in the position of deciding whether some ads are authorized or not, and of course some money can push them in the good direction.

The only ambiguity here is that they seem to at least respect a standard for the ads they accept. Beside that, this is racket and corruption.

> Websites can block me from viewing their site if I have an ad blocker installed.

They can try, but it's fundamentally impossible.

It's only impossible in a theoretical way that doesn't really matter. If it really does come to an anti-anti-anti-ad-blocker arms race it seems likely that the advertisers will win. The only reason they don't bother at the moment is that it isn't worth the hassle because not that many people use ad blockers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com