Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xenoamorphous | Hacker News Reader

Unpopular opinion here (gazillion downvotes) but ad blocking is unethical.

A website chooses to serve ads. You don't like it? Don't ever go (back?) to that website again, I'm sure there's some blacklist extensions out there.

Just because you don't like ads or tracking (neither illegal) you don't have the right to cost that website money (bandwidth, etc.) without anything in exchange.

Actually it's good that some sites are ad-funded. E.g. news sites. Ideally that kind of site would offer a paid, ad-free, tracking-free option for people with cushy jobs like the HN crowd. But Mr. and Ms. Can't Make Ends Meet can still access the news in exchange of seeing some (or a lot of) ads here and there.

At the very least, if there's an ad-funded website you like and visit frequently then disable ad blocking for them.

View on HN

> you don't have the right

Genuine question,seriously, not an attack, is it you who decides this for everyone or is this a personal decision kind of thing ?

> ad blocking is unethical.

If we are solely going by personal ethics then almost all big ad-tech is unethical in it's implementation, tracking, carbon footprint, extensive profiling with no opt-out.

Even if you adhere to your idea of not going back if it doesn't suit you the damage is already done privacy-wise.

>”Just because you don't like ads or tracking (neither illegal) you don't have the right to cost that website money (bandwidth, etc.) without anything in exchange.”

Why does this need to be a “right”? Let’s assume I allow advertisements but I ignore them completely. Am I likewise costing that website money without anything in exchange?

What if I hated advertisements so much that I had someone place post-it notes on my screen so the banners were not visible, ensuring that at no point in time my attention would given to the ad spaces - would that be unethical?

Not a "right" in the legal sense. Just unethical.

Ad impressions is what counts, you can place as many post-it notes as you want.

A website chooses to show ads, but I have not agreed to view them. HTTP does not force me to make requests, the law doesn’t force my computer to make requests, and not making requests is not immoral. There is no agreement my computer will request any particular resource on a server, I am the one with control in this particular situation.

When ads are blocked the protocol is working exactly as designed. If you don’t like me blocking your ads, you should block me. When I encounter sites that block adblock users, I simply write them off and never return. If you don’t block me? Clearly you see the ads as optional too.

Remember that just like I don’t have to make a request to a server, that server doesn’t have to respond to my requests.

Easily defeated argument. If that website doesn't want members of the public accessing it (and picking and choosing what parts to access), then don't make it publicly accessible.

This is not necessarily a good counter to that argument.

You're assuming they don't want the general public accessing the website, perhaps they do and would also like the revenue that comes with the ad's served on the site, because that is, broadly speaking, how the ad funded model works.

I personally think ads are a terrible model but a paywall is an entirely different business model with different considerations.

And if you choose for an ad based model, you just have to suck up that some people block ads. It is just that simple, it is part of the model.

That’s like saying that a retailer should factor in stolen goods. That doesn’t make straling ok.

No it isn't like stealing at all. HTTP and REST API was explicitly designed so that clients can request and explore only the links they are interested in.

This includes links to tracker filled javascripts and images hosted on ad servers.

They are publicly hosting their content with a protocol that was designed for clients to only follow the links they are interested in.

Rather than gimping the browser stack for everyone, websites should use the tech they already have. Like rendering ads directly into the page contents.

> ad blocking is unethical

It is as ethical as:

1. politely declining a marketing leaflet

2. switching to a different TV channel when there is a commercial

3. looking away from the newspaper ads or roadside billboards

etc.

if we are going to talk about ethics I think ad ethics should also be brought into the conversation as well then, because not every website uses ads in a respectable manner

By adblocking a website I'm actually saving them bandwidth costs, so there's that.

Ads don't come from the website itself.

If a site I visit frequently has a paid option to get rid of ads, I'll pay it. Otherwise, I block ads. When it's legislated that ad-free options must be provided maybe then you can claim ad-blocking is immoral, but today it's impossible to live without some ad-driving service. For example, almost all news organizations serve ads and have no paid option. It's not reasonable to expect people not to use the internet at all, we need it to search for all sorts of crucial information.

<<you don't have the right to cost that website money (bandwidth, etc.) without anything in exchange.

It is a fascinating concept. If I put a blog up, I have a right to demand that people pay me one way or the other. But then as a person that visits that site, that person has no right to say nope. Sold. Pay me about $3.50 for this nugget.

<You don't like it? Don't ever go (back?) to that website again, I'm sure there's some blacklist extensions out there.

It is more and more what I do. If the paywall gets too obtrusive, I don't even try to spend time fiddling too much ( I mostly browse with noscript on by default these days).

edit: removed tangent about corps and moved pay me bit to the front to make a point

> you don't have the right to cost that website money

Hilarious. They should be glad I'm running uBlock Origin and not AdNauseam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com