This guy (first sentence, no less): "There's an interesting article on Ars Technica about how blocking ads is somehow unethical..."
Give me a break.
I think in some ways the Internet and its vast anonymity feeds into a culture where many people do not think about the people, the families, the careers that go into producing a website.
And:
And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads.
These sound like ethical statements to me. I may be reading more into the language of the article than is warranted, but that's how I read it: "Don't block ads because it hurts people, hurts businesses, and is therefore wrong to do."
On the topic of your article (I assume it's yours?):
I pay for a book, and then I read the book start-to-finish with no ads, no distractions. A few pages at the back maybe, but I can ignore those. Books are nice.
I assume you can see the difference here?
In terms of forcing you too look at the ads. I dont think the ars article tries to imply that either. They are saying they would appreciate it if you looked at their ads. Please.
I dont know if you have seen the ars site with ads but they are one I personally unblock: they aren't particularly in your face, are generally aesthetically pleasing and I also like their content (some of the best on the web). Encouraging that approach is a plus IMO.
If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down.
Seems a "shoot yourself in the foot" scenario. Chances are people wouldn't actually pay monetary cost for your content - people hate doing that generally. Adverts are "zero cost" to a consumer :) most are happy to swap free content for a few adverts.
Why is it unethical, as your seemingly suggesting, to do that? :)
I looked at the ads on Ars briefly, both animated Flash ads, one for razor blades and the other I couldn't even tell what it was selling. I admit to being very emotional about this, and I can understand how some people can tolerate these, but I can't.
I'm uncertain I see your point about books. Are you asking why I can ignore the ads in the back of books, but not ignore the ones on websites? Because it's possible to read the book start to finish without any knowledge whatsoever that the ads exist. It's trivial to ignore them. If the ads on websites were all relegated to some page I had to deliberately navigate to, that'd be similar.
Books have no ads in because it's paid for.
!?? Is this April 1st or will you next claim that the letters "g" and "x" upset you too? What about the number 283?
Are you OK with a bunch of marketing guys sitting in an office thinking "How can we manipulate people's sex drives to maximize profit this week?" Razor commercials: Hunky guy shaves; heavily-airbrushed, scantily-clad woman looks on longingly. Implication: Buy our razors, get laid. Flashing lights and "power words". Repeat over and over until you can't forget it. What's the difference between commercials and any other form of propaganda? Commercials are more mundane, but use the same principles.
Sorry, but I feel mildly insulted by this. I feel like I'm being treated like an animal. After the ten thousandth attempt to have such a thing drilled into my brain, I start to become annoyed. I'm amazed so many people happily imbibe and internalize these things without any complaint.
I don't agree with everything in your blog post, though it was an interesting read, thank you. Specifically, I don't run an adblocker, but for most sites I don't seem to even notice the ads. I'm not sure if that's because I'm conditioned to see them as normal, or because I'm just not seeing them. I would hazard a guess that their impact is much less than TV ads though.
Regardless, I do sympathize with people who run websites that offer useful information or services, but don't have a viable revenue model that doesn't involve ads. I get a lot of value from these sorts of sites (for instance, the sites of open source software projects), but there are too many of them for me to want to pay a subscription to all of them. (Perhaps there's an opportunity there?) However, most of these sites that I get the most value out of are not about screwing money out of people, just paying for their hosting costs.
To compare this with TV, I generally don't want what's on TV, even if I can download it for free, but I do want the content on many of the sites supported by advertising. For the moment, I see it as a fair trade.
EDIT: Clarify last sentence of third paragraph.
Totally fine with it. As long as I have the choice to ignore and not respond to something, it don't annoy me. It only annoys me if I have no choice.
There are some people who get upset and write letters to the TV company when a swear word or some blasphemy is uttered or a nipple shown.. sane people turn off the TV if they don't like it and do something else for a while.
Adverts are fine by me because I have a degree of free will to be influenced by them to the point of my choosing. Sure, a Coke ad in the middle of winter can make me feel nostalgic and want to grab a Coke. But I like Coke, so that's fine by me. This isn't upsetting.
Propaganda is everywhere and advertising is only a small part of it. Almost every word out of a person in power has a bias, a motivation, or an ulterior motive. Even regular people in our lives don't say what they really want to say. When one's wife sweet-talks them to get something she wants, that's propaganda. When one gives their wife a compliment but has sex on the brain, that's propaganda. This stuff isn't always bad - it's how life works and it won't go away.
I feel like I'm being treated like an animal.
You are. I am. We all are. And it's awesome to feel these rushes of emotions because it means we're unpredictable, unique, and alive.
Perhaps they change the ads based on region. I see 2 image only ads - no flash.
EDIT: ah, sorry. Now I see one of them as a flash ad (a rollover one)
When they tried not serving content to ad blockers, "there was a healthy mob of people criticizing us for daring to take any kind of action against those who would deny us revenue." This ignorance of Ars' business model led them to write a post to try and explain to people how they use advertising, and why ad blockers are bad for the future of their site. Every time you load an Ars article and do not render the ad, you cost Ars money and actively drive their business into the ground. Anyone who understands this argument should also understand that deliberately harming the business of a site you like is just dumb, especially over something as minor as "I don't like to look at that!"
It's interesting to me that Brian's post completely ignores Ars' content-blocking experiment, especially because it was the entire impetus for their post. To me, it seems like a perfectly reasonable policy (although I think redirecting users to a subscription page rather than showing them nothing at all would be more effective). I'd be interested to hear if he thinks it's as "garish and hideous" as displaying ads in the first place.
edit: thanks for responding, Brian. I think discussing this in the post would have made your argument a lot stronger.
I have no problem with sites that have subscription models. I have no problem with sites making money.