Hacker News Reader

Comment by judofyr | Hacker News Reader

I almost find this a bit cute:

> Without third-party cookies, they will not be able to participate in the existing industry system for privacy protection.

Their privacy is still protected, but they can't participate in the privacy protection system! Oh noes!

> They will see an increase in the irrelevant spam advertising served to them

So you're telling me that when you serve ads for "RightWingNews.com, LiberalOasis.com, MotherhoodWTF.com, and SuburbanDaddy.com [and] thousands of small businesses" there's no possible way to find relevant ads without tracking the user?

View on HN

Using Firefox and AdBlock Plus I actually expect I will continue to see exactly zero irrelevant spam advertising. Still, it's funny to see the mental gymnastics going on when someone obviously wants to exploit people but does not want to admit it.

Well, there will be new ways to embed ads. Like ads between related articles or when you scroll through results and one of them has 6pt "Ad" in the corner but looks exactly like the real search results.

They will find a way to make it really hard to block that stuff based on generic rules or by blocking the servers that serve the ads.

I assume at that point some governments will correct that behavior.

Or users will correct the behavior by avoiding obnoxious sites.

By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.

The same argument can be made for not running Flash, JavaScript, or any other technology the site asks you to run in order to run ads. After all, the intent is that you watch those ads to consume the content. If the intent is to require me to watch ads, then the site can be setup to require that. What I download from where is up to me.

I could say that I actually do whitelist sites to display ads, but we both know that I'm in the minority there, and beside the point.

The site is setup to require that you watch ads, that's why they're there. Regardless of the technical meaning of blocking an ad ("not downloading it"), the intent behind it is clear: not viewing the ads. Yes, the same argument can be made for not running Flash or Javascript, it doesn't detract from my point. You're specifically consuming content that was created to be viewed with ads, which is the trade you're making to consume the content. By not doing your part of the trade, you're the one exploiting the site, not the other way around. Regardless of the ethics of tracking people, because you can choose not to consume the content if you don't agree with the ads.

> The site is setup to require that you watch ads

Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already.

However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly.

And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it.

Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.

You can rationalize all you want but if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. You're not participating in a fair transaction.

AdBlock is one of a few ways I have to set my terms in this otherwise one-sided transaction.

Should I be ashamed of myself for occasionally using lynx too?

Reading this comment costs you $20. If you don't want to pay, don't read this comment. However, if you read this comment, you owe me $20. By not paying, you are not participating in a fair transaction.

> if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist.

I'm not worried about that. I pay when given the opportunity for content on the web that I regularly enjoy.

> You're not participating in a fair transaction.

You seem to think that it's unfair that some people are able to negotiate a lower price than others.

You can rationalize it all you want but if everyone did what you propose we do, everything would be far more expensive.

There are three people here.

The content providers.

The advertisers.

Me.

I'm ad tolerant; I don't run ad-blockers. This means I get to see all ads. And some of them a really awful. I feel sorry for content creators having to have those on their sites. A 30 minute YouTube video with a 5 minute advert? Those yelling smileys or buzzing mosquitoes? (I politely emails the site owner; I nearly installed ad-block) The really slow loading page-covering ad delaying access to the actual content?

I fully understand why people block ads.

I don't understand why advertisers ever thought that "Annoy the hell out of anyone seeing this advert" was the best way to go.

The point is moot though. I understand why people pirate content - it's easier to get something for free than to pay for it - it doesn't mean it's right.

You're doing the right thing by not installing adblock, but really you should vote with your feet, by just not visiting those sites. As soon as you see ads that annoy you - go away. That's the right thing to do, because then you're not consuming the content. You're always free to consume content or not, but if you do, you should adhere to the rules that the owner of that content set - namely that you also view this ad.

By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting.

That's a fair point, to some extent.

It's no different than pirating stuff

Off the top of my head...

Piracy is illegal, while not watching ads isn't.

In general, when something is sold for a price it's normal to pay so you can buy it, while when ads are displayed in other media there's no expectation that people must stop and look at them and the advertiser knew that up-front.

Consuming pirated content is a security risk if you do the "wrong" thing, while displaying on-line ads is a security risk if you do the "right" thing.

Actually, I don't think downloading files is illegal, just morally wrong. The distribution of them is a different matter.

Nobody who runs ads on their site has any right to have visitors view those ads or get impressions/clicks on those ads from visitors. After all, my browser always gets final say in what content loads for me to see, even without adblock.

Damn right! We should also arrest TV viewers who have the temerity to get up from the couch during the ad-breaks. Scummy pirates, how dare they not view the adverts! Send them to jail!

By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.

People can and do detect my use of adblock and either ask me to disable it for their site, subscribe to their service, or decide not to serve me the data.

I have every write to request data from you while also instructing my browser not to request ads. You have every right to decide not to serve me any data. Until or unless I actually infringe your copyright, or enter into an agreement to see your ads and then renege, this is not equivalent to piracy.

My brain must have been malfunctioning. Every right, not every write. Doh.

Don't you feel that it's -somewhat- misleading to compare blocking ads to illegally downloading ("stealing") content?

The part that I particularly like actually is slightly different to that:

> "They'll see untargeted ads, which will look like spam. We have to get this information to them somehow."

Oh really, you have to get this information to me? Seriously? I didn't ask for it, I have no desire for it, no you don't have to. You want to, because someone is paying you to do so. Yet another case of someone thinking they have a right to a business model. No you don't. If it fails it fails. Find something to sell that people want (or at least don't despise enough to actively put you out of business).

Whilst I'm not convinced by the IAB's arguments here, it's worth noting that not all sites - indeed, most sites - aren't as easy to target as the examples you give.

Speaking as someone who buys a fair bit of advertising, there are thousands of sites in the inventory of most RTB sellers which I'll just skip over unless their inventory is really cheap, because it's very hard to figure out a single product that most of the site's readership would use.

(Example site - Photobucket. What ads would obviously make money on there?)

Also, for quite a few sites where the core demographic does have some obvious interests, there aren't that many well-paying advertisers for that demo. Retargeting and similar tracking-based advertising systems help fill in the gaps when the core advertisers aren't buying all the inventory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com