* Trade practices / commercial laws: it could be claimed that the use of third party software to remove paid advertising constitutes interference with contractual relations, eg an advertiser and a website have entered into a contract whereby the site will display an advertisement in return for a fee or commission*
Yeah? And this is my problem as a consumer how? The website upheld their obligation and met the specifications of the contract, I just made the conscious decision to use property I purchased (A 2010 Macbook Pro enabled with Google Chrome and AdBlock) to prevent these ads from going into my eyeball, through the optical nerves and into the part of the brain that causes me to twitch and mutter obscenities under my breath whenever an ad starts playing sound on its own.
If any government sides with content producers and decides to make ad blocking an issue just so some company can save face/revenue I hope people bitch-en masse-about the ridiculous nature of it. That there hasn't been a deeper inquiry into the absurd nature advertisers are going to in order to get our eyeballs on flashing banners and ridiculous audio clips played from unwelcome sources is frustrating.
A web site cannot make any promises about what happens on some arbitrary client. Insisting that a site owner be responsible for what happens in a browser is like advertisers insisting from broadcasters that nobody talks or turns down the sound on a TV or radio when an ad is played. (I am aware that at least one Hollywoodroid has accused people of theft when they leave the room during TV commercial breaks. Even he did not put the blame on broadcasters.)
There may be some contract between a site user and site owner regarding the manipulation of served content and how it is rendered, but so far I've yet to see a site that makes me agree to not use any ad-blocking tools.
Worst I've seen is one or another site that detects when certain ad blockers are active and then blocks content.
OTOH, given some some legal issues and decisions regarding the peculiar notion of "deep linking" I fear that the people making laws do not actually understand how the Internet and Web technologies work.
You just made the conscious decision to use the paid property they purchased (bandwidth) to deliver you content that came at some expense. If the content is worth your time, the only revenue model available to sustain the content is not?
My thought would be that blocking the software itself, or the filter lists, probably falls under the First Amendment in the US, as was shown in the Bernstein and Junger cases.
But...making it illegal to present something different than what is sent? Well, that really sucks for the maker of that Flash ad I didn't see because I don't have Flash installed.
And what about the blind guy who uses Lynx to surf? Or the non-blind guy?
> And what about the blind guy who uses Lynx to surf? Or the non-blind guy?
Men of straw need not apply.
What about the struggling blogger (Brand Friedman?) unable to sustain his important and vital efforts on donations alone, who must turn to ads in order to eek out some revenue in order to continue?
I know a significant number of Hacker News readers use ad-blocking options, which is why I thought of making this my first submission to HN.
My confession:
(1) I'm a publisher that relies on advertising as my only viable revenue model
(2) Before that, I ran the digital department of an ad agency that managed millions in online campaigns
So my opinions will be predictable.
But I'm going to (hopefully) sway the conversation into an area few think about -- the "independent web" exists because of advertising. There are thousands of websites that gain either significant viewership (and thus expense) or require significant time investments whereby online advertising makes the effort worth it for those involved. If "ad blocking" and "do not track" increase in popularity, the independent web will be in serious jeopardy. As a publisher of one such site, I know first hand.
And beyond just those important websites that provide thought and opinion which may be contrary to the "mainstream," are a host of other pure information sites on cooking, building, etc. that many of us find useful from time to tim.
And extending further, the massive ecosystem of hosting companies and their employees would also be at risk if their clients are no longer able to pay bills.
The unintended consequences of stifling the only currently viable revenue model for thousands of websites is far reaching.
Yes. Lots of ads do indeed suck (I made good ones!). And there continue to be unscrupulous ad networks that do bad things (though significantly less than 3 years ago). As imperfect as it is, it's the only option.
So -- brains of HN -- if you feel blocking ads is important, and realize that broader use endangers a great deal if important content online -- what's the alternative?
I don't think there really is an alternative because it doesn't matter.
I don't look at ads. I 100% ignore the adwords results on Google or the featured ads. After spending years using the internet it's gotten to the point where I don't even see ads anymore without ad-block unless they are injected video ads.
I use ad-block for the purpose of saving myself time. Having to deal with a 10 or 30 second ad into almost every short video is ridiculous. It's not like everyone watches these ads. Most of the time prior to using ad-block I instantly switched to a different tab.
Ads kill the internet. I've had some sites serve certain annoying ads in the past. If a site plays an ad that plays sounds, guess what? Even if you couldn't control what ad you served I'm never going to visit your site ever again, no matter what.
A real alternative would be to produce something of value. Give me a good product, service or content and I'll consider paying you for it. Spend less time trying to force people into buying stuff they probably don't want.
This seems much the same as the music industry (Well, the RIAA crowd at least) wanting to sell a product that is, by its very nature, easy to copy and transfer.
For a relatively brief period there was an opportunity to sell prerecorded music in way that was coupled to a physical medium. When cassette tapes and home recording came along there were still enough impediments (degrades sound, time involved even if you used high-speed transfers, still needing to move around a physical item) that this particular business model was still viable.
Now, however, technology is such that offering an mp3 is much like serving a Web page. You'd like to believe the end user will use this or that rendering tool in a very constrained and predictable manner, but you really have no control over it.
Rather than accept that this business model is, by the nature of the product offered, more or less doomed, some music business people felt entitled to continue it. They turn to the legal system to try to control what users can do.
They are failing, over and over, but they can't seem to grasp that their cherish business model's time has come and gone. Their sense of entitlement is too strong.
Instead, the exhort users not treat their digital files as, well, digital files. They tell them there will be no more music if people copy and share. The tell them digital restriction management is really for their own good.
Yet some people are making money from their music. The successful ones are those who understand the technology and what people will use it for, understand how, when, and where people value music, and work with it rather than fight it.
People making money from ads on their blogs may be over-estimating the true value of their sites.
There are many people who download music they can find for free, but if they were forced to pay they would do without because it just isn't all that important to them. Likewise with Web sites. I read many sites, but there are few I would pay for. If a site owner cannot find another way to monetize a site (subscriber-only, or republishing and selling collected content as a PDF), maybe it's because there's insufficient value for the readers. No one is entitled to their cherished business models.
Ad blocking is an arms race. The more ad revenue that's lost to ad blockers, the harder the ad networks will work to make their ads unblockable. (Startup idea: a combination ad network / cdn, so that ad blockers can't block the ads from your site without also blocking your graphics/css/js.) Eventually ad blocking becomes AI-complete.
The idea of micro-payments for online content and services has been around since Softbank Services Group failed at it in 1995 with $10 million tossed at the problem.
And it's a suggestion that shows limited awareness of the enterprise costs of attempting to create and deliver compelling content at scale.
If you (rhetorical you) desire free content, then a value exchange is implied. For now, no better value exchange has been created than a moment of your time for ads. It sucks. It can be irritating. But it's the only solution that works right now.
That being said, I like flattr -- it's altruistic and well conceived. But it won't work because you (again, rhetorical) are both lazy and entitled... and won't micro-pay for content you consume, but then doesn't please you.
Advertising ruins every communication medium it touches because it knows no limits.
✓ Email (spam). ✓ Telephones (telemarketing). ✓ Social Media Tools (farmville spam). ✓ Craigslist (spammers who collect emails). ✓ Websites (overlays, auto video, intrusive trackers, higher load times) . ✓ Video (30 second ad for 10 second video).
Anytime a page contains the word media player or tool, there are ads all over the place disguised as "Download Now" or "Play" buttons to try to deceive you. This is going too far. Out of fear that my parents might accidentally click an ad disguised as a play/download button (which are all over the place) and installing malware on the family laptop. I just installed ad blockers on every computer.
Without the revenue of advertising, you'd not have the live broadcast of the activities of Apollo 11 on the moon.
I could cite dozens (if not thousands) of important events of which the public was made aware because advertising sustained news papers, radio, TV, and the Internet.
I Chris Norstrom have an opinion where I personally believe that there might be a chance that advertising negatively affects in some way the communication mediums that it uses to spread it's message in such a way that it might substantially or not discourage people from using or watching or engaging with that medium.
How did advertising substantially discourage people from engaging with television? There were times when a major portion of the country was all watching I Love Lucy at the same time.
I just don't see how you can logically defend that opinion.
- People are fleeing TV and running towards netflix and bittorent, using DVRs to record their favorite shows and skip through commercials, and changing channels during commercials.
- Email is universally loathed and spam protection is standard, it's gotten so bad that the government had to make a law that forces all email solicitations to have an unsubscribe option and the name and address of the company sending the solicitation.
"Fleeing TV" -- indeed, a shift is being observed. However, the medium exists because of advertising. Also, the audience segment that time-shifts is not yet at a critical mass, though rising. And, live event TV (sports) is still doing exceptionally well because of advertising.
Email is another matter. Being a former advertising executive would you believe I never did an email campaign? (Probably not) Email spam (simultaneously posted advertising message) has always been more considered a path to malicious exploit than legitimate advertising.
I'm not denying that an increasing segment of users are becoming frustrated with ads, only stating advertising is the best method we have _now_ for monetizing content that costs some degree of expense to obtain and disseminate.
Ok I think there's been a miscommunication. I said advertising ruins things because it knows no limits, it doesn't know when to stop and overdoes itself. You are correct in saying that advertising is necessary to sustain free services. We wouldn't have radio, tv, content, free apps, search engines, etc... without it.
"Limits" in terms of advertising are relative and often moving targets. As a new product or service, it's hard to get noticed without testing where a certain limit may be. GoDaddy -- loathed by many, but not by most -- would not be the large firm it is now without having tested those limits. For better or worse, it worked, and some nice people have jobs (their campus is less than 2 miles from us).
I serve on the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) mobile committee. As a newish member, we don't have much influence... but I can confirm lots of "limit testing" is on the way. It's hard to monetize mobile, and ad delivery/targeting firms are in a panic.
I agree ... though not for any of the reasons stated (so far). I'm paying for my bandwidth and the current trend is that bandwidth may become metered. No one can therefore force me to provide them with bandwidth to advertise to me. It seems to me that it's analogous to the fact that telemarketers aren't allowed to call my cell phone.
Yeah? And this is my problem as a consumer how? The website upheld their obligation and met the specifications of the contract, I just made the conscious decision to use property I purchased (A 2010 Macbook Pro enabled with Google Chrome and AdBlock) to prevent these ads from going into my eyeball, through the optical nerves and into the part of the brain that causes me to twitch and mutter obscenities under my breath whenever an ad starts playing sound on its own.
If any government sides with content producers and decides to make ad blocking an issue just so some company can save face/revenue I hope people bitch-en masse-about the ridiculous nature of it. That there hasn't been a deeper inquiry into the absurd nature advertisers are going to in order to get our eyeballs on flashing banners and ridiculous audio clips played from unwelcome sources is frustrating.