It’s OK to block ads (2015)(blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk)
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk
It’s OK to block ads (2015)
https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-block-ads/
113 comments
For me, it is a straight forward proposition. There is literally nothing online so far that has ever interested me enough to pay money or with my eyeballs. I either see it without ads or move on without even a moment of thought.
It very very sad that some people will even say "I like to see ads, it might have something I want...".
They are not just dumb, they are dangerous.
This ads companies have been online for too much time. It is time to bring them down. Fast.
And with them all those parasites of ads associations and marketing.
We do need to bring the level of ads to 0. Then start new.
To take this a step further, I have had people argue with me that tracking and profiling online is a good thing, because it provides more relevant ads for things they want to buy. There are people who actively want ads that can better target and manipulate them into giving up their money.
I would like to say I've only run into one person like this, but no. I've lost count of how many of these people I've run into. I like to think I'm pretty good at understand other people's point of view, even if I don't agree with it. This is one I have a lot of trouble with.
I'm fine with relevant ads, but I think they should be relevant based on the context around them, not on the viewer. If I go to a website about trout fishing, show me ads that would be useful to a trout fisherman. There is no need to track anyone to do that.
I would like to say I've only run into one person like this, but no. I've lost count of how many of these people I've run into. I like to think I'm pretty good at understand other people's point of view, even if I don't agree with it. This is one I have a lot of trouble with.
I'm fine with relevant ads, but I think they should be relevant based on the context around them, not on the viewer. If I go to a website about trout fishing, show me ads that would be useful to a trout fisherman. There is no need to track anyone to do that.
They're imagining a benevolent system that will match them to the personal best deals for them despite all evidence that megacorporations are not in fact benevolent, and will in fact use that knowledge to find the worst possible (i.e. most profitable) deals that they'll still accept, or abuse their psychology to get them to buy things they shouldn't, etc.
They think the system is thinking "ohh! I bet X will like this pair of shoes! And this is a great deal on them!" when in fact a more accurate model is "Who is willing to pay the most to put a message in front of someone with the following detailed list of characteristics?" and then people bid for the right to manipulate you, so even if 2 companies are trying to sell you the exact same thing that you do want, the one that thinks they can extract more from you will pay more and win the spot.
They think the system is thinking "ohh! I bet X will like this pair of shoes! And this is a great deal on them!" when in fact a more accurate model is "Who is willing to pay the most to put a message in front of someone with the following detailed list of characteristics?" and then people bid for the right to manipulate you, so even if 2 companies are trying to sell you the exact same thing that you do want, the one that thinks they can extract more from you will pay more and win the spot.
It’s because they view the world with a consumerist mindset and buying things gives them pleasure.
My partner got upset when I added a pihole to our network because she wouldn't see ads in google search. She said most of the time she doesn't mind the pihole but when she is actively looking for things to buy she wants the ads.
What I ended up doing is setting up two separate wifi networks, one with the pihole DNS server and one without it. So she can opt to turn it on.
But yeah overall I agree with you, the ads skew the research by whoever is paying the most for marketing BUT they also work as a filter so you only see stuff that people actually spend money to market on. For _some_ types of products the "barrier to entry" in the ad space can guarantee a certain level of quality (or at least reduce the change for scams).
What I ended up doing is setting up two separate wifi networks, one with the pihole DNS server and one without it. So she can opt to turn it on.
But yeah overall I agree with you, the ads skew the research by whoever is paying the most for marketing BUT they also work as a filter so you only see stuff that people actually spend money to market on. For _some_ types of products the "barrier to entry" in the ad space can guarantee a certain level of quality (or at least reduce the change for scams).
> For _some_ types of products the "barrier to entry" in the ad space can guarantee a certain level of quality (or at least reduce the change for scams).
I have always associated online ads with people who are trying to scam me. Like the giant “download” button ads on sites hosting actual software downloads. Decades of dealing with this kind of thing has led to a deep distrust of all online advertising, to the point where I pay for Kagi to not only not have ads in my search engine, but not even support the business model of using ads to fund a website.
I see people get scammed all the time from ads. It’s an easy way for the scammers to funnel users to their site. Most people I know have tried buying something based on a Facebook ad, from some random Shopify site, and never got their purchase.
I have always associated online ads with people who are trying to scam me. Like the giant “download” button ads on sites hosting actual software downloads. Decades of dealing with this kind of thing has led to a deep distrust of all online advertising, to the point where I pay for Kagi to not only not have ads in my search engine, but not even support the business model of using ads to fund a website.
I see people get scammed all the time from ads. It’s an easy way for the scammers to funnel users to their site. Most people I know have tried buying something based on a Facebook ad, from some random Shopify site, and never got their purchase.
You are more accommodating than me.
Profit driven targeted content of any kind, especially ads, are poison. I could never knowingly enable anyone in my household to harm themselves with something so toxic to brain health and quality of life.
In terms of things I want far away from my home and family, surveillance capitalism driven technology ranks up there with meth.
Profit driven targeted content of any kind, especially ads, are poison. I could never knowingly enable anyone in my household to harm themselves with something so toxic to brain health and quality of life.
In terms of things I want far away from my home and family, surveillance capitalism driven technology ranks up there with meth.
She does hate it everywhere else though and I find google search ads are not nearly as bad when you are actively looking for a specific product.
But yeah I tend to agree with you, the companies/products paying for the ads are not necessarily the best ones to buy from.
But yeah I tend to agree with you, the companies/products paying for the ads are not necessarily the best ones to buy from.
I can think of one thing I've bought because of ads. I've bought fiber-optic networking bits from fs.com because I saw ads for them. They also have the cheapest prices. But if not for ads I wouldn't know that.
People paying money for things is a win win situation. People are not just "manipulated into giving up their money", they get something they value more than money in return.
Correction: People think they get more something they value more than the money.
It's easier to trick someone into thinking they're receiving value from you, than to actually provide that value.
But I've had this argument before, so I know the reply will be that value is defined as the feeling of receiving value, therefore they are delivering real value.
It's easier to trick someone into thinking they're receiving value from you, than to actually provide that value.
But I've had this argument before, so I know the reply will be that value is defined as the feeling of receiving value, therefore they are delivering real value.
The advertisements convince them it is something they value. Most of what people buy becomes clutter and trash almost instantly.
A lot of this stuff is being purchased with debt. People aren’t happy about their debt, their inability to buy a house, or all the clutter that consumes their home. Yet, in the moment, they are led to believe that a Labubu is what they really desire. It’s not.
A lot of this stuff is being purchased with debt. People aren’t happy about their debt, their inability to buy a house, or all the clutter that consumes their home. Yet, in the moment, they are led to believe that a Labubu is what they really desire. It’s not.
My mom has been getting some supplement ads and asking me to buy them (she can't do online shopping, too computer illiterate). Man just yesterday she wanted to buy a supplement that was basically a redbull in pill form...
Ads would be ok if they were non-personalized. Just buy ads for places that show similar content. Put ads for videogames on twitch streams, that sort of thing.
These tracking system: it’s just stalking, but done on such a massive scale that, unfortunately, law enforcement and politicians don’t see it that way.
These tracking system: it’s just stalking, but done on such a massive scale that, unfortunately, law enforcement and politicians don’t see it that way.
every hackernews thread on this topic has like 10 of those people and it genuinely baffles me. like in the year 2025 the idea that you need to see an ad to know to buy something you were otherwise unaware of is genuinely insane to me
How much do you value your time? A lot of people think like this and I'm not judging you or saying this applies to you. But I find it kind of odd when people I know who earn hundreds to thousands of dollars an hour won't pay even $0.10 for something that took them say 15 minutes to read. If their own time is worth $200 / hr, they thought it was valuable enough to use up $50 of their time. If they refuse to pay anything for the content, then in their mind the content was worth exactly $50, not a cent more to spare to the author of said content (eg $50.10, if you paid the author $0.10 and paid $50 of your time).
Back in the old days, people would share useful information in the internet of their own accord. That still happens a lot today, too! In my opinion, most of the stuff that's ad-supported is not worth my time, as the "content creator" is trying to sell something or otherwise has an angle they're pushing. How can I trust what they have to say when I know they're only doing it to make some money? They will be less interested in helping me than helping themselves!
I think if you take ads away from the internet, you'll also take away a lot of the bullshit and inaccurate or misleading information. If no-one is making any money off of it, you'll be left with largely relevant information.
The internet today is like a free to air television network, but I remember a time when it was nothing like that.
I think if you take ads away from the internet, you'll also take away a lot of the bullshit and inaccurate or misleading information. If no-one is making any money off of it, you'll be left with largely relevant information.
The internet today is like a free to air television network, but I remember a time when it was nothing like that.
> I think if you take ads away from the internet, you'll also take away a lot of the bullshit and inaccurate or misleading information
Just a gut feeling, but I doubt it. You'll still get a lot of bullshit inaccurate/misleading information, just only pushed by those with the budgets to keep pushing it.
Right-wing podcasters that take money from the Russian government to spread disinformation[0] will still get their checks even if their supplement sponsorships get outlawed.
You can take away all of Alex Jones' money and he'll still find some way to put his nonsense out there.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/two-rt-employees-ind...
Just a gut feeling, but I doubt it. You'll still get a lot of bullshit inaccurate/misleading information, just only pushed by those with the budgets to keep pushing it.
Right-wing podcasters that take money from the Russian government to spread disinformation[0] will still get their checks even if their supplement sponsorships get outlawed.
You can take away all of Alex Jones' money and he'll still find some way to put his nonsense out there.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/two-rt-employees-ind...
Sure, you'll never get rid of all misleading information; however, without advertising the volume of shit will reduce radically, as much of the modern internet is built around profiteering and get rich quick schemes (influencers), which breed swathes of hopeful emulators.
I think most sensible people are quite competent at ignoring the bullshit, so I would love it if there was less bullshit to wade through to get to the nuggets of useful information which are out there. For those too stupid to look past misleading information, there's no helping them anyway.
I think most sensible people are quite competent at ignoring the bullshit, so I would love it if there was less bullshit to wade through to get to the nuggets of useful information which are out there. For those too stupid to look past misleading information, there's no helping them anyway.
Not quite. Generally "content" from people trying to monetize their writing online (or who describe it as such) is not worth the time spent reading it, so in fact you're already in the hole before being asked to compensate them somehow. That I read/watched the stuff at all is often more a reflection of poor time management on my part than some high value of theirs (the OP essay mentions a similar point, and it's captured by the modern idea of "doomscrolling" recognizing "content consumption" as a potential behavioral addiction). So it's more that I think it takes a fairly high level of audacity for some rando to think people would not just be interested to hear what they have to say, but actually pay to hear their thoughts.
Generally the most useful information on the web is freely given. Turns out actual experts frequently like nerding out about their thing and trying to get other people interested in it/to understand some facet of it.
Generally the most useful information on the web is freely given. Turns out actual experts frequently like nerding out about their thing and trying to get other people interested in it/to understand some facet of it.
Sure but that's what happens when you cut distribution costs to zero (i.e. the internet). It's pretty indisputable that most content online is garbage. But there is also a lot of super high quality information out there in all sorts of fields, more than there was when distribution costs were high.
There is a prevailing attitude amongst some that they aren't willing to pay for any info - and they hold that as basically some sort of weird sacred belief. I think those people, even if they came across the best piece of content ever written, would be unwilling to pay 10c for it (pre or post). I'm just saying I find that odd.
There is a prevailing attitude amongst some that they aren't willing to pay for any info - and they hold that as basically some sort of weird sacred belief. I think those people, even if they came across the best piece of content ever written, would be unwilling to pay 10c for it (pre or post). I'm just saying I find that odd.
It's that distribution costs are zero, and there's more extremely high quality "content" out there offered entirely for free than anyone has time to digest. Interested in physics? You can read Feynman for free. Interested in chemistry? MIT OCW has you covered with a dozen courses, probably 450 hours of lectures. Or if you want computer science, you can watch lectures from people like Sipser! Want to really get serious about a science? There's the arXiv.
I've also already got dozens of hardcover books that I'll probably never even get through as it is. Mostly acquired from thrift stores while I was in university.
Then there's the classics. It'd take years to get through just the very best highlights of the public domain literature, religious texts, and philosophy. Project Gutenberg has 75,000 books. My wife spent at least months (maybe years? I don't remember) just reading Proust (at the end she said it wasn't worth it).
This is without even needing to get into the fact that frankly I don't see copyright on things older than me or especially older than my parents as valid at this point. Most modern works I'd be interested in qualifies for that treatment. The authors are retired or dead.
This is all also speaking to pure consumerism as ways to pass idle time. I've got instruments to play, a computer to program/tinker with, an endless list of possible home improvements, and a family to spend time with.
I don't think I'm the only one who ends up in this state. There's a whole meme about people having hundreds of games in their steam backlog.
The best piece of content ever written is just not a compelling hook. Nothing in the content industry is. First of all it's an entirely generic description: the best X ever written is not going to be described as "content". That's like calling it "copy", and immediately betrays its low value/the way the author thinks of it.
So yeah generic "content" is going to be a very hard if not impossible sell.
I've also already got dozens of hardcover books that I'll probably never even get through as it is. Mostly acquired from thrift stores while I was in university.
Then there's the classics. It'd take years to get through just the very best highlights of the public domain literature, religious texts, and philosophy. Project Gutenberg has 75,000 books. My wife spent at least months (maybe years? I don't remember) just reading Proust (at the end she said it wasn't worth it).
This is without even needing to get into the fact that frankly I don't see copyright on things older than me or especially older than my parents as valid at this point. Most modern works I'd be interested in qualifies for that treatment. The authors are retired or dead.
This is all also speaking to pure consumerism as ways to pass idle time. I've got instruments to play, a computer to program/tinker with, an endless list of possible home improvements, and a family to spend time with.
I don't think I'm the only one who ends up in this state. There's a whole meme about people having hundreds of games in their steam backlog.
The best piece of content ever written is just not a compelling hook. Nothing in the content industry is. First of all it's an entirely generic description: the best X ever written is not going to be described as "content". That's like calling it "copy", and immediately betrays its low value/the way the author thinks of it.
So yeah generic "content" is going to be a very hard if not impossible sell.
I get all that. Still doesn't mean there isn't some things worth paying for that are created in real time and aren't out of copyright. Something like Stratechery, as an example most people would be familiar with.
Picking on my use of the word content is a bit silly. I think you know what I meant. Use whatever word you want there - best book, best textbook, whatever.
Picking on my use of the word content is a bit silly. I think you know what I meant. Use whatever word you want there - best book, best textbook, whatever.
I'm not really sure what to think of Stratechery. It's got lots of words that are difficult for me to quickly skim the overall gist of to gauge whether they might be interesting, including paradigm 33 times, disrupt 58 times, and of course AI 247 times on the front page. From my angle it reads like a Dilbert comic so I guess I can't answer why the intended audience would or wouldn't pay $0.10.
Another observation though is that he literally describes his own site as having a "content business model" and his own posts as "content", so I think the word choice is more telling than you realize. I see it and just think "ok..." and hit back. I guess it pays his bills though so it seems to work. Apparently someone's giving him the $0.10. Other people in the content industry looking for tips like some giant ouroboros?
Another observation though is that he literally describes his own site as having a "content business model" and his own posts as "content", so I think the word choice is more telling than you realize. I see it and just think "ok..." and hit back. I guess it pays his bills though so it seems to work. Apparently someone's giving him the $0.10. Other people in the content industry looking for tips like some giant ouroboros?
I don't know how I can be more clear about this. It was a thought experiment. Take the very best piece of writing from [BOOK/ARTICLE/TEXTBOOK/JOURNAL] you could ever imagine. Would you or should you be willing to pay 10c for it? I'm not asking about Stratechery in particular (although there are many, many people that happily pay Ben Thompson $15/month that I'm sure most people would describe as intelligent).
You might quibble that you would only pay for a physical book or whatever. I say why? Are you paying for the content (that word again) of that book or the paper? I'd argue the former. So why does it really matter if it was online or not? In the future it seems reasonably likely that there will be a higher proportion of the best writing online vs in books. Sure, a lot may be willing to write for free, but do you think it absolutely impossible that some percentage of them charge?
You might quibble that you would only pay for a physical book or whatever. I say why? Are you paying for the content (that word again) of that book or the paper? I'd argue the former. So why does it really matter if it was online or not? In the future it seems reasonably likely that there will be a higher proportion of the best writing online vs in books. Sure, a lot may be willing to write for free, but do you think it absolutely impossible that some percentage of them charge?
Realistically, like I said, I already doubt I will get through all of the physical books I have, so apparently I bought them as decor. I suppose deep down I knew that at the time which is why I got them for $0.50/ea at a thrift store.
So I suppose no, I can't think of any content I've thought to pay for recently, and have trouble picturing what I would pay for going forward. I already don't even take the time to read all of the writings of nobel laureates, fields medalists, etc. when they're already giving it to me for free. Not just old works but current blogs. There's more than a lifetime of the best works out there from world renowned experts. Thousands of years of the very best writing and I can't be bothered. And that's just writing. The list of things to occupy my time is endless. Acquiring something to read/watch is just not a problem I have. It doesn't make sense to pay for more. I have too much of it.
The content industry is competing with the entirety of recorded human history even before gen ai. A nearly impossible task unless someone destroys it all out of spite.
So I suppose no, I can't think of any content I've thought to pay for recently, and have trouble picturing what I would pay for going forward. I already don't even take the time to read all of the writings of nobel laureates, fields medalists, etc. when they're already giving it to me for free. Not just old works but current blogs. There's more than a lifetime of the best works out there from world renowned experts. Thousands of years of the very best writing and I can't be bothered. And that's just writing. The list of things to occupy my time is endless. Acquiring something to read/watch is just not a problem I have. It doesn't make sense to pay for more. I have too much of it.
The content industry is competing with the entirety of recorded human history even before gen ai. A nearly impossible task unless someone destroys it all out of spite.
Ok then. I wish you well in your quest.
There is no universal, easy and feeless option to send money to people though.
Sure, I could pay for Hackernews or Github or whatever else (these may be bad examples due to the lack of ads) but lets even say the blogpost linked above.
If I could easily send 0.20$ to someone instantly, without much thought, I would.
I was hoping cryptocurrency would solve this, although the complexity and immense fees with most networks really rule that out.
Sure, I could pay for Hackernews or Github or whatever else (these may be bad examples due to the lack of ads) but lets even say the blogpost linked above.
If I could easily send 0.20$ to someone instantly, without much thought, I would.
I was hoping cryptocurrency would solve this, although the complexity and immense fees with most networks really rule that out.
I used to subscribe to the washington post before the most recent election. Im willing to pay for the content I see or read, but I can't possibly pay for ALL the content that crosses my vision. Like streaming services, I used to have just one, and now there are like 100. If I paid for every show I watched I'd be paying over $100/mo in streaming services. Now I pay for NPR'S premium subscription. If every writer on the internet paywalled their content behind some content network's subscription model, I would happily just not read it
I'd love a Netflix for newspapers. I'd pay to be able to read a bunch of local papers' content if the site was good.
Get a library card! My local library card includes free digital access to newspapers " from 100 countries in 60 languages" as well as streaming video, audiobooks etc. They also have a makerspace with 3d printing, green screen, recording studios, video games, tool rental etc. all at low or no cost. I let my card expire but I see it's still free in my city.
Its a neat and rational way of looking at things but does it always make sense to give your time a monetary value?
Also, when I'm.. ehm.. accidentally reading blogspam in my spare time, who's reimbursing me?
And if I'm actually reading instead of working, isn't the time I spend more of a debt than a declaration that I want to donate as much money as I wasted by not working for X minutes?
Employers haven't paid me for spending a lot of time with them so far.
But let's stick with the argument and claim that our time is worth the hourly rate of whoever creates what we consume. That also doesn't make sense, no matter how charitably I view it, for media.
Even if I want to live in a radically equal society where everyone's time is worth the same amount of money, it would only make sense when trading 1:1 - for example, I can compare my hourly rate to that of my barber, if I pretend there are no corporations, no taxes etc.
But yeah, to be brief, no, it doesn't make sense to give all of your time a monterary value. And when it comes to non-working time, I even find it to be a deeply gross way of thinking. Not regarding the willingness to pay, it's fair to think about your own income and how other workers have to make ends meet and to put it into perspective.
And if I'm actually reading instead of working, isn't the time I spend more of a debt than a declaration that I want to donate as much money as I wasted by not working for X minutes?
Employers haven't paid me for spending a lot of time with them so far.
But let's stick with the argument and claim that our time is worth the hourly rate of whoever creates what we consume. That also doesn't make sense, no matter how charitably I view it, for media.
Even if I want to live in a radically equal society where everyone's time is worth the same amount of money, it would only make sense when trading 1:1 - for example, I can compare my hourly rate to that of my barber, if I pretend there are no corporations, no taxes etc.
But yeah, to be brief, no, it doesn't make sense to give all of your time a monterary value. And when it comes to non-working time, I even find it to be a deeply gross way of thinking. Not regarding the willingness to pay, it's fair to think about your own income and how other workers have to make ends meet and to put it into perspective.
If you invert it, though, money is really compensation for time (directly or indirectly). Most of the things you pay money for are compensating someone for time spent (whether that time was spent in the past, present or future). Why is it so hard to go in the other direction? It doesn't mean that you think money is more important than time or anything. It's just that people trade one for the other. Even if you remove the money element altogether, you have a finite amount of time and should value it as such.
I also never said anything about equality or that an engineer or a scientists time is necessarily worth the same as other occupations. I was pointing to a very large disparity (paying a very small amount for content that one clearly values, if they value their time). You can put whatever numbers you want in my original comment and my point would stand.
I also never said anything about equality or that an engineer or a scientists time is necessarily worth the same as other occupations. I was pointing to a very large disparity (paying a very small amount for content that one clearly values, if they value their time). You can put whatever numbers you want in my original comment and my point would stand.
You know that you are lying, in the defense of your precious precious wallet.
There is plenty of stuff online which is worth the money, just YouTube premium alone is a great bargain with the highest quality content conceivable inside. Or if you prefer empirical evidence, millions of people pay for Spotify.
There is plenty of stuff online which is worth the money, just YouTube premium alone is a great bargain with the highest quality content conceivable inside. Or if you prefer empirical evidence, millions of people pay for Spotify.
Mate, you've had since 1995 to come up with a functioning micropayments system, and you're unhappy that I am not requesting every image referenced by your web page? I think that we are long past the point where we can safely say that this is a "you" problem.
Yes, it is not only OK to block ads, but should be done.
Just for the context, in 2015 world's most used browser still had a sophisticated adblocking.
And a year or so later, the article's author went on to write this:
* https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108453004
* https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108453004
What is it? The website doesn't say much other than the name of the book.
It's an open access book, you should have a "open full book pdf" button (a couple down from the blue "export citation" button).
I haven't the time to read it myself at the moment, but the gist appears to be about "attention economy" and how technology affects our lives. There's a blurb and some discussion on goodreads [1].
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38364667-stand-out-of-ou...
I haven't the time to read it myself at the moment, but the gist appears to be about "attention economy" and how technology affects our lives. There's a blurb and some discussion on goodreads [1].
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38364667-stand-out-of-ou...
every website that stops me from viewing it because i am blocking ads will never get a visit from me again. i don't watch television because of unavoidable advertisements. i will never accept advertisements as anything other than deception.
I have a lot more respect for pages that block me outright than those that try to circumvent my blocking or whine about it.
The standard on the internet is that people send what they want and the recipients render it however they want. That’s how it’s always been, and how it always will be. That includes the possibility that they won’t want to send me anything. But once it is sent, it is my bits in my RAM, to do with what I will.
The standard on the internet is that people send what they want and the recipients render it however they want. That’s how it’s always been, and how it always will be. That includes the possibility that they won’t want to send me anything. But once it is sent, it is my bits in my RAM, to do with what I will.
I accidentally turned off my adblocker on youtube today, and I immediately got 2 ads, both of which were AI deepfakes of some celebrities selling "supplements" of dubious legality.
So, um, is this what internet ads are now? Because even if it weren't "ok" to block these ads, I'm sure as shit going to keep blocking them.
So, um, is this what internet ads are now? Because even if it weren't "ok" to block these ads, I'm sure as shit going to keep blocking them.
Happenned two days ago for me, the rule to block shorts from appearing in my feed caught a bit too much, and I mistakenly deactivated ublock while trying to refine them.
YouTube ads are terrifying. Probably others are to, but my opinion to avoid any product showed on internet if possible is vindicated. How can I trust an Axe ad if it's advertised side by side with an obvious scam?
YouTube ads are terrifying. Probably others are to, but my opinion to avoid any product showed on internet if possible is vindicated. How can I trust an Axe ad if it's advertised side by side with an obvious scam?
I actually use a full blown desktop computer as media center specifically because it can run adblock (and games). I got one of those "fly-mouses" (like a wii-remote pointer to control the mouse cursor), works really well and it is nice to be able to pull a wireless mouse+keyboard when you want to do more complex things.
We often use our TV to plan trips using google maps or do some planning using excel sheets with this setup.
We often use our TV to plan trips using google maps or do some planning using excel sheets with this setup.
People block ads and/or not pay for content because they can. Simply because it's possible. People have been conditioned to consider any and all digital content to be worth zero. Yet continue to consume it for hours on end every day.
When not paying at all is an option people will reliably pick that option. They'll even go into extremes to avoid paying. I know somebody that plays a particular mobile game about an hour each day. Every round (taking 90s or so) it's interrupted by 1-3 mins of ads. It's maddening. She suffers through this instead of paying a one-time $4.99. We're talking about somebody firmly upper middle class.
When not paying at all is an option people will reliably pick that option. They'll even go into extremes to avoid paying. I know somebody that plays a particular mobile game about an hour each day. Every round (taking 90s or so) it's interrupted by 1-3 mins of ads. It's maddening. She suffers through this instead of paying a one-time $4.99. We're talking about somebody firmly upper middle class.
As they should. Never once have I seen any good outcome of ads on the web.
On the user end:
- People click scam download buttons or fake links and are blasted with scams or malware.
- Nobody I know has ever, not once, purchased something from an ad and been happy with it. The one person I know who did purchase something from a Facebook ad got scammed.
- The actual content people want to watch is delayed or interrupted by constant nonsense that they will never engage with.
So already there is absolutely no incentive as an end user to want ads. Then over on the content creator end:
- Because they work through clicks, ads generate a ton of bad incentives to make divisive content or just otherwise harmful content. See Elsagate for one way this manifests.
- For honest creators who make genuinely good and creative works, ads harm them by consistently underpaying them. Only the very absolute peak of content creators make a livable wage from ads alone. See the rise of Patreon and other such subscription methods that they have had to rely on to get away from ad revenue dependency.
- Ads also harm honest creators by incentivizing bad actors to steal their work, either by direct reuploads on various platforms or by simple plagiarism. See any Facebook page for stolen content or the whole James Somerton expose that happened a couple years ago for the plagiarism bit.
On the user end:
- People click scam download buttons or fake links and are blasted with scams or malware.
- Nobody I know has ever, not once, purchased something from an ad and been happy with it. The one person I know who did purchase something from a Facebook ad got scammed.
- The actual content people want to watch is delayed or interrupted by constant nonsense that they will never engage with.
So already there is absolutely no incentive as an end user to want ads. Then over on the content creator end:
- Because they work through clicks, ads generate a ton of bad incentives to make divisive content or just otherwise harmful content. See Elsagate for one way this manifests.
- For honest creators who make genuinely good and creative works, ads harm them by consistently underpaying them. Only the very absolute peak of content creators make a livable wage from ads alone. See the rise of Patreon and other such subscription methods that they have had to rely on to get away from ad revenue dependency.
- Ads also harm honest creators by incentivizing bad actors to steal their work, either by direct reuploads on various platforms or by simple plagiarism. See any Facebook page for stolen content or the whole James Somerton expose that happened a couple years ago for the plagiarism bit.
Many things do not give you that option, and the ads are obnoxious and invasive to privacy. If that is the only option, you will get nothing from me, and your ads will be blocked.
Furthermore if there is a content subscription involved, I will only ever consider it via Apple because I refuse to risk having to telephone someone to cancel something I signed up for online.
The well has been poisoned by an obnoxious industry and that industry is unlikely to ever gain even a modicum of respectability.
Furthermore if there is a content subscription involved, I will only ever consider it via Apple because I refuse to risk having to telephone someone to cancel something I signed up for online.
The well has been poisoned by an obnoxious industry and that industry is unlikely to ever gain even a modicum of respectability.
You're just retrofitting reasons to justify the behavior I describe.
Forget about those reasons. They don't matter. They can have merit or not, it's irrelevant. Because the behavior takes place regardless. When people can legally avoid paying for something whilst still consuming it, they'll do that.
The idea that if only ads were more privacy-friendly people would not block them or start paying for content at any scale is laughable. They won't. When there's a free path, people take that path.
Forget about those reasons. They don't matter. They can have merit or not, it's irrelevant. Because the behavior takes place regardless. When people can legally avoid paying for something whilst still consuming it, they'll do that.
The idea that if only ads were more privacy-friendly people would not block them or start paying for content at any scale is laughable. They won't. When there's a free path, people take that path.
Then why do people pay for services like Spotify, Netflix, and other subscriptions when they have the ability to pirate?
Further, ads are often sold as a way to keep access "free".
Further, ads are often sold as a way to keep access "free".
"all digital content to be worth zero."
People are making millions/year just by writing articles on Substack. Just look at the "paid leaderboards", number of paid subscribers, and multiply by 70% of the annual price of the newsletter.
Our newsletter is doing mid-6-figures. You simply can't find that content anywhere else, and I am not aware of a newsletter-piracy phenomenon. Even if it existed, I think many people would pay to have guaranteed day-1 access.
People are making millions/year just by writing articles on Substack. Just look at the "paid leaderboards", number of paid subscribers, and multiply by 70% of the annual price of the newsletter.
Our newsletter is doing mid-6-figures. You simply can't find that content anywhere else, and I am not aware of a newsletter-piracy phenomenon. Even if it existed, I think many people would pay to have guaranteed day-1 access.
When I say "all" and "zero" it's obviously tongue-in-cheek, not a scientific assessment that is to be taken literally. Of course there's exceptions.
These are not exceptions, but a whole industry built around the notion that digital content is worth "something"
I pay quite a lot for digital content. I also run an ad blocker, because advertising as a whole is malicious and I consider my financial contributions to the digital creator economy to be sufficient.
But privacy, it’s not just ads, you’re taking information from me. Also people have tried to avoid ads since forever, trying to not record ads onto VHS for instance, this isn’t new.
Facile and wrong. People don't do anything "just because they can".
And anecdotes aren't data.
And anecdotes aren't data.
I think there's a divide between how we view the people that create the digital media we consume vs. the platforms they're stuck on.
Like, I've donated to certain creators through for example patreon, but I'd never even consider paying for YouTube premium or twitch prime.
Like, I've donated to certain creators through for example patreon, but I'd never even consider paying for YouTube premium or twitch prime.
I work for an adtech company and we recently discovered that we were serving ads to some users using ad blockers, but the impression tracker endpoint had bbeen blocked. We decided the best course of action is to just submit our bidders domain to whatever lists we can (easylist, ublock, whatever).
My project manager wanted to try just changing our endpoints periodically to evade the list. I said to him "You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go up against a software pirate or ad blocker when privacy is on the line!'
My project manager wanted to try just changing our endpoints periodically to evade the list. I said to him "You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go up against a software pirate or ad blocker when privacy is on the line!'
I run AdNauseam to click as many ads as possible randomly simulating ad-addicted humans, just to waste as much money of adtech companies and ad buyers as possible. This year I caused something like $10k to likely be paid for ads to be delivered to my computer that I sent to /dev/null and never saw.
I see no way adtech will reform unless conversion rates plummet to the point that the business model becomes unsustainable.
Genuine question: If millions of people ran automated ad-clicking bots, how would your industry survive?
I see no way adtech will reform unless conversion rates plummet to the point that the business model becomes unsustainable.
Genuine question: If millions of people ran automated ad-clicking bots, how would your industry survive?
Out of curiosity, how do you feel working on something that is zero-sum (does not produce positive value for society, only changes where the money goes)? Would you change jobs if a positive-sum job became available?
And to risk being seen as preaching, have you read https://drewdevault.com/2025/04/20/2025-04-20-Tech-sector-re... ?
And to risk being seen as preaching, have you read https://drewdevault.com/2025/04/20/2025-04-20-Tech-sector-re... ?
I work in retail media. There is a large difference in the kind of value we capture - rather than creating incentives for annoying or addictive behavior, we only show advertisements on ecommerce pages. If you are seeing our ads, you already have the intent to buy a kind of product, but the kinds of ads we show are trying to convince you to buy a specific brand of product.
Perhaps you searched "laptops". You see a handful of results, and at the top a banner says "Dell XPS - 20% off!"
Have we manipulated you in any way? Have we lied to you? The fact that a laptop is 20% off is valuable information to a user who might consider price in their purchase. What we sell is not advertising, but real estate on your screen
Am I in love with what I do? No. But we dont engage in the kind of advertising market described in the OP's article. What we do is the equivalent of a grocery store putting products on the end cap of an aisle and getting paid extra for the valuable real estate
Perhaps you searched "laptops". You see a handful of results, and at the top a banner says "Dell XPS - 20% off!"
Have we manipulated you in any way? Have we lied to you? The fact that a laptop is 20% off is valuable information to a user who might consider price in their purchase. What we sell is not advertising, but real estate on your screen
Am I in love with what I do? No. But we dont engage in the kind of advertising market described in the OP's article. What we do is the equivalent of a grocery store putting products on the end cap of an aisle and getting paid extra for the valuable real estate
If you're taking money from X to try to push people to buy X instead of saying "our honest opinion is that Y is the best-value product and we recommend it" and putting that front and center, it's safe to say that you are manipulating people. The non-manipulative use of that real estate is showcasing high value products such that you feel it reflects well on your business to point them out. If they were organically there already, they wouldn't need to pay you.
This is the worst kind of advertisement.
Other ads just take up screen space and bandwidth: they displace more useful uses of these scarce resources, but they don't cause any direct harm. By contrast, ads targeting people in the market for a good or service actively displace quality signals. In doing so they make quality uneconomical and thus destroy it. They make the world a worse place.
Other ads just take up screen space and bandwidth: they displace more useful uses of these scarce resources, but they don't cause any direct harm. By contrast, ads targeting people in the market for a good or service actively displace quality signals. In doing so they make quality uneconomical and thus destroy it. They make the world a worse place.
The reason behind the banner reveals to us the incentives that drive the way the whole system functions, which in turn decides the quality of the majority of advertisements.
If the reason is "because they paid us to" then it leads to the absolute horror show we all see these days.
And no, papering over this issue by maximizing click-through rate along with revenue in your optimisation problem does not cut it. The only advertisements I will accept are those that dont have any weird incentives backing them. Example that is OK: shopkeeper recommending dell laptops because his previous customers have given good reviews for it. But if the shopkeeper takes even a bottle of wine from a dell salesman, oops, I'm blocking that ad.
In my "analysis", approximately zero advertisements in the internet today run the way I accept them. This can mostly be attributed to the fact that google/meta run most of the ads and they definitely take money from merchants:).
It logically follows from this that I need to use an adblocker everywhere.
Same goes for all of marketing and sales: all forms of deceit (something that we are taught as kids to be morally wrong) that are normalised today. Entire trillion dollars companies' primary product is deceit.
It is possible to do these things without deceit, but the tragedy of the commons dictates that the deceitful win.
If the reason is "because they paid us to" then it leads to the absolute horror show we all see these days.
And no, papering over this issue by maximizing click-through rate along with revenue in your optimisation problem does not cut it. The only advertisements I will accept are those that dont have any weird incentives backing them. Example that is OK: shopkeeper recommending dell laptops because his previous customers have given good reviews for it. But if the shopkeeper takes even a bottle of wine from a dell salesman, oops, I'm blocking that ad.
In my "analysis", approximately zero advertisements in the internet today run the way I accept them. This can mostly be attributed to the fact that google/meta run most of the ads and they definitely take money from merchants:).
It logically follows from this that I need to use an adblocker everywhere.
Same goes for all of marketing and sales: all forms of deceit (something that we are taught as kids to be morally wrong) that are normalised today. Entire trillion dollars companies' primary product is deceit.
It is possible to do these things without deceit, but the tragedy of the commons dictates that the deceitful win.
That seems less evil, at least in the sense that it doesn’t require staking people and collecting dossiers about their personal information.
I’m surprised your business model doesn’t completely dominate over the social media algorithmic nonsense. I’d expect people who searched for something to be actually interested in it.
I’m surprised your business model doesn’t completely dominate over the social media algorithmic nonsense. I’d expect people who searched for something to be actually interested in it.
It actually does, in a way. Amazon.com (not AWS) doesnt make any money on product sales - it makes almost all of its revenue from sponsored products. Walmart as well makes a huge percentage of its money from promoting products.
My company operates only on small ecommerce sites. Because we have a huge catalog of products, advertisers can come to us and launch a campaign, and we can automatically deliver across dozens of sites. We can connect small ecommerce sites to large advertisers so that they dont need first party relationships with those advertisers. The way I see it, we are helping smaller retailers be more competitive against Amazon by helping them squeeze more blood from the stone, as we like to say in advertising.
What keeps me up at night is who our customers are. Among our advertisers, we sell ads for alcohol. While those who see our ads generally already have high intent to buy alcohol in the first place, I know from family history that even the slightest temptation can put an alcoholic back at step 0. We dont run too many of those but im still struggling with it
My company operates only on small ecommerce sites. Because we have a huge catalog of products, advertisers can come to us and launch a campaign, and we can automatically deliver across dozens of sites. We can connect small ecommerce sites to large advertisers so that they dont need first party relationships with those advertisers. The way I see it, we are helping smaller retailers be more competitive against Amazon by helping them squeeze more blood from the stone, as we like to say in advertising.
What keeps me up at night is who our customers are. Among our advertisers, we sell ads for alcohol. While those who see our ads generally already have high intent to buy alcohol in the first place, I know from family history that even the slightest temptation can put an alcoholic back at step 0. We dont run too many of those but im still struggling with it
> Amazon.com (not AWS) doesnt make any money on product sales - it makes almost all of its revenue from sponsored products
So you see, it is exploitative. Amazon has an advantageous position thanks to its brand name and it allows it to extract money from companies who want their product sold which in turn is extracted from customers. Meanwhile if a better (in terms of quality/longevity/cost) product existed, it would be unable to compete without also being forced to advertise. It has to spend money on ads which would be better spent improving the product (or making it cheaper in the complete absence of advertising).
EDIT: Btw, I do appreciate the honesty. There are absolutely different levels of severity of anti-social / anti-consumer behavior - the exploitation I pointed out has lower severity but a higher scale/prevalence and your alcohol example is a good example of low scale/prevalence but high severity.
So you see, it is exploitative. Amazon has an advantageous position thanks to its brand name and it allows it to extract money from companies who want their product sold which in turn is extracted from customers. Meanwhile if a better (in terms of quality/longevity/cost) product existed, it would be unable to compete without also being forced to advertise. It has to spend money on ads which would be better spent improving the product (or making it cheaper in the complete absence of advertising).
EDIT: Btw, I do appreciate the honesty. There are absolutely different levels of severity of anti-social / anti-consumer behavior - the exploitation I pointed out has lower severity but a higher scale/prevalence and your alcohol example is a good example of low scale/prevalence but high severity.
Connecting people with goods or services they may find valuable provides a positive value to society.
Products should compete on their cost vs value for the customer, not on which is better known.
Yes, advertisements make customers aware of a particular category of product but by pushing one specific brand instead of the whole category. I would OK with advertisements which push the whole category, that is positive-sum.
But currently we have an arms race where you have to invest in ads to compete with other products of the same category and that is zero-sum. Inter-category competition should be based on quality/longevity/cost.
Yes, advertisements make customers aware of a particular category of product but by pushing one specific brand instead of the whole category. I would OK with advertisements which push the whole category, that is positive-sum.
But currently we have an arms race where you have to invest in ads to compete with other products of the same category and that is zero-sum. Inter-category competition should be based on quality/longevity/cost.
>I would OK with advertisements which push the whole category, that is positive-sum.
This doesn't get rid of people buying what is most well known. In fact without the possibility of being exposed to more niche options people will just go with the incumbents. Advertising allows new competitors in a space to be able to acquire customers based off their value for customers instead of being a wellknown thing.
This doesn't get rid of people buying what is most well known. In fact without the possibility of being exposed to more niche options people will just go with the incumbents. Advertising allows new competitors in a space to be able to acquire customers based off their value for customers instead of being a wellknown thing.
They'd still be exposed to other options, through friends, reviewers, comparisons websites, etc.
Ads mean the brand with more money wins. It is completely orthogonal to value/cost.
You can in theory get investors to fund ads for a new brand but it just increases the upfront cost. Organic growth is no longer possible. And who benefits most are the already rich.
Ads mean the brand with more money wins. It is completely orthogonal to value/cost.
You can in theory get investors to fund ads for a new brand but it just increases the upfront cost. Organic growth is no longer possible. And who benefits most are the already rich.
Popular options will have more words of mouth, more reviews, appear on more comparison websites, etc. The incubants have a massive advantage through those paths.
>Ads mean the brand with more money wins. It is completely orthogonal to value/cost.
Why? A better product will be able to achieve a better ROI on ad spend. This means that they can afford to spend more per ad than their competitors meaning they will win all of the ad auctions compared to the brand with the most money.
>Ads mean the brand with more money wins. It is completely orthogonal to value/cost.
Why? A better product will be able to achieve a better ROI on ad spend. This means that they can afford to spend more per ad than their competitors meaning they will win all of the ad auctions compared to the brand with the most money.
A product with higher price-input cost spread will be able to achieve a better ROI on ad spend. i.e. they can displace products with higher quality, lower price, or both.
Yes, honest retailers that find good products to offer create value. People who take money from sellers to give fraudulent recommendations do not.
These ads don't do that. They primarily connect scammers with victims.
It produces a lot of value when products are actually used as opposed to unused
It's easy to find plenty of counterexamples: cigarettes, Teflon pans, soda, cheap children's clothing with elevated lead, etc. And that's before we get into crypto scams, MLM schemes, etc.
Sure, bad products are bad. So shouldn't promoting good products be good?
Sure, but if you're taking kickbacks to promote something, it's a near certainty that's not what you're doing.
Like in this thread you have people asking what about retailers that take money for product placement, or how will people find products without ads? It's apparently inconceivable that retailers spotlight actual high quality products that they believe in and they do some industry research into what they should carry and actually stand by what they're selling instead of treating their customers like suckers to be sold.
Like in this thread you have people asking what about retailers that take money for product placement, or how will people find products without ads? It's apparently inconceivable that retailers spotlight actual high quality products that they believe in and they do some industry research into what they should carry and actually stand by what they're selling instead of treating their customers like suckers to be sold.
No, it produces money, not value, and not for society but for the company which spends on advertising instead of spending on improving the product.
Meanwhile this forces other brands in the same category to also spend on advertising even if they have a better product, thus increasing the cost.
Meanwhile this forces other brands in the same category to also spend on advertising even if they have a better product, thus increasing the cost.
Every single human endeavor since the beginning of time has had to balance making something vs selling it.
Sure. And some have the slider set all the way to selling. And that's wrong. As a society, we tolerate it because we have limited energy to fight it and because the good people are all busy making stuff.
import more land fill
And then you keeled over while your project manager went on about their business?
Maybe they lost sleep over it, thinking
Wait, these people are clearly not just saying: Do Not Track me, they're also saying: Don't show me ads!
Which is a demand that any ad-tech company must take very seriously! We can't ignore the privacy implications of our ad networks. We better avoid any such privacy concerns and comply with the user's expressed priorities.That's exactly how the meeting went. The CTO agreed that the best thing we can do is help comply with user's wishes about ads and privacy as best we can, so we are in the process of adding our domains to the block lists of common ad blockers
I'm beginning to suspect there isn't even a princess in your version of the story.
It isn't just okay but mandatory!
2015, 10 years later things got so much worse, only know some minority are realising all the problems behind an AD.
With the rise of privacy being breached by American companies and now AI, the way we deal with technology should change altogether.
Basics first, if you only use your PC to access the internet, YouTube, office/excel(LibreOffice) and alike, Mint Cinnamon Linux to replace Windows. No money wasted with licensing and its AI flooding you with ADs
Android and iPhone are such major issue with targeted ADs, GrapheneOS running on Pixel phones are the only way to have a phone and life without having all your personal life leaked, plus ADs.
At home, I run Pihole + Unbound as recursive DNS, OPNSense to force all the DNS traffic to them, and WireGuard to connect to home when I am out. Pihole blocked traffic goes brrrrrrrrrrr
If people knew how much crappy their phones, Windows/Mac PCs are sending out to Microsof, Apple, Meta, Google, etc, to be exchanged into targeted ADs, people would lose their mind lmao
With the rise of privacy being breached by American companies and now AI, the way we deal with technology should change altogether.
Basics first, if you only use your PC to access the internet, YouTube, office/excel(LibreOffice) and alike, Mint Cinnamon Linux to replace Windows. No money wasted with licensing and its AI flooding you with ADs
Android and iPhone are such major issue with targeted ADs, GrapheneOS running on Pixel phones are the only way to have a phone and life without having all your personal life leaked, plus ADs.
At home, I run Pihole + Unbound as recursive DNS, OPNSense to force all the DNS traffic to them, and WireGuard to connect to home when I am out. Pihole blocked traffic goes brrrrrrrrrrr
If people knew how much crappy their phones, Windows/Mac PCs are sending out to Microsof, Apple, Meta, Google, etc, to be exchanged into targeted ADs, people would lose their mind lmao
I has gotten better security-wise at least, malicious ads can't infect your OS anymore just by being loaded. The browser sandbox is much more secure these days.
If we do not count the multiple sandbox escape vulnerabilities that happen every year, sure. https://issues.chromium.org/issues/405143032
I run Linux only at home and all my devices including WiFi6 router.
That alone prevents you from getting malicious thing, you only get a Linux system infected if you have zero common sense.
The way how the permissions work on Linux prevents that from happening unless an user did an user thing.
With Windows, all you need to get malicious crappy is to use Windows. When the system itself is collecting sensitive information aka Microsoft Recall.
You cannot access the internet, have VIRTUALLY no problems with virus AND have privacy while using Windows. That is like saying you have an umbrella with a EF5 tornado passing by.
The way how the permissions work on Linux prevents that from happening unless an user did an user thing.
With Windows, all you need to get malicious crappy is to use Windows. When the system itself is collecting sensitive information aka Microsoft Recall.
You cannot access the internet, have VIRTUALLY no problems with virus AND have privacy while using Windows. That is like saying you have an umbrella with a EF5 tornado passing by.
I have found most people have just given up. I have in various conversations with people been told they will find out anyway, that I am naive if I think it is possible to maintain privacy, and similar.
There's no good argument for not blocking ads with so many of them pushing literal malware for criminals.
I remember reading this closer to 2015. I'm convinced that these sorts of mental gymnastics and philosophizing are an info-hazard for otherwise smart and thoughtful people. Not a particularly dangerous one, but time that you won't get back.
Unless you are a psychopath, your human instincts will alert you to when you need to show respect or gratitude, or reciprocity is expected from you. You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things, especially when the other party is a large corporation bothering you over the internet. The whole premise of the article is just nuts.
TLDR: You should blocks ads because they are annoying. Don't overthink it.
Unless you are a psychopath, your human instincts will alert you to when you need to show respect or gratitude, or reciprocity is expected from you. You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things, especially when the other party is a large corporation bothering you over the internet. The whole premise of the article is just nuts.
TLDR: You should blocks ads because they are annoying. Don't overthink it.
I'm not blocking ads.
I'm blocking unaccountable third party advertising networks that let random javascript code run in my session.
If site operators want to put their ads inline then there really isn't anything I can do about it and I doubt I would even try.
I'm blocking unaccountable third party advertising networks that let random javascript code run in my session.
If site operators want to put their ads inline then there really isn't anything I can do about it and I doubt I would even try.
I would make no effort to block ads if they were either static images or text, required no js, and were clearly marked as ads.
When one is (in 2015) a doctoral candidate in ethics at Balliol, there is not really any such thing as overthinking this. (-:
> You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things
I think the danger is the opposite. Normal (non-psychopathic) people are prone to being manipulated into feeling for inanimate objects, such as corporations, especially if those are driven by exploitative incentives where humanizing _itselves_ is beneficial.
I think the danger is the opposite. Normal (non-psychopathic) people are prone to being manipulated into feeling for inanimate objects, such as corporations, especially if those are driven by exploitative incentives where humanizing _itselves_ is beneficial.
This is one of the many cases where the dishonest rationalization of a selfish act is worse then the act itself. I block ads because it's convenient, but I don't deny that I'm free-riding on websites that only exist because other people view ads, I don't pollute our shared understanding of ethics, economics and the web with some bullshit rationalization of something I only do because it's convenient.
The FBI literally suggested people block ads to avoid being defrauded. My understanding of the web was that it was first and foremost a non-commercial space, and spammers have always been impinging on that. Blocking their nonsense has always been the correct course of action.
In the case of children, I actually strongly believe it is immoral to allow then to be inundated with ads. It runs completely counter to teaching them virtues like temperance. It is not just "convenient" but an actual moral imperative to keep them away from those who would push consumerism onto them. This has only become more obvious as climate change worsens as the top problem they will inherit, or as we see 70% of adults in the US now destroying their bodies with disordered eating while still ubiquitous ads encourage them to continue. Ads are a blight. Allowing them to reach the next generation is somewhere between neglect and abuse.
So no, your idea of these things is not "our shared understanding".
In the case of children, I actually strongly believe it is immoral to allow then to be inundated with ads. It runs completely counter to teaching them virtues like temperance. It is not just "convenient" but an actual moral imperative to keep them away from those who would push consumerism onto them. This has only become more obvious as climate change worsens as the top problem they will inherit, or as we see 70% of adults in the US now destroying their bodies with disordered eating while still ubiquitous ads encourage them to continue. Ads are a blight. Allowing them to reach the next generation is somewhere between neglect and abuse.
So no, your idea of these things is not "our shared understanding".
The web is not one space, it's a protocol for everyone to have their own space. Someone putting ads on their own website is not spamming.
In the sense that someone sending you a surprise crypto miner with their webpage or bundling a botnet trojan into a program they give you is just them putting it on their own space, sure. If they send it to me though, my security software will promptly filter it out or otherwise not allow it to run. My firewall will block connections to their known-dodgey payload hosts from all computers on my network. My computer is not for running someone's miner, and that's not the intended purpose of allowing scripting. Likewise, my screen is not for displaying ads; it's an abuse of scriptable documents that gets filtered out. Opening a web page doesn't create some obligation to run malware.
fwiw making an offline analogy, I also live in a city where outdoor advertising signs are generally banned (with some exceptions like saying the land is for sale, or small ground-level signs with height/width restrictions at an entrance indicating which businesses are on a lot), so even on their own land/their own space, businesses putting up things like billboards would be spam and disallowed.
fwiw making an offline analogy, I also live in a city where outdoor advertising signs are generally banned (with some exceptions like saying the land is for sale, or small ground-level signs with height/width restrictions at an entrance indicating which businesses are on a lot), so even on their own land/their own space, businesses putting up things like billboards would be spam and disallowed.
Displaying information is most basic feature of the web. An ad is simply information that someone paid for. It is not at all like a crypto miner or a botnet trojan.
In practice ads are delivered by adware (and bundled with spyware), and are pretty much always a type of trojan (you never receive warning that a site is going to send you ads). Characterizing them as information is also misleading; their entire purpose is to get people to make suboptimal if not poor decisions. They're somewhere between noise and disinformation.
Without the malware part, there would obviously be no objection on the grounds that you're "free-riding" since there would be no measurement. But even simple images or text can be and frequently are a malicious attack on one's mind (e.g. soda/fast food ads, links to fraudsters), so even without a software component, it is good security posture to filter them.
The scripting capabilities of the web are meant for people like [0] to use. Using them for surveillance and propaganda distribution is abuse.
[0] https://ciechanow.ski/
Without the malware part, there would obviously be no objection on the grounds that you're "free-riding" since there would be no measurement. But even simple images or text can be and frequently are a malicious attack on one's mind (e.g. soda/fast food ads, links to fraudsters), so even without a software component, it is good security posture to filter them.
The scripting capabilities of the web are meant for people like [0] to use. Using them for surveillance and propaganda distribution is abuse.
[0] https://ciechanow.ski/
> In the 1970’s, Herbert Simon pointed out that when information becomes abundant, attention becomes the scarce resource.
Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable?
Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable?
It’s literally what you experience in your life. I’d say I value my life a lot, in the end it’s all I actually own.
On the other hand, others value my attention because they can make fractions of a cent by making me look at stuff, because there’s a minimal chance they’ll convince me to spend money on stuff of probably little value.
Seems to me they don’t value my attention a lot, and I don’t get much of value out of it.
On the other hand, others value my attention because they can make fractions of a cent by making me look at stuff, because there’s a minimal chance they’ll convince me to spend money on stuff of probably little value.
Seems to me they don’t value my attention a lot, and I don’t get much of value out of it.
Its fuel for your life goals, lets you think about where, what and how you want to do things for yourself. As opposed to being led along by what other's tell you you want. I'm not a philosopher but this seems like a good reason for why its valuable.
> Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable?
Attention's value lies in its scarcity and its ability to drive action, connection, and influence.
Every moment you spend focusing on something comes at the cost of not focusing on something else.
Attention's value lies in its scarcity and its ability to drive action, connection, and influence.
Every moment you spend focusing on something comes at the cost of not focusing on something else.
For a certain definition of information, its net volume and availability on the internet has been declining for quite a while. There is a growth of bytes with zero information content (ai slop, influencer video, ...), worse discovery tools (search is dead), and outright negative information (political disinformation, ads). Net value tends negative.
Attention is still being consumed.
Attention is still being consumed.
If you were given free pizza and a stack of ad flyers, do you have to read the ads? Do you have to even acknowledge them? Can you accept the free food while putting the flyers directly in the trash?
Obviously yes you would toss those ads in the garbage, because what fool would give away food and expect you to look at ads in exchange? So it is with ads online: their business model is not your responsibility and you can ignore stuff (even automatically) if you want, they're your eyes.