I don't mind advertisements but I don't trust them at all when it comes to security, so I block them all.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
My people, do you think ad-blockers are immoral?
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
Moral on certain websites amoral on others. Turning off ad blocker on certain websites is fine. As long as your supporting websites that deserve the revenue big or small your doing it right.
I think it's a necessary evil to block ads on most sites. I think the real conclusion is that for a decade or two people have been sold this idea that the web is the ultimate advertising vehicle and that the entire internet can be bought and paid for on the back of ad commerce, and it's entirely false.
No, I will not subscribe to your goddamn newsletter, certainly not before you let me read your god. damn. article.
No, I will not subscribe to your goddamn newsletter, certainly not before you let me read your god. damn. article.
lmao
or getting up and going to the kitchen during commercial breaks
Never had a problem with ads before,that was until websites started feeling the need to litter their websites with ads all over the damn place.You gotta go through all that crap just to get to the content you're actually looking for. Furthermore, i always keep my ad blocker on, i don't give a fuck.
There was a compromise a few years ago that happened on fairly popular newsites. It's not a matter of whether a site is "legitimate" or not. All it takes is an ad host letting some shit pass by and a site will become unsafe.
We all know we're being naughty when we use them. The price for looking at ad-funded websites is seeing ads. We don't like the price, so rather than refuse to pay it and go elsewhere, we find cheeky ways to consume the content without paying.
We can dress it up as a righteous crusade or whatever until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that we want to enjoy the content without paying, and it's easy and socially acceptable to do so, so we do.
We can dress it up as a righteous crusade or whatever until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that we want to enjoy the content without paying, and it's easy and socially acceptable to do so, so we do.
We're not talking about gaming piracy.
I'll give a specific example... Yu-Gi-Oh anime is available from the license holders on YouTube with ads. According to the forum rules, it's okay to discuss setting up an ad blocker specifically to get around YouTube ads, it's not however okay to suggest downloading the episodes outside of YouTube to avoid ads.
Again, this is a very specific example. I'm all for ad blocking, and I'm against pirating things available to purchase, I just think it can lead to really word edge cases like this.
Last edited:
Here's the deal, businesses have to adapt to new technology. It goes both ways, let the market regulate itself. Consumers have made it quite clear that they hate online ads so advertisers will need to change. Banners ads and pop ups aren't even that effective anymore, the novelty is dead. Make the ads work for your attention, not lazily slapped on a generic digital marketplace. KFC is making a freaking dating sim on Steam! Nobody is blocking that.
Fuck no!!! It's not bad here on ERA but I don't need shit popping up every damn second and even more so when sites don't do the due diligence and allow malware ads on their site
I've said it before and I'll say it again, while it's unfortunate that good sites lose ad revenue, advertisers and ad hosts brought this upon themselves. Ads have become more obtrusive and obnoxious at every opportunity, and not just recently; pop-up blockers became a necessity early on due the complete hell that a lot of sites were becoming. Moreover, while some people might complain that visiting a site without viewing ads is stealing their bandwidth, what about adverts that steal mine? The amount of autoplaying video ads on mobile is becoming a real pain considering that a lot of people have limited data plans.
Until the day comes when advertisers and hosts are regulated and held to a code of ethics, it is perfectly moral to use ad blockers.
Until the day comes when advertisers and hosts are regulated and held to a code of ethics, it is perfectly moral to use ad blockers.
I remember someone said that muting commercial breaks was basically stealing.
No more immoral than locking your door.
If the ads could be guaranteed to be safe, with no malware, and no sudden redirects, and just stayed in their designated ad space and try to sell stuff then we'd have no problem. I've even clicked and bought stuff off well-behaved ads before.
But we don't live in that world. We live in the one where an ad-blocker is essential for computer security.
Ad-blockers are a symptom. Maclious ads are the disease.
If the ads could be guaranteed to be safe, with no malware, and no sudden redirects, and just stayed in their designated ad space and try to sell stuff then we'd have no problem. I've even clicked and bought stuff off well-behaved ads before.
But we don't live in that world. We live in the one where an ad-blocker is essential for computer security.
Ad-blockers are a symptom. Maclious ads are the disease.
I can see the immorality argument, especially when you compare it to something like entertainment piracy.
On the other hand, I don't feel like the inherent tacit agreement of ad-supported materials is met by sites that host actively malicious ads that degrade my computer's performance or put me at risk of malware.
The strongest stance is just to skip the sites that host those ads in the first place, since it's not like you can't have non-predatory ad-supported websites.
On the other hand, I don't feel like the inherent tacit agreement of ad-supported materials is met by sites that host actively malicious ads that degrade my computer's performance or put me at risk of malware.
The strongest stance is just to skip the sites that host those ads in the first place, since it's not like you can't have non-predatory ad-supported websites.
Nope, every time I use a browser without ad-block, I instantly remember why I use it. The constant bombardment of ads absolutely everywhere you look is ridiculous. Feels like you are constantly staring at billboards.
Been adblocking for 15 years or so, will never stop. The argument that "it's like ads in a newspaper" doesn't hold water - if newspaper ads dripped dogshit on my carpet and gave me a disease then this opinion would hold up.
I don't mind ads (that are not security risks). It's just all in how they are presented. For example: Reddit's ads are just within the feed so they don't bother me much. I also like the ad style on theoutline.com.
Exactly, newspaper ads are also placed and checked by the newspaper staff. It wasn't a computer that served the ad, there's a certain art form to organizing a newspaper's production. Ink on ink, no flashy new medium that clashes with the existing publication. Can you imagine if a print ad poked you or squirted water in your face?
It's not immoral. Nobody has a right to a successful business, if your business model can be circumvented then maybe it needs to change. The bigger problem is that too much is given for free, only a few will stand behind the cost of thier product. Internet begger culture was a mistake.
If ads were erased from existance people would find ways to make it work.
But as is ads are invasive, they waste bandwidth, they profile, track and generally serve no purpose to the end user. They're a convinience tax and at worst an attack vector. Nobody needs to apologize for blocking.
If ads were erased from existance people would find ways to make it work.
But as is ads are invasive, they waste bandwidth, they profile, track and generally serve no purpose to the end user. They're a convinience tax and at worst an attack vector. Nobody needs to apologize for blocking.
Personally, I don't use an ad blocker. I just don't generally visit sites that have shitty ads. I wouldn't presume to be immune to ads, but they also don't seem to bother me as much as they do other people. I kind of forget that ads are on Era at all most of the time unless a post/thread calls them out.
The other side of it is that I also don't get upset at places that paywall their content. If anything, I'd prefer that everything went to paywalls. I subscribe to a couple of larger sites/news orgs and I regularly contribute to Patreons for things I'm watching for those that have that option.
But I'm also in a position where I can afford to pay for the content I consume. My assumption is the vast majority of people either can't, or just won't (because they've been conditioned to devalue content/services as things race to the lowest price point possible).
tl;dr -- It's a shitty situation. You're not evil if you use ad-blockers, but you can also choose not to consume content with ads. Also, try to find a way to do right by the people who create the content you enjoy so that they can, you know, eat.
The other side of it is that I also don't get upset at places that paywall their content. If anything, I'd prefer that everything went to paywalls. I subscribe to a couple of larger sites/news orgs and I regularly contribute to Patreons for things I'm watching for those that have that option.
But I'm also in a position where I can afford to pay for the content I consume. My assumption is the vast majority of people either can't, or just won't (because they've been conditioned to devalue content/services as things race to the lowest price point possible).
tl;dr -- It's a shitty situation. You're not evil if you use ad-blockers, but you can also choose not to consume content with ads. Also, try to find a way to do right by the people who create the content you enjoy so that they can, you know, eat.
It feels like you've got your head screwed on backwards. Advertising itself is the necessary evil, not as blocking.
Yes. People need to get themselves, their products and their services out there somehow in order to get recognition, fame or sales. Advertising is pretty much just rudimentary mind control though, an evil that gets worse and worse the more effective it is. It's gotta be done, can't make money if nobody knows who you are, that's the neccisary part of a neccissary evil. Let's not forget the "evil" part though. Cannot blame someone for wanting to keep evil out of their lives.
Yeah, I'm not putting my device through a 50/50 chance of getting malware/virus through an ad.
Want to have non-intrusive ads from a reliable ad company? Okay, cool, I'll give your site a shot without ad block.
Want to plaster auto play ads and make my malwarebytes go off like crazy? Yeah, I'll keep it enabled on your site forever.
Want to have non-intrusive ads from a reliable ad company? Okay, cool, I'll give your site a shot without ad block.
Want to plaster auto play ads and make my malwarebytes go off like crazy? Yeah, I'll keep it enabled on your site forever.
Advertising is evil? Advertising is mind control?
I think we're operating on pretty different planes of existence here.
It's the perpetual cat and mouse of capitalism. The unstoppable consumption vs the immutable commercials. We give each other meaning. Sometimes they win...and then sometimes we lose...
I think there are several types of ads that are acceptable but websites that does are not common. ResetEra falls on the acceptable side, but even then you will always see an add that hijacked my phone browser several times. Pop up ads too. Some websites are so littered with ads they become unusable. Most tech websites are bombarding me with requests to location and enabling notification through chrome. It's insane.
I work in online advertising so my perspective is obviously skewed, but I'll never begrudge people for using it. Online ads made their own problem and they're paying for it.
That said, I can't have it on my work computer and I can't say that my user experience is demonstrably worse than when I use my personal pc. Sketchy places get sketchy ads(for obvious reasons), but the vast majority of what I browse is perfectly fine.
People who are crazy about adblock just strike me as people who are obsessive about hand sanitizer.
In an ideal world, adblockers wouldn't block safe frames(or at least have an option to allow it) since that kind of advertising dispells most folks' fears when it comes to invasive ads.
That said, I can't have it on my work computer and I can't say that my user experience is demonstrably worse than when I use my personal pc. Sketchy places get sketchy ads(for obvious reasons), but the vast majority of what I browse is perfectly fine.
People who are crazy about adblock just strike me as people who are obsessive about hand sanitizer.
In an ideal world, adblockers wouldn't block safe frames(or at least have an option to allow it) since that kind of advertising dispells most folks' fears when it comes to invasive ads.
Last edited:
What about hiring someone to scissor out all the ads on your press before reading it?
If I go on a website and get pop ups saying stuff like "congrats Amazon customer!" Or "congrats Verizon user!" (This only happens when mobile browsing with out ad blocker on)
Like I sometimes get on some of the sites linked here or even on this site itself, I turn the ad blockers back on. Every now and then I turn them off on here until it happens again and then I turn them right back on.
Like I sometimes get on some of the sites linked here or even on this site itself, I turn the ad blockers back on. Every now and then I turn them off on here until it happens again and then I turn them right back on.
This is case-in-point why I use adblock. I'll support sites I like in another way, but if ads would tone it down, I'd turn off my adblocker.
I bought Era clear because not having ads here on the site I probably frequent most is worth it to me.
Damn right, if certain pop-ups and ads weren't so egregious and down right harmful it would never had to have been blocked in the first place.
I get the other side of the coin but when people on the internet have options like patreon for their actual fans to support them I feel like ads on the internet are one of the worst ways to support yourself online.
Unless there's some other, more effective way of making money, I'm saying it's immoral.
The "TV advertisement" analogy is a weird one, because I'm 99% that's not how advertisements work. If I understand correctly, TV stations are paid to have advertisements air on them, whereas websites only get paid when the ads are actually loaded.
That being said, I still use it, especially on sketchier sites. If a website is really anal about me not using an ad-blocker, I just won't use the website. I'm a sucker when websites are all like "hey handsome, thanks for enjoying our content, but we'd really appreciate it if you took the ad-blocker off to help us survive"
Nothing turns me off from a website more when they INSIST I turn the ad-blocker off. Call it selfish, I guess.
The "TV advertisement" analogy is a weird one, because I'm 99% that's not how advertisements work. If I understand correctly, TV stations are paid to have advertisements air on them, whereas websites only get paid when the ads are actually loaded.
That being said, I still use it, especially on sketchier sites. If a website is really anal about me not using an ad-blocker, I just won't use the website. I'm a sucker when websites are all like "hey handsome, thanks for enjoying our content, but we'd really appreciate it if you took the ad-blocker off to help us survive"
Nothing turns me off from a website more when they INSIST I turn the ad-blocker off. Call it selfish, I guess.
The moral angle comes from the idea that people should be paid for their work. Some web sites depend on ad revenue. Blocking their ads is taking their work for free. I know Era broadly sees that as wrong.
That said, I will block any and every ad that I can. It's not nice, but it's also not my problem to solve. Internet advertising is an intrusive nightmare and a security risk, so tough luck, web sites.
It's not the only way that sites have to gain revenue, and websites did in fact do this to themselves. Even if one is willing to question the morality of denying a website their income stream, the poll entirely deserves to be skewed in that direction on that basis alone.
But even aside from the raw semantic issues, there's just only so many times I can deal with so-called professional websites trying to feed me malware by the shovelful. The poll should be even more lopsided than it is. I don't care if it's more cost efficient for a website to hand off their screenspace to a bunch of cybercriminals than it is to establish crowdfunding, paid options, sponsorships. . .some form of ad vetting just in general. . .if websites want to pee in the pool with the current ad system, they're just going to have to swim in it.
I have Firefox on my phone and had disabled some protections for Era so I could see embedded tweets and cause I use the site a lot. But the other day I literally could not open Era for more than a few minutes before being bombarded with a pop up/redirect. Had to clear my browser and enabled all protections. It was literally unusable.