It is interesting to interpret not using adblock as capitalist duty. I see it more as a way to respect the terms of the content producer. "But the page is bloated and unusable with ads". Then refuse the contract. Use another service.
Inventing your own terms about the cost of something produced by someone else is never ok.
"guilting me into watching ads will never work". It is great that you accept your own behavior. That doesn't make it right.
> It is interesting to interpret not using adblock as capitalist duty. I see it more as a way to respect the terms of the content producer.
The author has no lordship over my computer or my mailbox. I can toss out junk mail. I can even more easily program my computer to toss out ads. Programmability is a very natural feature of a computer, so why not use it? My home, my computer, my rules.
If you make it more difficult for me to remove ads, then yes, I will eventually stop getting anything from you at all. I'm fine with this arms race. If you want to make your ads so obnoxious as to make them very difficult to ignore, then I'm fine with ignoring all of you.
I will never be fine with having consumerism forcibly shoved down my throat. As long as I can program my computer to ignore ads, we can enjoy an uneasy armistice. If you give me a donation or subscription button for your website or service, we can both be much happier.
Be sure that this arm race is happening. How do you find the overall quality of web media today? Are you satisfied?
As a business, once you realize that 1% of your users are watching ads, what are you going to do? You can either go for a paywall, integrate sponsored content provided as articles, or aim at the less tech savy internet users with click-bait articles.
So what is your solution? You seem satisfied with the current trend of poor quality articles and businesses slowly going bankrupt while this "uneasy armistice" lasts. Why would you be at war with those websites anyway?
The author has no lordship over my computer or my mailbox. I can toss out junk mail. I can even more easily program my computer to toss out ads. Programmability is a very natural feature of a computer, so why not use it? My home, my computer, my rules.
This reasoning falls apart pretty quickly when you take into account that you are adblocking content you specifically requested. Effectively, your justifications are the same as those who pirate media, "Give me your content, but I don't feel I should have to pay for it." Pretending there is a difference is a bit dishonest, in my opinion.
I'm fine with paying for things. I mentioned donation buttons and paywalls. I'm not fine with making my computer do things I do not want it to do or forcing me to watch things I do not need to see.
Don't be disingenous. I'm saying that when I merely visit certain websites, they try to manipulate my computer to do or display things certain things I may not agree to. They try to make my computer run certain code that doesn't suit well with me or make my browser show images or text I don't want to see.
I consider unsolicited advertising pernicious and inherently morally wrong. Manipulating people into buying things they don't need creates an awful consumerist society of people who spend their lives acquiring junk that doesn't make them happy. I have never asked to be advertised to most things that are being addressed to me. I don't think this means I should ostracise myself from society when I can just adblock.
More superficially, if I decided to change font faces or sizes on some website, would you say I've breached a certain social contract of how the website author decided I should see that website? Am I robbing them of their artistic integrity by not honouring their font choices? If I think advertising is pernicious, and in fact react negatively and with anger to most advertising, am I doing them a horrible disfavour by changing the page to not show those ads?
I don't think I am. Once the bytes arrive on my computer, I should have the right to display those bytes in whatever form suits me. I hate ads and savage consumerism so much, that it's really in everyone's best interest if I don't see them.
I understand this thinking, but everyone who believes they should be able to get their content for free without ads will soon find themselves out of sites to visit due to them not being able to sustain themselves.
I'm not sure why people think they should be able to get no-ad sites for free, I get it, but you should understand the repercussions of thinking this way.
I'd love to know how a high traffic site is supposed to sustain itself with millions of hits every month without advertising if the site itself is free and the users would otherwise scoff at paying? If it were an easy fix it would be happening already.
It's offensive for you to place your opinion in the context of "right and wrong", specifically that your opinion is "right".
If content owners want to block adblocker: They can! They absolutely can use javascript to detect ad-blockers and prevent the majority of all of them from visiting the site unless the adblock is disabled.
Sites like Hulu.com use anti-adblock to ensure that their terms are met and that users view advertisements or are barred from content.
Instead of making a moral argument against the legal and acceptable use of browser extensions, you should be examining the business decisions that lead to intentionally and strategically choosing to NOT BLOCK users who use adblock.
"Inventing your own terms about the cost of something produced by someone else is never ok."
I totally agree, which is why I question your invented ethical cost regarding browser extensions and advertisements.
Their terms are clear, and if they want to block certain users, they are free to do that. You don't need to invent some silly ethical argument where none needs to exist. If adblocking was against the law (like, say, shoplifting) then your argument would have merit. But it's not.
Your argument is similar, in my view, to saying "it's unethical to go to Best Buy to window shop and later purchase on a website. You should respect the terms and businesses intentions of a brick and mortar store and pay extra since you walked in the door".
I agree with about when you say that businesses should not ignore the fact that adblock is wildy used when making decisions.
Imagine now that if a working drm solution existed for films, it would be ok to download the unprotected ones for free? Surely a technical solution is way of making a business profitable, but not an argument to justify a bad behavior.
And yes, even if moral is irrelevant to businesses, it is still something worth considering as individuals.
"Imagine now that if a working drm solution existed for films, it would be ok to download the unprotected ones for free? Surely a technical solution is way of making a business profitable, but not an argument to justify a bad behavior."
Apples and Oranges.
If the movie studio offered an officially hosted version of the movie with advertisements for free online, and I watched without advertisements on their official site (similar to a news organization posting their news online for free, with ads), then yes it's ok. They can (and do! See: Crackle) block that particular behavior from working very simply.
But, to go pirate a movie from a third source? That's not only wrong it's actually illegal.
I don't go to "thenewsbay" and download illegal copies of the New York Times, so it's unfair to make a comparison to pirated movies.
Inventing your own terms about the cost of something produced by someone else is never ok.
"guilting me into watching ads will never work". It is great that you accept your own behavior. That doesn't make it right.