1
12

[–] G4 1 point 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

No. It's my device and I choose what displays on it.

1
3

[–] Mr_Lovette 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

This is the right answer for me. I am not about to be forced into potentially receiving malware because the web host doesn't moderate their ads. Nor am I going to be blasted in the ears with auto play sound ads.

0
3

[–] G4 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I die a little inside when Captcha's have video ads that have to play before the text is shown on the bottom of the video.

0
1

[–] Bitchrod 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This is an important point, that some ads are actually security risks.

0
2

[–] FuttsMcButts 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Devils advocate here: Yes. It's their service and they choose what to display on it.

I think its unethical for forced video ads on mobile as you are wasting that users data against their will but otherwise I think the site owners have somewhat of a right to ad revenue.

note: I personally still have my ad blocker always on, near no exception, I also think depending on ad revenue to keep sites up isn't exactly a business model for today.

0
9

[–] Xon 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

No. I'm not opposed to ads, but intrusive advertising ruins that for everyone. Web sites need to give a compelling reason to disable adblock.

1
-1

[–] SK10 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I would say it depends on your personal morals. I won't try to come up with some reason that makes it okay to block ads, it's simply more convenient and gives a better experience. I block ads and don't think twice about it, but others may and that's up to them.

0
0

[–] Bfwilley ago 

NO NONO No no no! That's my bandwidth you're sucking on and I'll block it if I want.

1
-1

[–] GOT 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I think a website could easily block regular content delivery to those users who who block adverts. I've seen it done on some video streaming websites. So putting that into the equation , I don't feel unethical.

0
0

[–] Bigbob ago 

ads support the sites, if they can't make money with those ads, then they'll disappear or go behind a pay wall. Then where will we get out content?

0
1

[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Users are obviously rejecting that model as it currently stands, though. Advertisers need to revise their model or accept sucking at a dry teat. If people who can't make money stop making content or shitloads of things get paywalled, there will still be people gnerating content out of sheer passion.

1
-1

[–] HowAboutShutUp 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

My computer, my internet connection, my rules.

If web ads were more like highway billboards (easy to ignore, giving them your attention is totally optional, they're not in the way of what you're doing) than tv commercials made by third rate hucksters with no quality control and rampant fraud and malware, on a tv that runs the same ads on every channel, I might consider not blocking ads. Advertisers don't have a right to advertise to me, and they don't "deserve" my attention, they need to earn it.

Basically fuck them and the horse they rode in on, and if they want to cry about it, fuck them twice over. I hope the pain gets worse as more and more people block ads til they're forced to quit being unreasonable fuckfaces about the way they advertise. Ads should be something that I see when I look away from the content I came for (i.e. ads should be banished to the bottoms and corners of sites), not what I have to make an effort to avoid just to read/see what I actually went to a webpage for.

0
0

[–] 1773418? ago 

It might be an ethical concern, but for me, it's trumped by the greater ethical and legal concern that advertisers want to hack my computer to make more money.

They violate the social contract, they lose.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)