I read a blog post by Marco Arment on the ethics of ad-blocking, and while I generally enjoyed his post, it was his use of the term "ethics" that gave me pause. Is it really potentially unethical (i.e. morally wrong) to block an ad? I understand the consequence if every internet user were able to block ads 100% effectively might quickly lead to a very different internet, but is that wrong? The other day at a doctor's office, I thumbed through the ads of a People magazine so quickly, I effectively "blocked" them. If anything, the waste (IMHO) of paper in a magazine more ads than article was the offense there. I routinely mute my television and pay attention to some electronic device when commercials come on, and don't consider myself a monster for doing so.
So where is all this rambling going? I guess it's just I seem to be seeing more and more online discussion of the right and wrong, aka "ethics", of ad and tracker blocking, and I'm not seeing a moral dilemma here.
Sort: Top
[–] G4 1 point 12 points 13 points (+13|-1) ago
No. It's my device and I choose what displays on it.
[–] Mr_Lovette 1 point 3 points 4 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.
[–] G4 0 points 3 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.
[–] Bitchrod 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This is an important point, that some ads are actually security risks.
[–] FuttsMcButts 0 points 2 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.
[–] Xon 0 points 9 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.
[–] massiveprivilege 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Without ads(money) lot of the bad elements on the internet would disappear. People would start bringing content because they are passionate about it and not because they are paid to do it. Reddit went to shit because they are preparing the site to be more "ad friendly". Ad-block all the way.
[–] 1765627? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Is it ethically wrong to turn off the tv when the 5 minutes of ads come on to the commercial you're watching?
[–] WirDyt6 ago (edited ago)
I have no obligation to consume ads on any media, radio, TV, CD, DVD, internet. I have not contracted to view them. I have not agreed to view them. I can avoid viewing them in any way I want. I can turn my head, leave the room, or skip them, or flip channels, or not download them, or prevent them from playing or executing.
I have no moral or ethical obligation to the advertisers. They may exercise their right to free speech.
But, they do have a moral and ethical obligation to me to not interfere with my enjoyment of life, which includes not being bothered by ads, If they do interfere with my pursuit of happiness, by forcing me to watch ads or download them, I will take my business elsewhere.
[–] 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.
[–] Bfwilley ago
NO NONO No no no! That's my bandwidth you're sucking on and I'll block it if I want.
[–] Pawn ago
I block them because I couldn't care any less about the ads. I'm not clicking on your ad and I'm not buying anything. I'm not a sale.