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.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.