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 →
[–] 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.