đĸ Keb
Is adblock stealing? Do you use adblock? Why? Sure, advertisers don't have the right to your attention, but don't the content creators have the right to your financial support?
đ LÊo
Adblock is not stealing anything, it is just rehashing what's been sent to your computer for free. You're not implicitly signing any contract or accepting a terms of use when you access a web link. Adblock is not hacking into a company's servers to give you ad-free content. It may be harsh, but unless you've signed a contract or hold intellectual property you don't have the right to compensation for anything. So it may be immoral, but it should not be illegal to use adblock.
đ Sly
I actually stopped reading the news and watching TV because of ads (And because it is always biased), i don't want to be advertised some bullshit that i don't need. If i need something, i will look and search for it, i never bought something because i saw an ad about it. Ads are annoying and don't provide any value to my life, they just make my web browsing experience a nightmare. If the content is worth it, put a paywall or setup a Patreon account, nothing wrong with that.
đ¨ī¸ Fui
I agree wholeheartedly. We accept ads as people once accepted smog, as part of the package of living a modern life. But as smog, ads are just pollution. They're the subproduct of an unhealthy consumer environment with detrimental consequences to our mental well being.
đĩ Max
Agree with you. I've stopped using an adblocker, I pay for the press I read (which is a large part of my web consumption) and watch YouTube ads (even though I complain about it). Living in Europe I can generally disable cookies so I'm not concerned about privacy. I don't understand people who want a free *and* ad free web. I'm glad you started this thread but we are a minority.
đ¨ī¸ Fui
False dichotomy. Using an adblocker does not amount to an endorsement of consuming everything for free. Adblockers are to today's web what masks are to coronavirus.
đĨ Mr
I never agreed to terms with random websites which stipulates that I must view their ads to view their content. So no, it's not stealing. Websites can detect ad block in most cases and will block content if they feel strongly about it. Ultimately, the widespread use of ad block should indicate that customers don't like it, and it would be in everyone's best interest to find another way.
đ¨đģâđģ Moroni
The way I see it is that we don't have a say on what we want to share and what we want to keep to ourselves. Ad providers are invasive tracking machines. The only option we have is to block them, there is no middle ground. And looking at the content creator side, I bet most of them are also not happy to be dependent on ads to be financially sound. Unfortunately, they also have their hands tied and don't have many viable alternatives.
đ¨ī¸ Fui
I not only use it, I find absolutely necessary for my overall well being. For me, treating this as an ethical dilemma is just another clever trick by advertisers to manipulate our emotions. So they want us to think we're doing wrong by not being exposed to not only unwanted but sometimes really unhealthy information? My mental health is of utmost importance. And if I truly need something, I'll go looking for it. Otherwise, no, they have no right to my attention.
đĸ Keb
Yes, I agree the advertisers don't have a right to your attention. But what about the creators who depend on the ad revenue? Do you think they have a right to your financial support? I'm using YouTube as an example because there was a recent HN thread about it. IF you use adblock on YouTube, wouldn't it be more ethical if you at least pay for YouTube premium to help with server costs / support the content creators?
đ¨ī¸ Fui
If you've been paying attention to the medium, you already know that no content creator relies on advertisers for their living. They rely, as they should, in their patrons (mostly through Patreon). And that's the kind of model I subscribe. Advertisers want us to they're the necessary middlemen. They're not.
đĸ Keb
But what about all those one-off videos you watch? Do you subscribe to EVERY Patreon? And what if they don't have Patreons or Paypal or whatever
đ¨ī¸ Fui
One off videos are just that, one off. If they were relying on one off viewers becoming eyeballs to make money, they're the ones with the moral failing, not me.
đĸ Keb
It's not to say that they rely on their viewers to make money, only that they are deserving of your money. But you circumvented the system that would've ensured that they received compensation for you consuming their content.
đ¨ī¸ Fui
I didn't circumvent the system: the system was broken in the first place. I'm not doing the wrong, but righting it up where it can be fixed (my end). Again: this is a matter of mental health and well being, something that no advertiser has the right to mess with (and they by trade do).
đ¨âđģ Matthieu V.
For me it's not stealing if you support in an other way, also adtech is toxic for the web..
đ¨ī¸ Fui
It's a false dilemma. They're investing in content creation in hopes they'll capture our attention. They're investing upfront, in hopes to recoup that by what advertisers will be paying. It's a gamble. That we're able to consume the content without watching the adverts is just an unlucky side of this kind of business. If I open a bookstore with free coffee in hopes of capturing buyers, and people go there for the coffee and not the books, maybe I have a bad business plan.
đĸ Keb
Maybe you do have a bad business plan doing that. But I have a choice as the consumer to say, "hey, maybe it's not nice to come here only for the coffee. I'll buy a book or a pastry every now and then to show my support."
đ¨ī¸ Fui
Again, the burden is not on the consumers, but on the producers. In my example, if my bookshop's only worth is the free coffee, no wonder it's doomed to fail. And shaming you onto thinking you're just a bad freeloader does not make my bookshop any better or viable.
đĸ Keb
That's a pretty unempathetic and Darwinian way to look at it. Essentially you're saying "it's not my problem" and thus you hold no responsibility to abide by the implied contract that you *will* look at ads.
đ¨ī¸ Fui
Ads are a scourge. They are not needed, they are not good. That we are thrown into this model and take it to be normal is a perversion of what is right. I'm not unempathetic with creators. If I really value their work, I contribute to it with what I can. That a lot of content is available and I can consume it without seeing ads is just a reflex of mass production of content. If, for instance, most of the content available was to be paid upfront, I wouldn't consume it anyway.
đĸ Keb
But do you support every website you visit that has ads? Do you send money to every YouTuber whose video you watch?
đ¨âđģ Matthieu V.
This is something I should do...
đ§ Nrmn
They have the right to financial support but they don't have the right to rip me off my privacy.
đĸ Keb
But do you then donate/pay for every site you use adblock on? Like for example, YouTube content creators depend on advertisements OR Youtube Premium to derive payment from your views.
đĸ Keb
Right but why the exception on YouTube, and don't you still use it on other sites that may depend on ad revenue to keep their servers running?