Dilemma: Ethics of Using Ad Removal Plugins

LBoba on 19/09/2015 - 06:08
Last edited 19/09/2015 - 06:47 by 1 other user

With the release of iOS 9, Safari now comes with the the option to install ad blocking software. I don't know whether Android or Windows Phone have this feature yet but even if they didn't, I assume they will consider implementing it soon (though Google does rely on ad revenues itself).

I installed one ad blocker and first thoughts.

Pros:

  • No annoying ads (eg. SMH).
  • Websites load faster / save on bandwidth.

Cons:

  • Websites don't get the revenue that they 'deserve' and might go bust. For example it blocked all the ozbargain ads and I'd prefer to keep this website alive!!!

What are your thoughts on the 'ethics' of ad blocking? Would you install an ad blocker? What do you expect websites to do in response to this 'threat' to their revenue model?

Poll Options expired

  • 51
    Yes I'd definitely install ad blocking software if it is available.
  • 4
    I'd install ad blocking software if they gave us the option of which sites to block.
  • 4
    Not installing as I want to give websites their ad revenue.
  • 5
    Not installing as I can't be bothered.
Internet

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 19/09/2015 - 07:56
    +5

    A very widely reblogged reblog about AdBlock

  • scotty on 19/09/2015 - 08:49
    +5

    Being on the side of publishers of free-to-use websites, I have much to say about this. I have actually thinking of doing a similar poll. Personally I use 3 browsers. My main Chrome browser I don't use an ad blocker (so I can know what ads are served in various different websites). I also have 2 Firefox profiles that use AdBlock Plus and Firefox's own privacy protection.

    Well, for Pros

    No annoying ads (eg. SMH)

    Yes annoying indeed, especially those taking over the full page or start playing audio on load. However some ads are more than annoying — people are blocking ads because some ad networks have been used as attack vectors for malwares. Not just small dodgy networks (lots of them, we have been contacted by those on daily basis), but sometimes malvertising also slipped through Google's AdSense (as AdSense is more than just display AdWords ads these days but also other networks).

    Websites load faster / save on bandwidth

    Oh yeah. Ads & tracking scripts = lots of Javascripts from multiple domains. That translates to DNS lookup delays, new HTTP connection latency, asset downloading time and Javascript execution time. Bad on the desktop and worse on the mobile. A lot of ad networks have their tracking script coded by amateurs that aren't optimised for speed and latency.

    Not just the ad network though. Facebook like button? Tweet button? On OzBargain we used to have an array of "social sharing plugins" below the deal content. Those simply take too many HTTP round trips to load so we just settle for plain colour buttons without loading anything from various social media sites.

    Many people also don't like to be tracked by 3rd party cookies. Re-targeting ads is an example. Personally I don't dislike them — their purpose is to get the visitors to go back to the websites they have visited, and I heard they work great for some advertisers. However they don't capture the intention why the visitor came to them in the first place. You do a lot of "research" when you use OzBargain and the ads showing up afterwards can be annoying, especially from sites I don't intend to go back to.

    Now onto the Cons,

    Websites don't get the revenue that they 'deserve' and might go bust

    Unfortunately, at the moment it's the advertising revenue that keeps the light on for a lot of free-to-use websites, especially small publishers that do not have other revenue streams. Those who say "oh, free Internet was there before advertising" have no idea what they are talking about — advertising was there long before the first website. It's about as old as we have publishing. And they have not seen the state of Internet back in '94-'95 — there wasn't really anything there. To me, online advertising is really the necessary evil (and unfortunately OzBargain is funded by this necessary evil).

    So where would the publishers go if the advertising revenue dries up?

    Some websites would just shutdown. Gigaom?

    Some might change their "business model". However,

    • How many are willing to pay subscription fee to a website, especially small blog sites or new sites with no existing users? How many are willing to do micropayments to all the free websites they use everyday?
    • Some websites might choose more aggressive advertising to counter dropping impressions due to ad blocking. When your number of impressions drops, they want to get higher revenue per impression. Unfortunately those ads (full page takeover, auto-play videos, popups) are often why some people installed ad blockers in the first place. Once ad blocker is installed, it also blocks more clean ads on websites that don't want to get down to the aggressive path.
    • There are some other ways to monetise websites, but IMHO they are just about as evil if not more. Native ads, where sponsors pay for advertorial that looks just like normal content? Data trading, where some companies would buy anonymised user behaviour? Just yesterday I have two companies contacting me — one wants to buy hashed email addresses + some logs, and another one wants to integrate our database with their email campaigns. We have been tempted by "you can earn so much by selling us this and that information" proposals almost every week. We can ignore them because we are doing fine with ads. However they can be so tempting to some websites with declining ad revenues. Also note that this route is usually not available to very small publishers.

    Anyway what I am trying to say is, you can't simply just ask the publishing business to "adapt".

    • muncan on 19/09/2015 - 09:38
      +1

      I think OzBargain has nailed it, rewarding loyalty by providing an option to opt-out of banner advertisements within our account settings. I'm sure you make 100x the lost revenue from my traffic through the daily referrals to OzBargain deals I pester my peers with daily. Pay it forward.

  • inherentchoice on 19/09/2015 - 09:11

    If everyone blocked ads then all the people behind the websites that rely on ad revenue wouldn't get paid.

    Then they would have to implement a paywall or something worse than ads, survive through fundraising and donations, or just cease to exist.

    • Cheeper on 19/09/2015 - 12:05

      The average user would have no idea what ad blocking software was.
      Some sites grossly overdo their ability to present ads.

    • Baebs on 19/09/2015 - 20:36

      Then let them do so. Popups, excessive ads, paywalls etc. are what drive users away - crappy business models are the reason for their struggling existance.

      I couldn't care less for such sites.

  • muncan on 19/09/2015 - 09:16
    +1

    I would much prefer non-invasive advertising through subliminal messaging and mind control techniques. e.g. Siri selling us stuff while we're sleeping (or just buying them for us - she has our credit card details).

    Humour aside, I suppose I wouldn't mind a little popup from OzBargain when I'm on a payment page for a product reminding me of a relevant discount code / cash rewards / cheaper elsewhere. Can we have a browser plugin for that please? I'd buy that! :-)

  • NancyCat on 19/09/2015 - 09:53
    +1

    Same as taping/recording TV shows and fast-forwarding all the ads. Or skip/don't read the ads in the newspapers/magazines…can't see any ethical issues.

  • Forfiet on 19/09/2015 - 10:05
    +1

    All I can say is I used to get viruses regularly through ads, the legit sites of course will try and track down the offending ad/ad service……but it's a bit late by then eh? Format and repeat again….. Past three year (at the minimum) no issues….

    • muncan on 19/09/2015 - 10:15

      Now we probably get people-viruses from that person who puts junk mail in the letterbox :-P

      • kryptoz on 20/09/2015 - 15:59

        I have an AdBlocker on my mailbox — just a sign that reads "Any Advertising Material Will Be Put Directly Into The Bin", it is 99% effective (thanks to a tiny number of junk delivery f*tards who cannot read).

  • scotty on 19/09/2015 - 10:41

    Interesting news this morning - Marco Arment, developer of content blocker Peace, took the app off AppStore. Maybe he found that The Deck that he was running on his website is also blocked by his own app…

    • muncan on 19/09/2015 - 11:03

      Flappy Bird syndrome :-)

  • Cheeper on 19/09/2015 - 12:07
    +1

    The odd ad on a site does not bother me but some sites really overdo it. They make their pages so slow to open and confusing to use, they are the ones that will encourage people to use ad blocking software.

  • victorwilson on 19/09/2015 - 15:23
    +1

    Ad blockers have been around on Android for years, but in 2013, Google started kicking them off the Play Store. So it's safe to say they won't be coming to Android as a stock feature.

    Some ad blockers like AdAway and AdBlock Plus are still around, and working on rooted Android phones. These ad blockers are arguably more effective than the iOS implementation since they also block banner ads within apps.

    • kryptoz on 20/09/2015 - 16:04

      Even with a rooted phone, those apps are not easy to get working, and not as effective as the browser plugins. Ironically, Adblocking software is far more necessary on mobile devices than on a desktop, (due to limited, costly 4g data allowance, processing power, battery life, screensize, lack of a mouse to close popups) but Google and Mozilla have so far not allowed any plugins on their mobile browsers. Google may never do it, given their addiction to advertising revenue.

      • victorwilson on 20/09/2015 - 17:39

        those apps are not easy to get working, and not as effective as the browser plugins

        From my experience, the process is simple: just install the apk, grant Superuser permissions, click "Download files and apply ad blocking" and the app does the rest. Not sure which one you're talking about, but for AdAway, it's been very easy.

        I find adblocker apps very effective: on free apps such as file managers that usually require an in-app purchase to remove banner ads at the bottom, the banners are completely gone after adblocking is enabled. Some devs reserve a space in their UI where the ad usually goes, so that just appears as a blank space.

      • scotty on 20/09/2015 - 22:01

        but Google and Mozilla have so far not allowed any plugins on their mobile browsers…

        Maybe not Google, but Mozilla on Android has always supported add-ons. Adblock Plus for Mozilla on Android?

  • Axelstrife on 19/09/2015 - 15:53

    I have a question.
    How can sites like say ozbargain make money from me if i literally never click the ads?

    My reason main two reasons for using ad block on my computers are.

    1. I like website to look good not with a stupid ad in between content.

    2. Less risk of of malware or whatever else they can put into them.

    • scotty on 19/09/2015 - 16:45

      Some ads are CPM bids. For example at $1 impression RPM, each time you load an OzBargain page you robbed me $0.001! AdSense initially started as a CPC network, ie publishers only get paid when people click. However over the years advertisers (especially brands) want to get their logo/product shown on websites so they would also bid on the CPM basis, ie they pay for each impression.

      On OzBargain, CPM + Active View CPM happens to be around 50% of our ads revenue (according to Google). So yeah, it's significant.

      However both your reasons for using ad blocker are valid. Sorry I don't have a solution.

  • Lysander on 19/09/2015 - 19:35

    Definitely block it. I strongly dislike business models based on revenue. If you have a great website you do not need ad revenue as people will be HAPPY to pay for it as they perceive that they get value for their money.
    If you have a mediocre product, then that's tough.

    I would prefer it if this website had not gone so commercial and would have just kept to their affiliate income from deals.

    But as I have said before, I do think that posters should be rewarded more as of right rather than discretion and relying on winning prizes and awards.

    That's just my two cents.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/09/2015 - 23:44

      People hardly want to pay for anything, that's why website ads are there. I think ads are fine as long as they're not invasive like taking up the whole page etc.

      • Lysander on 20/09/2015 - 12:49

        If people have to they will.

        And most people pay, mostly for convenience. For example, how many people still buy MS office despite free alternatives.

    • onetwothreefour on 20/09/2015 - 10:32

      So would you prefer to pay to watch youtube videos instead of watching a short ad before the video starts?

      • Lysander on 20/09/2015 - 12:47

        Yes. And in case you don't know, that is the way Youtube is considering going. They are intending to introduce a pay model/pay wall.

        • kryptoz on 20/09/2015 - 16:18

          Youtube is already blocking copyright-infringing content and adding promotions for its own pay-per-view content. I can't see them adding a 'paywall' anytime soon, as they will be generating plenty of income from their new/current business model.

        • onetwothreefour on 20/09/2015 - 17:18

          I've started to see more and more videos with ads in the middle of them, it's that type of thing that will turn me off watching YouTube videos.

        • Lysander on 20/09/2015 - 18:08

          @kryzstoff:

          What do you think a paywall is?

          Some content is free but for other you pay. Rather than having it pay-per-view it will be divided into different areas: free and pay and the content of pay is behind the paywall.

        • Lysander on 20/09/2015 - 18:08

          @onetwothree:

          I agree. Hate it, too.

  • kryptoz on 20/09/2015 - 16:15

    Once advertisers, content providers and webhosts start to aggressively focus on revenue, they will be forced to deliver ads in a more discreet, subliminal way — for example product placement in media content and articles, which is a tried and tested method, or ads which are mixed together seamlessly with content that users want, much like how Twitter does it — Youtube is already beginning a transition to that new model and Facebook has a blend of both (old-style blockable ads and posts with advertising content).
    Adblocking will close some smaller websites with lazy web designers who cannot innovate and update their pages, (in much the same way, Google is forcing media-sharing/torrent sites onto the darkweb and bumping non-mobile friendly sites off their search results), but for the most part it is not endangering the content that people want.
    This is just another transition that web hosts have to adapt to in order to survive — technology is fundamentally about change and the internet continues to remain at the bleeding edge of technological change.

  • Diji1 on 26/09/2015 - 11:46
    Merged from Ethics of Advertising Full Stop

    Read this post https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/211933 TL;DR Should consumers allow advertisements in their web browser for some imagined debt of gratitude to the provider of the site. My take is GTFO: I don't want to view marketing full stop unless it's something like an upsell at a retailer I trust and use. You are deluding yourself if you believe simply just exposure to advertising does not have an effect: all the evidence says it affects decision making at an unconscious level leaving the victim consumer unaware that it has been a factor in their decision making.

    The fact that it's also a widely exploited attack surface as well ( http://www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/malvertising-is-cyberc… ) which can lead to ransomware and other worse life destroying theft as well makes it more unnattractive.

    Anyhow, reading that led me to recall this article which I gave another read: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/07/14/4273200.h… For any rabid atheists out there who just can't control themselves whenever someone brings up religion please be aware this isn't an article discussion religious belief.

    TL;DR is advertising is a resources based industry that can be compared to the fishing industry. The resource is human attention and the fish, being us, don't get a say.

    I was just wondering what people thought of this as it had an effect on me. I no longer have the slightest bit of guilt in telling unsolicited sellers and charity collectors to F*** O** to their face because I now see them as parasites vying for my attention lel :D

    If you are unaware of the wonders of advertising blocking you can use Adblock Edge (not plus) in Firefox, Adaway on Android from the F-droid market (requires root) or various apps from the Apple App Store which I haven't used.

    For users who are comfortable with the additional complexity (and tedium lel) you can add an addon to Firefox known as NoScript which will allow you to whitelist servers on a case by case basis which will make you more secure as well as prevent some forms of aggressive advertising (or attack vectors as I like to think of them).

    • RockyRaccoon on 26/09/2015 - 11:51
      +6

      Probably better than the ethics of advertising of, Comma's

      • NancyCat on 26/09/2015 - 11:58

        How about advertising of apostrophes?

      • scotty on 26/09/2015 - 12:23

        I also hated the advertising of full of Exclamation Marks!!!!!

    • Baysew on 26/09/2015 - 11:55

      TL;DR OP advertising the fact that they aren't fans of advertising.

    • DarkOz on 26/09/2015 - 11:59

      TL;DR;Bye

    • iridiumstem on 26/09/2015 - 12:07

      Where are the references to OP's older posts (I thought that was a must on the OP's post)?

    • spackbace on 26/09/2015 - 12:39

      Is this not just a dupe and belongs as a comment in the other thread?! You're discussing another post, so put it in that thread…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join