-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pachter talks about AdBlock
- Thread starter DarkoMaledictus
- Start date
According to AdMuncher I block, on my person desktop alone, about 2.2 gigs of ads a month. This doesn't include all the ads blocks on all PCs I own. This adds up.
Arkage
Banned
Many seem to want to put out the notion that "the customer is always right" while forgetting that they aren't actually a customer until they watch the ad. I'm approaching this from the moral perspective. Pop-up and ad blockers are immoral assuming it's a legitimate site using them in legitimate ways to generate revenue. Web browsers that use blockers by default are making an immoral choice for the sake of pulling more customers to their product. A thing being desirable or widely implemented doesn't make it moral. A solution to this may be allowing the popup to open behind the main window, and to be closed in a second or two. That way the site receives it's revenue and the viewer doesn't deal with the ad. In any case, it's seems like there should be a better solution than to outright deny all ad revenue.
No obligation to pay? If you click on the link to a website you are essentially demanding a service that they have no choice other than to provide assuming it's a public site. At some point these sites will say they have no obligation to serve you when you're using adblock, and you will find that they don't need you as much as you don't need them.
If the ads are maliciously designed, such as the ones used on most porn sites, then it changes the moral argument. But assuming it's a normal ad with no ill intentions, my argument stands.
The BBC gets money from BBC Worldwide, so it part of their income.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/2013/executive/finances/licence_fee.html
about 30% of their income does not come from the licence fee.
as you can also see, the license fee alone could not cover their cost.
The problem comes from the fact that advertising is the only method of revenue generation that many of these websites have. Give us another option, allow us, the users of the content, to pay directly for an ad-free experience, and I'm sure a good number of people would be happy to do it.
As it is, places like IGN and Facebook aren't made for us. We're not the customer. We're the product. The advertisers are the customer. Those websites exist to service them, not us.
As it is, places like IGN and Facebook aren't made for us. We're not the customer. We're the product. The advertisers are the customer. Those websites exist to service them, not us.
There is no option to opt-out of malicious ads and ad servers that track your browsing and just be served normal ads so your argument falls apart. Even reputable sites have had key loggers and worse embedded in ad banners. If ads weren't the number one source of malware infections, didn't track you and weren't obnoxious there wouldn't be a need for Adblock.
This is why the moral argument for not using Adblock has long since been lost.
It is not immoral to stop ads opening new windows without your consent!
It is not immoral to protect yourself from malware!
It is not immoral to stop random video ads that blast sound at you that appear on the side of a webpage hours after you have opened it!
It is not immoral to stop ads that automatically redirect you away from a website you are on (to the ad's website) when they load up!
Edit: Hahaha, holy shit!
GT is now showing one of the dodgy ads that was in GiantBomb video that was posted a few pages back.
LegendofLex
Member
I wouldn't say it's immoral. Ads are a known inconvenience, associated with known risks, and no one is forcing these sites to use an advertising-based business model. Not to mention that the amount of effectively non-consensual information gathering that's used in ad targeting is already basically both a breach of privacy and an insidious type of thought manipulation.
That's super odd. AdSense (Google?) never fails to work for me. They can pick up whether I've been to Amazon searching for a certain product, Googling certain things, or certain online retailers.
But I do agree that Youtube is absolutely atrocious for relevant ads. It's almost as if they're on a different ad platform.
The idea that it's immoral to avoid ads is just so ridiculous I can't wrap my head around it. Sorry, but morality doesn't even factor in when dealing with impressions, click throughs, or any ad generating business model. It's a business model that is based on 99.9% of customers not ever clicking through, and 90% of people completely ignoring it whether it is blocked or not. If you feel it's immoral, than it is also immoral not to click through. And it is also immoral not to click through and buy a product.
:Motorbass
Member
In my many years of using the internet I have never thought of using an adblocker. Why would anyone do that?
REMAINSILLY
Member
All websites.
Because it makes the Internet a much more pleasant and safer place.
REMAINSILLY
Member
Because I like a nice, clean webpage without intrusive ads. Or any ads at all.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
So in other words, every major browser manufacturer (including the world's largest advertising company) in the last 10 years is contributing to a massive tidal wave of content piracy by blocking ads. This action caused the bankruptcy of a major legitimate company, and as a user of those browser products, you've opted out of the pop-up blocker installed in your browser so you are not complicit.
:Motorbass
Member
If everyone would think like you, there wouldn't be as much websites for you to enjoy. I suggest you only visit websites that DON'T rely on financing through ads in any way. That would be a sad experience. But it would be nice and clean I guess...
Oh and it's bannable to admit that you are using adblockers on gaf, just fyi.
REMAINSILLY
Member
I never explicitly stated that I use an adblocker.
:Motorbass
Member
Why? By using this specific addon, you are basically denying money to the site owner. It's not even your money you have to pay because the advertiser pays it. And the site owner needs money to run the servers. How much money have you paid for using any website before?
It's especially ridiculous to those of us old enough to remember the days before the internet was commercialized, before usenet was ruined by ad spamming, and when email could safely be used without any kind of spam filtering.
For every one site with reasonable ads (like GAF), there are about a hundred with pop-ups, full page ads, ads that play audio, and flash ads that eventually crash your browser. I don't normally block ads, but I can understand/sympathize with those that do.
REMAINSILLY
Member
I paid for Dtoid Huge for a couple of months.
REMAINSILLY
Member
This guy gets it.
There's a lot more to this than wanting the owners to get money or not. Adverts can often completely ruin the website and can create security risks. People who use adblocker, including me, turn it on so we don't need to put up with any of that. I then whitelist the few sites I trust.
:Motorbass
Member
This doesn't make sense. Why whitelisting sites? They don't specifically choose which ads are displayed, only the format and some criteria. Malware ads can occur on your whitelisted sites as well.
Natureboy99
Banned
He brings up Pandora, but you don't have to listen to ads if you buy the service. When I go to the theater or watch a movie channel, I don't watch ads. So his whole (emotionally defensive, even for Pachter) point is broken. Ads are not the only way to get money. Sites like IGN could (and have) use a subscription service. I personally would rather pay money than listen to ads, and have done just that if given the opportunity. Think of all the cell phone apps with 2 versions: free with ads, or pay. Typically the ads version makes way more money.
Honestly I don't think there is any romantic heroism in attacking APB users like Pachter did. He came across as a lover of capitalism, attacking people who hurt him personally. It was very unprofessional. As others have stated, there are security reasons for ABP too.
Honestly I don't think there is any romantic heroism in attacking APB users like Pachter did. He came across as a lover of capitalism, attacking people who hurt him personally. It was very unprofessional. As others have stated, there are security reasons for ABP too.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I think this way of seeing it is reasonable, but I would really really prefer if ABP worked on a blacklist system instead of a whitelist. If ABP is a result of overly intrusive ads, you would think you should restrict its usage to only sites that are overly intrusive, but the only way anyone can use it is to block every and all ads, except for the sites they use most frequently, if they even remember to whitelist that.
Did you ever use the internet before the year 2000? If you did, you would welcome adblock.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I can't speak for ABP, but most ad blockers are based on blacklisting; you have to subscribe to a filter list in order to block anything by default. It's just that 99.9999%+ of users subscribe to EasyList or another filter set that takes care of the vast majority of filters. The scripts themselves have no capability to automatically detect ads.
Garrett Hawke
Member
What a scumbag.
Also the point about Breaking Bad only being possible because of ads was stupid. Netflix and their great original series say hi.
Has probably already been said but I just watched this and fuck that tbh. Yeah the guy who sent in the question was being a bit of a dick about it but that was a crappy way to respond.
Also the point about Breaking Bad only being possible because of ads was stupid. Netflix and their great original series say hi.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Well, I mean on a site by site basis, not ad by ad. So subscribe to EasyList, but only apply EasyList to the sites that are bad.
I think this has been stated before, but it isn't ban worthy to just admit to using adblockers. What is ban worthy is to admit to to using adblockers AND being a dick about it - bragging about how you don't care if EviLore doesn't make money off of it...
I use Adblocker Plus, but I do whitelist the five or so sites like NeoGAF that I use pretty much every day. It's mainly a trust and security issue for me. I can tell that EviLore does a very good job at monitoring the ads that get used on the site. I trust that I don't have to worry about ads with hidden viruses and malware when I come here - hence whitelisting this site.. In part, I think this is helped by seeing EviLore posting in the threads where people complain about the ads.
Alex
Member
I don't mind non-intrusive ads, banners and the such. I go with a blocker by default but whitelist all of the sites I frequent or consume content regularly from.
The only major things that I come across frequently that get to me are disproportionate video ads. Drives me nuts when I'm prompted to watch a thirty second ad for a video thats a minute or two long.
The only major things that I come across frequently that get to me are disproportionate video ads. Drives me nuts when I'm prompted to watch a thirty second ad for a video thats a minute or two long.
Arkage
Banned
I'm not sure what the scope of the problem, nor my personal use of blockers, has to do with my claim that ad blockers are immoral. I'm fairly certain it has nothing to do with it, in fact. But in any case here are answers your questions: 1)Yes, web browsers have contributed to the notion that ad blocking is an acceptable practice. 2) I have no idea what company you're talking about, though it would take extensive study of it's financials before claiming there's a causal relationship. 3) I haven't opted out, so I am complicit.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
You're answering a question I didn't ask. I don't care who contributed to the notion that ad blocking is acceptable. Web browsers all adopted opt-out, on-by-default popup blockers. They did it. They ended popup advertising as a business model. Your stance is that by doing so, the world's largest advertiser, along with other browser firms, orchestrated the world's largest campaign of content piracy by disabling advertising without site consent.
You responded to my post that gave a history of how pop-up blockers came to be, so I assumed you read my post which explained that there's exactly one company whose ads led to the creation and standardization of pop-up blockers, and that that company was at the time more trafficked than eBay or Yahoo and today is bankrupt, because they did all of their business through pop-up ads and their business model was wrecked by pop-up ad blockers. Did you read my post that you replied to, or just sort of glaze over it a bit and decide that I musn't have chosen my words very carefully?
Well, it sort of takes the sting out of the great moral wrong you're accusing people of when there's a literally less than five second process for you to correct it in your own life at no cost to yourself and you haven't done it.
Correct, but at least the odds are pretty low when only 4 sites or so are showing ads. Also you seemed to completely miss everything else about how most sites show ads that get in the way of everything. Believe me, if GAF or any other whitelisted site were to start using them they would get removed from the whitelist immediately. For example, no way am I ever loading up IGN without an adblocker:
I never really visit IGN but I decided to this time to see what the ads were like:
Yeah, this is the exact sort of thing I normally try to block out.
I like supporting, but not at the cost of ruining my Internet experience thanks. This is also why popup blockers are a thing, and nobody has a problem with them.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
Pretty much this, you can all talk about your morals and shit, but at the end of the day I will protect my computer from any kind of attack or tracking.
If one days those kind of ads are banned and we get ads that aren't annoying as fuck, I'll stop using adblock on 99% of the internet. Until then, nothing will change my mind.
Avid Reading Horse
Member
Sorry Pachter, maybe if the corporate world had you know... built the web in the first place, it would have been designed in a way where withholding network requests until you've submitted yourself to the prescribed amount of psychological manipulation was more feasible.
It's silly that some people push some doomsday vision of the future where the poor profiteers can't make their money and all the content will go away. It's bullshit. So much of the games media is an ad in and of itself already. A lot of times you're watching ads in order to watch more ads.
Even stuff like NeoGAF... there's no doomsday scenario. Even if every web-based message board keeled over due to ad-blocker we could go back to Usenet. It's a little archaic, but necessity is the mother of invention, I'm pretty sure the open source community could pull it out of the 1900s. Or maybe just start fresh.
I ain't worried about it.
It's silly that some people push some doomsday vision of the future where the poor profiteers can't make their money and all the content will go away. It's bullshit. So much of the games media is an ad in and of itself already. A lot of times you're watching ads in order to watch more ads.
Even stuff like NeoGAF... there's no doomsday scenario. Even if every web-based message board keeled over due to ad-blocker we could go back to Usenet. It's a little archaic, but necessity is the mother of invention, I'm pretty sure the open source community could pull it out of the 1900s. Or maybe just start fresh.
I ain't worried about it.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Wait. Seriously? Damn. Now I know why I don't visit IGN at all. Is that really how the site is presented?I never really visit IGN but I decided to this time to see what the ads were like:
Yeah, this is the exact sort of thing I normally try to block out.
I thought it was bad enough on Mac OS X Hints where it would force you to answer a question before showing you the content you were searching for.
The worse is YouTube's horrible targeted advertising that thinks I'm a female. If I hear the words "Bethers" or "Nerdy nummies" again I will fucking go ballistic.
Interficium
Banned
Thread took a dark turn.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
I don't see anything dark about that.
Without going too ad-hominem, Pachter's role is essentially to lobby for/in favour of companies that have massive stock in advertising. The companies he relates to are involved frequently in large advertising campaigns; the programmes he guest stars on are reliant to a large extent on advertising... so it's not like he doesn't already have a sympathetic ear to those aspects of an industry.
What I strongly resent is the tone in this thread made by some people that somehow there is a moral imperative to let your computer be bathed in advertising as the marketers would want. Never mind their frequent, flagrant abuse of consumer trust by introducing all sorts of spyware, malware, obnoxious pop ups, as well as ads that absolutely detract from reading the content you clicked through to in the first place.
Advertising does not take precedence over my right to access a website in a way which does not compromise my computer's security or performance.
If advertisers want to be moral citizens and not abuse the service, they can start by making less intrusive ads that don't actively cause damage. Until that day, adblockers are going to be used widespread.
The cynic in me says one day the advertisers will legislate to ban adblock. I have no doubt they are morally contemptible enough to try.
What I strongly resent is the tone in this thread made by some people that somehow there is a moral imperative to let your computer be bathed in advertising as the marketers would want. Never mind their frequent, flagrant abuse of consumer trust by introducing all sorts of spyware, malware, obnoxious pop ups, as well as ads that absolutely detract from reading the content you clicked through to in the first place.
Advertising does not take precedence over my right to access a website in a way which does not compromise my computer's security or performance.
If advertisers want to be moral citizens and not abuse the service, they can start by making less intrusive ads that don't actively cause damage. Until that day, adblockers are going to be used widespread.
The cynic in me says one day the advertisers will legislate to ban adblock. I have no doubt they are morally contemptible enough to try.
Bobby_Sullivan
Neo Member
"If you use Ad Block,,,you will live in a society full of anarchists"
Confirmed.
Confirmed.
Sites that i like i periodically will click on ad's just to help them out. I just dont appreciate some of the nasty sites that just fill up your entire screen with pop ups over and over....like porn sites use to do, I no longer go to porn sites for personal reasons now but sites like that ...man notorious for the real bad pop ups that put viruses on your site.
I work on computers,etc in my local area outside of my regular day job as a CNC Programmer and i would say 90% of the computers i fix or rid of perm pop ups and viruses,fake anti-virus malware,etc..all were from people using those computers visiting porn sites or some kind of illegal software site.
But helping sites out by clicking ad's is a good thing imho because i feel like i should give back for the great info,etc i get from those sites, like Gaf.
I work on computers,etc in my local area outside of my regular day job as a CNC Programmer and i would say 90% of the computers i fix or rid of perm pop ups and viruses,fake anti-virus malware,etc..all were from people using those computers visiting porn sites or some kind of illegal software site.
But helping sites out by clicking ad's is a good thing imho because i feel like i should give back for the great info,etc i get from those sites, like Gaf.
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
Dude, that question answer's itself. If you like watching obtrusive ads be my guest... its a free world after all!
Man I like Pachter. I hate the entitlement people feel who use Adblock and especially who pirate games. Great you pirate games, but don't then come up with convoluted bs story about why its the industries fault and you'll actually maybe buy it later if you like it. Just admit you are cheap.