Ad Exec on Blockers: "Little Piss Ants" Threaten Freedom of Speech

[FillerDmon]

*snip*

I sniped this only because I don't have anything to say on my own, so much as just to note that this made me think. And that I thank you for your time in bothering to answer my questions so thoroughly.

I use AdBlock

*whisper*Um... I don't think you're allowed to admit to that sort of thing on this website. Just a little warning.*whisper*

 

[Saltyk]

I recently downloaded adblock on my phone. Do you know why? Because I would try to read the news on a site and when I would touch an ad it would pop up. I wasn't clicking on it. I wasn't trying to find out more about the ad. I was just trying to scroll down and see the stories lower on the page. I couldn't even avoid the ads and touch around them as they often took up half the screen or more and touching them anywhere would cause them to pop up or load a new page or whatever. I just wanted to read the news on my lunch break and these ads were ruining it.

So, I downloaded adblock and now I don't have issues with annoying ads popping up while I read the news. Maybe if ads weren't being insanely obnoxious and toxic to my experience, I wouldn't be using adblock.

 

[Fox12]

You know, if companies weren't complete dickheads, I wouldn't use ad-blocker at all. I even try turning it off for websites I like, so that they can make some income. I turned it off for youtube, for instance. Then I started noticing adds on youtube that lasted over five minutes. One was twenty minutes. And I couldn't skip. I came to find out that youtube forced you to watch massive adds if you had ad-blocker. Even if you turned it off. They were just being passive aggressive. So I promptly turned the ad-blocker back on, and have enjoyed an easy browsing experience ever since.

 

[IceForce]

Oh, are we actually allowed to have a discussion about Ad blocks this time? Or is this going to be like last time where supposedly there was permission to do so only to have the mods go ban happy?

No, I'm not saying anything about this anymore because quite frankly, I don't trust the latter to happen again.

There's already been a mod posting in this thread, so I think we're safe? (Then again, that happened last time too...)

 

[Winnosh]

Don't use Adblock. Never have, never will. If a site has annoying Ads on it and I don't want to support their business I simply stop going to that site.

If I like a site and want them to put out more material then I visit the site and support them.

If I like a site and dislike their use of ads I tell them, and if they continue to be an impediment to my enjoyment then I stop supporting their site with views.

 

[Superlative]

I have to agree with the general sentiment: adblock is good as ads become less of a thing you can choose to ignore and more of a threat to your computer/phone's wellbeing.

I am not a particularly tech-savy guy and I'm pretty sure I lost the Windows 7 back up disk for my laptop in 2013 so if i have to wipe and re-install Windows, I'm out some money. I'm jobless atm (interview wednesday, fingers crossed) so if my laptop goes down I'm stuck either trekking to the library or borrowing my grandma's rig (and doing electronic chores for hours).

So I don't take the risk.

MODS
I have to ask, what are the rules when it comes to adblock and the forums. My current understanding is that we are allowed to say it is a thing. I think we are also allowed to say we use it, just not that we use it on this site. I'm also pretty sure we are not allowed to complain about specific ads on this site either.

Please tell us if we're off base, most of us like not being banned

 

[Bertinan]

Speaking theoretically, I would use an ad-block after the third time an ad, on a reputable site no less, gave me malware.

Theoretically speaking, of course.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not going to advocate ad blockers. I agree with a lot of what the execs have to say.

However, when you compare their use to a violation of free speech, you deserve to be ridiculed.

 

[infohippie]

Speaking theoretically, I would use an ad-block after the third time an ad, on a reputable site no less, gave me malware.

Theoretically speaking, of course.

THIRD time? I would use it IMMEDIATELY after the FIRST time a site tried to give me malware. In fact, I just use it to begin with as the default starting point, then when a site (such as the Escapist) shows me that it is worth supporting I whitelist them in my blocker.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Here's what I said last time this was discussed:

Acceptable:
-Banner ads on the top, sides and bottom
-Recommending something within the content (sponsored videos/articles (as long as it is clearly stated))

Unacceptable
-Any kind of tracking or targeted ad
-Any sound
-Ads in the way of what I want to look at
-Ads playing before a video
-Ads that link to other sites

- Ads that literally cause machine (or even just browser) lag.

Like, literally. GameFAQs (and quite frankly lately, The Escapist) is terrible about having video-based ads (and sometimes what seem to just be gifs) that are absolute system hogs. I don't know what format they use, but they are horribly optimized. Ads that make it so that I can't even type posts because it takes a few seconds for the letters to actually appear are the one and only reason I've ever considered getting an ad blocker. I haven't yet, but man if ads that make my system sluggish don't make a strong case for it.

 

[shirkbot]

Given that, is it really smart to keep little Janey and Timmy in a conceptual hole, without an advertising immune system? I'd rather be exposed and call "Bullshit" than think I'm hiding away while reading "Sponsored Content".

My school actually made us all take a course on basic advertising when I was in 5th grade. I maintain that this was one of the best things they ever did to teach us about the real world.

OP: We don't have a problem with the idea of spreading the word regarding a product or service, but ads on the Internet are notorious for being particularly obnoxious, and for spreading viruses. It's really hard to fault people for not wanting to risk their systems, especially as computers become more integral to our everyday lives. In short, if you were really so clearly in the right, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Bat Vader]

Saying it limits free speech is like an MMO Troll saying ignore lists limit free speech. How he even thought for a second it limits free speech is beyond me.

 

[teamcharlie]

I like to think that the age of advertising will pass, like all things. If/when advertising ceases to be the way that people support the creation of content, presumably they will find other ways to fund it. People still pay to go to the movies, to concerts, for Netflix subscriptions, right? So. Make something that people will pay for, then let them pay for it. No law I'm aware of mandates that the advertising industry has to be involved with the entertainment industry after all.

Side benefit: perhaps some ad execs might then have to change fields. Maybe go back to school, take an English class or two? Either that or I've really missed out on my entomology education and Ant Man 2: Age of Piss Ant is going to be waaaaaay more NC-17 than I'm prepared for.

 

[EndlessSporadic]

you.... dont understand how advertising companies work do you, by cutting off adds are primarily hurting the site your on, as that less clicks for the add company to actually have to pay for. if the amount of 'registered' traffic gets too low the add company will just leave and the site will need to find another who will pay for low traffic, which generally pushes the standards down. And unethical? REALLY? there is nothing ethics related at all here, adds are unethical when they are deceptive, not when they are annoying, to claim that annoying adds are unethical is absurd.

I would be able to better argue whatever point you made, but it was extremely hard to draw one from your broken English and poor grammar. I'll respond to your comment about me not knowing how ad companies work. Yes, yes I do. Companies pay these ad companies to distribute their ads, and they pay the website owners per view or click. Strictly speaking that means these ad companies are the ones who accept and deny which ads they service. I'm stating that these ad companies aren't creating standards for what kind of ads are acceptable because if they do then these companies will stop going to them to distribute their ads. That means that the ad company loses business and money.

Blocking ads does affect website owners since they get less views, and that is unfortunate. Their ire should go to the ad companies for allowing the service of such disruptive ads, not to the users who desire to block them. Furthermore, some websites completely bloat their webpages with ads and in that case I have no issue using Adblock on their website. One could say that I shouldn't visit the website in that case, but that is not how the internet works. It is up to the ad creators and website owners to create monetization methods that the public approves of. It is not the job of the public to cater to businesses, and that is why I believe the guy is unethical. It is not ethical to expect and force people to bend over backwards and support your business practices, especially ones that are more and more intrusive and potentially damaging to the user's computer.

The internet is a free public service by its very definition, and by creating a website you are implicitly giving people the right to connect to your website if it has no password. Any content you display to the public without requiring a direct form of payment is fair game, and the editing of source code on the user's end is within our legal rights. Webpages are open source after all, and the language does not need to be compiled, meaning anyone can freely edit it. There is nothing legally forbidding us from blocking ad content.

All of this aside, I get the impression your definition of "ethical" is extremely shallow.

 

[chikusho]

I don't understand..
Using ad-blockers should probably be a hint that internet advertising as a whole has fucked up.
Seriously, the most apt analysis of internet marketing is probably the last season of South Park.
Even if the Adblock-Plus is cutting into the advertisers profits, it's probably a better idea to try and work WITH them.
Also, how does this make "both sides look bad"?
Didn't all of these silly statements come from just one person with a vested interest in drowning the internet in ads?
Because I don't think his opinion of ad-blockers OR the Brave browser is something you can take as statements of fact.
Looking at the Brave browser, it might actually be a better solution for both advertisers and users.
Overall, it seems that they will mainly function as a safety valve against intrusive and unsafe ads.
Considering Rothenbergs statements, he seems like completely uninterested in the intrusiveness of internet ads.
Keep at it with that philosophy and eventually people will start pushing back.

 

[Vigormortis]

You know the great thing about free speech? It goes both ways. This CEO is free to say just about anything he wants to say (or advertise) and we're all free to not listen (or watch).

Everyone wins!

 

[Kathinka]

I would be completely fine with ads if it was the usual banner stuff. Content creators have to eat, right?

But when it became so intrusive that it was a hassle to look at what I want to look at, they gave me no real choice. It has gotten to a point where it is impossible to enjoy most sites without blocking ads, so I feel not bad in the slightest to improve my web experience.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Wow, that is just... wow. The CEO of a spam company trying to play all high and mighty with no shortage of childish language, I guess that is why they operate the way they do.

I wonder if anyone ever pointed out to him that the only reason people bothered making ad-blockers and continue to update them every single day is because ads got so damn nasty. Dug your own hole there buddy.

 

[Erttheking]

This dude acts like a five year old who just found his first thesaurus heh.

Remember when "threatening freedom of speech" wasn't tossed out every time things got inconvenient for you?

After starting to use the internet and being exposed to the many many many many -many- debates/discussions/etc where americans toss the phrase around like it was made out of candy and gold? Not really no.

Trust me, it's far more than just Americans who do it. It's pretty universal.

 

[Dizchu]

The whole ad blocking debate is an extremely tricky one. On one hand, advertising has been a necessary evil for a very long time and is the reason why certain services are able to operate at all.

But on the other hand, I think wanting to avoid ads is just one reason why people use ad blockers. I honestly think many people use ad blockers the same way they'd use firewalls or virus scanners, ads can be intrusive and potentially hazardous.