Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[Atmos Duality]

Sometimes, it really is the consumer's fault:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

What does that have to do with Ad-Blockers?
Simple: With ads, the user pays a cost to view the content they want to view. (Private Good)
It's not a direct monetary cost, but an opportunity cost; which is how all ad-funded models work.

An ad-blocker removes the only thing making the content a Private Good, effectively turning it into a Public Good, and there the Tragedy of the Commons applies.

Of course, this is the economic explanation for something that is "common sense", but I've seen some especially ignorant posts on the matter.

That said: Advertisers don't make this any easier for customers when they start making the ads more and more obnoxious.
(or start including them as additional costs into things that are already paid for; ie, product placement)

Whether they do that as a means of psychological warfare or as a response to consumer behavior is debatable on a per-case basis (I know I'm really fucking tired of seeing the PS4 "Perfect Day" ad).

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Do you want leniency or do you want the rules followed to the letter? It can't be done both ways. We've given the thread leniency. People are complaining it's still not lenient enough. Now you're saying here you want it done exactly as stated in the CoC, which would hinder discussion.

No, what I'm saying is that there needs to be transparency and clarity. The amendment to the first post in this thread does not clearly state what will and won't be allowed.

Also, it would be nice to have an explanation of why admitting to using an ad blocker is OK if you say that The Escapist is white-listed, but not OK if you don't. Even better, it would be good to know which staff member wrote these exceptions.

Nice to know you think so highly of your users.

They're not my users and I didn't make the rules.

Do you represent The Escapist? If so, we're your users.

If you don't represent The Escapist, then why are you speaking for the company?

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Truth be told, I installed Adblock so long ago I actually kinda forgot I had it and the thought never crossed my mind that the videos I've been watching here might be generating advert revenue. I guess I just assumed the internet fairy was leaving your paycheques under your pillow at night.

So yeah, whitelisted as respectfully requested.



Bring on the the old men telling me his pammycakes taste like 'murrica.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The thing is most of us have been able too. I keep bringing up my original post in this thread but i essentially;

-I call the rules bullshit
-I advocate blanket script blocking
-I specifically suggest that third party adds could be unsafe
-I even make fun of the Escapist for the whole sugar DVD debacle and suggest that you can't necessarily trust ANY site including the escapist.
And I've not been moderated.

True, but those all fall under general discussion. Solutions, like the stuff mentioned by WarpZone, could allow people who use ad blockers to safely whitelist the Escapist. However, the only way to know that information is to effectively admit to using the software to block some content on the Escapist. And, as noted by others, admitting to blocking any content on the Escapist has been a one-way ticket to Warning-ville.

Yet someone comes out and straightforward says "I use Ad-Block here but this is why and i wish i didn't have to" and they get instantly moderated. What i object to is the use of a narrow technically to moderate people when the entire rule should be suspended not just most of it. This makes the moderation situation actually WORSE than blanket moderation because it feels arbitrary. It's bad application of the rules and it makes zero sense and serves zero purpose except to make users upset and make the moderation system look broken.

Exactly. And those are the people who could most benefit from a frank discussion from people who have found a middle ground option. They could block the most dangerous stuff while still allowing the Escapist to collect revenues for the shows they watch.

Anyway, I'm gonna stick to lurking from here on. Hopefully Jim will post an answer to WarpZone.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Does this count as adblock, a bit snarky yes but no adblock involved just basically gutted everything but newsfeed and put in my own little forum link. Ugly yep thats what I get for hacking everything off the page but jeep doesn't pop up

Spoiler

Also switched the forums to dark backround on white text IE arstechnica's option to. No pictures load on default other than the bar thing . Honestly don't know if this counts as adblock cause idk if it loads up ads or not cause the story things like extra punctuation are in the white and you can click em but just can't see them.



Edit This fking ad, pouring my cherry coke and boom here comes a voice talking about adventure yadda yadda. Look i've want to not run adblock or remove whole page elements but thats redic.

Spoiler

its everywhere

Spoiler

 

[Vareoth]

snip

snip

snip

Just so y'all know, you don't lose your subscription or any of the non-forum benefits if your forum account is banned. You still get ad-free viewing, HQ videos, etc.

That's actually quite nice and reasonable. I just wish that banning (or warning more like) wasn't so topical in this discussion ^^

But alright, I understand where you're coming from. I just wish there was a more eloquent way to deal with this rule. Not that I have any idea how.

In any case, I'm going to call it quits on this topic. I get riled up way to easily as I've found out once again. To those I leave behind, do try to have a nice morning/midday/evening/night.

PS. inkheart_artist, your icon scares me so much.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Sometimes, it really is the consumer's fault:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

What does that have to do with Ad-Blockers?
Simple: With ads, the user pays a cost to view the content they want to view. (Private Good)
It's not a direct monetary cost, but an opportunity cost; which is how all ad-funded models work.

But how is that solely the consumer's fault? It was the creator/publisher who decided to release it for free with advertising support. They would not have done that unless they saw an economic benefit to releasing the content that way. The consumer would not have been able to take that content for free unless the publisher chose to release it that way.

And that's the simple solution to the ad-blocking dilemma - publishers should just charge money for their content, and not allow public ad-supported access. Problem solved.

 

[Ibbathon]

I'm not a troll. I just like poking bears.

I get it, but as fun as it is to poke the occasional bear, you might not want to poke a group of them, when they're watching the area you're in intensely

I'm not going to suffer any real-world consequences, I'm virtually untraceable, I would be doing nothing illegal (to my knowledge; correct me if I'm wrong), and I have the curiosity of a child. Poking a group of observant bears is the most interesting situation I could possibly find.

I'm not poking the bears because the moderators are probably having a bad enough time dealing with all of the legitimate (yet still rule-breaking) posts. They certainly don't want to have to do that while being poked by a grinning maniac.

 

[dyre]

Looks like the mods are out in force for this thread. What vigilant guardians of the community you all are! I'm sure the act of banning people for admitting to using Adblock has drastically decreased the number of Adblock users on your site

I can't confirm or deny using Adblock but let's just say if I did, I'd have it disabled for this site after watching this video. And then I'd potentially be surprised to have a video advertisement (with audio) pop in my face right as I did...I suppose if that were the case I'd try to put up with it for a few days, we'll see what happens.

 

[revjor]

I never even thought about this, honestly. Have taken the escapist off the block.

The ads I mainly despise are the ones on facebook, which are either depressing stereotypes e.g - "you're a woman, you must want diet pills!" or creepily harvested from your searches "how about those shoes you were idly looking at? you want to buy them now? HOW ABOUT NOW?? Have you bought them yet?? SHOES!!".

You can mark facebook ads as "Offensive". If you do that enough eventually you'll start getting nonsense like ads for clown school or at home beef delivery. You can break Facebook real good with their ads.

 

[Fintago]

So I never use ad-block because frankly I will watch a 30 second ad so the people making the stuff I enjoy can make a couple bucks, but one day it seems the internet just stopped running video ads for me. I am not sure what I installed, as far as I know the only extensions I am running are feedly, Holla, and avast!. I wonder how many people are in my position where a blocking is seemingly bundled in with a product they are using for another purpose.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I have a few points to make, but let's get something straight first. You post videos about video games, I watch em. That is the extent of our relationship. What happens backstage - how and where you get your money - is not my concern. Does the Escapist care how I make a living? I don't think so. A content creator's personal/financial problems fall completely outside of the scope of our relationship.

We are not friends, and as a member of the audience, I don't owe online content creators any special treatment. If one of them stops making content tomorrow, I'll just watch something else.

The vast majority of people who use adblock don't do it to spite the content creators. This isn't personal, it's about not wanting to be annoyed with ads. I don't like it when our motivation is misconstrued as ill-will. I also don't like to be guilt-tripped into "inconveniencing myself" for the sake of someone who works online.

I'd rather a content creator just said "I want more money, watch my ads", than try to turn it into an ethical problem.
Adblock users are not doing anything wrong, in spite of how much content creators tend to vilify them. If Jim's employer doesn't want to grant me free access to this website, they can just block me. Seeing that they do not and since I am well within my rights to watch this content, not watch any ads and express any criticism freely on the internet, fuck you right back, Jimbo.

Fact of the matter is I can still criticize your work even though I do not contribute to your paycheck. There is no legitimacy whatsoever to the argument that you should shut up if you don't contribute. If someone is being an asshole to you, you can call them out on being assholes, NOT on the fact that they don't contribute to your paycheck.

Let me explain how advertising works, in case you've been living on another planet thus far: Ads are something people watch if they want to, they aren't mandatory. If your content is good enough, then you might have enough people in the audience watching your ads to make a living off of. Some people might even whitelist your content our of goodwill. It is also your prerogative to plead with your audience to whitelist your stuff, even though they don't HAVE to and would just be doing you a favor if they did. HOWEVER... this does not mean you get to guilt trip/emotionally manipulate people into watching more ads and paint it like you're some fucking moral champion. You are, in fact, a dick if you try to create a divide in your audience by making it seem like the people who watch ads are somehow better human beings than those who don't.

That's all I had to say.

PS: The "terms of service" for this forum are ambiguous as all hell, I presume I can be flagged for being "offensive" to some.

You pretty much rocked this discussion. I mean, I watch all the ads on every video site but I 100% agree with you. *applauds*

 

[EvilRoy]

So I never use ad-block because frankly I will watch a 30 second ad so the people making the stuff I enjoy can make a couple bucks, but one day it seems the internet just stopped running video ads for me. I am not sure what I installed, as far as I know the only extensions I am running are feedly, Holla, and avast!. I wonder how many people are in my position where a blocking is seemingly bundled in with a product they are using for another purpose.

I know when I was using avast webshield or webguardian or whatever there was something in there that was making videos run not great. At times the ads didn't show, sometimes the whole video wouldn't load and ect.

You might take a dig through your net settings to see, my problem just went away after I got pissed off and uninstalled/reinstalled a bunch of crap.

 

[Senare]

I admit that I have not read the majority of the 300+ replies to the thread, so I apologize if anything I bring up has been mentioned before. I see this thread as trying to be somewhat of an exception to the forum rules because I have seen hints that discussion is allowed but not advocacy, despite the forum rules proclaiming that "Discussion of ad blockers, pedophilia, illegal acts, and pornography is never allowed.". But I agreed to those forum rules and will stick by them as best as I can. Thus no adblocking discussion.

That said, I can still bring up internet advertisement in itself.

Personally I loathe the absolute majority of advertisements because I see them as factors that undermine what I feel are important aspects of consumer decision making. I feel that advertisements are targeting the collective human subconscious, not in the interest of helping us make informed decisions or for the betterment of mankind, but instead to coerce us into filling their coffers. It is as if profit is its own reward. Naturally there are companies with better agendas than this (like this very site), but the point that profit is seen as the main desirable metric leads to a lot of societal ills. In my naïve little ideal world the Escapist would be able to thrive with a different marketing model than the ones necessary today.

Since I want advertisements to influence me as little as possible I go out of my way to ignore them and counteract their influences. As such, I do not want to click any ads, and if I did I would see it as a failure if I bought the products that they are peddling. I do not want to be influenced by them at all because they are not honestly trying to make me a more well-informed consumer. Therefore I tend to belong to the category of people who do not click ads at all.

If I do not click advertisements, and if I do not buy the products, and if I do not want to subconsciously ingrain nonsensical bias, then it almost guaranteed that advertisements shown to me would not result in a profit for that company. Because of this I feel that it should not matter (in theory) for the companies running advertisements on the Escapist if I view their ads or not.

But maybe it does? Does the Escapist use some sort of detection scheme that they can later show as metrics to advertising companies?
And if I promise to not click any ads, not buy any products and be totally immune to any subconscious bias - is it immoral for me to use this website?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Briefly discussed with a moderator yesterday that exceptions would have to be made here. I cannot speak for the admins, but I would like to believe they understand that, in order to comment here, an armistice is gonna be needed.

"Armistice" was an interesting and now sadly appropriate choice of words there, Jim:

armistice
noun
1. an agreement made by opposing sides in a war to stop fighting for a certain time; a truce.

Interesting (but not surprising) that users of the site are seen as enemies in a war. Also not surprising that it seems most of the forum rules are in place to protect advertisers and business interests, rather than to benefit users or provide a higher quality forum.

Is The Escapist so cynical about its own product and its own users that it can't strive for better than this? We are the ones who actually provide the traffic (and the premium subscriptions) that generate The Escapist's income. Yet we seem to be last on their list of priorities.

I have to ask, why are a Server Admin and a Forum Moderator acting as mouthpieces for the company in this thread? Shouldn't that job be done by someone in Public Relations, Editorial or Management? Are these comments authorised by the company?

I don't see what being a server admin has to do with these topics, and why they should entering their personal opinions on this, especially when it comes to areas of the company's operations they admittedly don't know about. If they want to make personal comments on this topic, shouldn't that be done with their personal accounts, rather than their Escapist Employee's accounts?

 

[Atmos Duality]

That's a really interesting point and a topic I will read more about, thank you.

As far as I can see, it only really applies in the case of practical goods being diluted or destroyed in some way. Not knowing enough about the theory, I can't state any certainty, but there seems to be more to it than that.

Actually, it best applies to information goods, and especially performances (read up on Public Goods and Public Performances specifically).

But for now I'll try to use a practical example: Fireworks displays.

You can't exactly exclude folks from watching them (freeloaders), and there's obviously a demand for them because people keep putting them on, so who pays for them?
They're always either attached to some larger event, or paid for by the public (government and local funding).

Arguably, people spend more time here if they're forced to watch ads and that wastes user man hours as well as electricity (since there's an average number of minutes per user spent on the computer minus what the user then doesn't spend time on watching due to time limits).
Then there's the psychological factor that you mentioned, which also has something to say since it has a negative impact on people in the form of changing peoples mood and other factors extensively covered in advertisement studies.

I know, it's nitpicking, but it goes to show that placing blame isn't easy (not to mention counterproductive).

You're closer to the subject than you think; "wasting time" is a cost to the consumer. Economics defines it as an "opportunity cost" and that conversion of "monetary -> opportunity" is what makes advertising work so well.
...Too well, in fact. We're bombarded by advertisements as a result, and that in turn is provoking a backlash because, well, folks are just tired of it. Hence, Ad-block.

But how is that solely the consumer's fault? It was the creator/publisher who decided to release it for free with advertising support.

I'll have to stop you here because you've already ignored what I explicitly established.
To be blunt: If it's advertised it's not strictly free. No exception.

Advertisements are not a monetary cost, they're an opportunity cost. Both are costs to the consumer.
I know it sounds strange to think of it that way, but there's a good amount of study behind that, and it works in practice.
(it's nothing new; network TV employed it well before the internet, and radio before TV)

That 30 second clip that plays before each video? You're trading 30 seconds of your life to view the content you want, while the content producer gets paid for convincing you to pay those 30 seconds in hopes that it will influence you to buy their client's stuff.

They would not have done that unless they saw an economic benefit to releasing the content that way. The consumer would not have been able to take that content for free unless the publisher chose to release it that way.

And that's the simple solution to the ad-blocking dilemma - publishers should just charge money for their content, and not allow public ad-supported access. Problem solved.

While that's certainly an option, it's not a strict "solution" to a problem when you're just trading one cost for another.