Because I really enjoy not getting malware installed on my computer. As long as ads are one of the major vectors for malware installations, and ad networks barely vet the ads they publish, I will be doing everything I can do to block them.
If that were really the case, wouldn't paying the price for their premium package that has a 0% chance of having advertisements be better than using an adblocker which clearly has a greater than 0% chance at seeing ads?
Paying someone to not install malware on my machine makes it closer to protection money. Ad blockers do a pretty decent job of preventing ad-network malware, without me having to buy subscriptions to every website I visit.
I'm going to add content to my website that, if asked, nearly all of my users would prefer to be absent, and then charge those users to remove that content.
The pattern is, intentionally make a service worse, and then charge to 'make it better'.
The doctor analogy would be, "for an extra $1000 fee, your surgeon will wash his hands before the operation".
> The pattern is, intentionally make a service worse, and then charge to 'make it better'.
Agreed; in the tech world, I'd call this the difference between buying a faster processor—the analogue of going to a doctor—and paying to avoid intentionally slowing down a processor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486SX).
Of course not. Using an ad blocker means that ads are blocked at all sites. Paying for content at one site clearly doesn't affect the ads delivered by other sites.
Correct. People using ad blockers want to block ads. They don't necessarily want to pay to avoid seeing ads. They may still wish to pay for content they like. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
If you wanted to block ads, paying for the subscription is not only the ethical thing to do, but also much safer as it brings the possibility of being served ads to 0%
If you are okay with viewing ads instead of paying, this is a non-issue, as you will be served the ads just like before.
I disagree that paying for the subscription is the ethical thing to do.
The publisher expressly allows the content to be consumed for free - they don't require payment for the content. Therefore it is not unethical to consume that content for free.
That they desire us to view ads is beside the point: we're not obliged to view them, nor is it unethical to choose not to view them.
They aren't expressly allowing the content to be consumed for free any more than a store-front that shows off products is allowing them to be taken for free.
There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue. It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best.
> They aren't expressly allowing the content to be consumed for free any more than a store-front that shows off products is allowing them to be taken for free.
False equivalence. Further, they certainly are allowing the content to be consumed for free.
> There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue.
We violate nothing by choosing not to abide by the wish that we view ads. There is no obligation to do so. It has nothing to do with ethics.
> It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best.
I think you mean "ignorant at worst". At best, we are ideologically opposed. :)
There isn't much of an ethical discussion to be had if we consider advertising in any other medium. I've never heard it argued that muting the TV during commercials or skipping commercials by fast forwarding is unethical. Similarly, I've seen pizza places include flyers with ads and coupons with the pizza they deliver, and I don't think anyone would argue it's unethical to throw those printed ads away.
So why when I click a link should it be wrong for me to ignore or block the advertising that is sent along with the content. When I clicked the link, there was no contract signed, nor was there any price communicated to me.
If I walked up building advertising "get food here" and asked "may I have a loaf of bread", and the person at the front just hands me a loaf with no other interaction, have I done something wrong? What if the business model of that store is to give the food away for free but allow other companies to place salesmen in the lobby, does that make me a bad person if I just breeze by the salesmen, ask for food, get it, then leave? Or has the person done nothing wrong and what I've described is just a terrible business model?
> Similar to how choosing to not abide by the wish that you pay for products.
It is not a "wish" when payment is demanded for a product. You violate a social contract and a legal statute when not paying for a product for which payment is demanded. This is nothing like the situation here where the content is absolutely available for free. This is beyond question.
> I mean ignorant at best. Pretending that there isn't even a discussion to be had about ethics in this area is just shoving your head into the sand.
Perhaps you might advance a rational argument for the viewing of ads as an ethical decision.
what if I'm okay with being served ads but I completely refuse the tracking that comes with ads ?
Then what if I'm okay with ads as long they're not intrusive (no animation, no sound, no video, no lightbox trickery,...) ?
And there are half a dozen of what if that makes this not so black and white. And whatever way you look at it, the global effortless solution is install an ad blocker preferably ublock origins and forget about it.
Actually, it is the other way around, paying for content has a high chance of being exposed to ads. Think of how candy crush adapts its difficulty the instant you pay for it.
