Interestingly, there's a bunch of HNers who chide us and tell us we all have a moral responsibility to allow malware to be installed on our systems, because using an ad-blocker is "stealing".
Adblocking does not constitute "theft" under even the most strained comparison. Just because the post office keeps putting trash in my mailbox doesn't mean it's theft for me to only keep the letters I care about. Throwing ads/spam/trash into the bin instead of keeping it in my house is not theft.
>Adblocking does not constitute "theft" under even the most strained comparison.
As long as you accept that things like walking into a restaurant bathroom and taking a roll or two of toilet paper or going to a bank to take one of the pens don't constitute theft under even the most strained comparison. Using an ad-supported site with an adblocker is imposing costs on a service provider by abusing a service provided under certain assumptions that you're knowingly and deliberately violating.
And when an ad on one of these ad-supported site infects my device with malware, putting my financial security and, potentially, my livelihood at risk, is said website going to reimburse me for any resulting losses?
No, it isn’t. And comparing ad blocking to theft of actual physical items is absolutely wild. You must realize that they’re completely different, right?
Under your reasoning, I’d just argue that ads are a blight on the web, and steal from me by deliberately and knowingly wasting my computer’s resources and attempting to serve me malware. What do we do now? Whose right not to be stolen from wins out?
>And comparing ad blocking to theft of actual physical items is absolutely wild. You must realize that they’re completely different, right?
Serving a page costs money. Whether a physical good is exchanged isn't particularly relevant.
>I’d just argue that ads are a blight on the web, and steal from me by deliberately and knowingly wasting my computer’s resources and attempting to serve me malware. What do we do now? Whose right not to be stolen from wins out?
Ads are a blight on and off the web, but the advertisers generally aren't trying to serve you malware (though they don't always try hard enough not to). But claiming that the ads are theft is far more of a reach then claiming ad blockers are. If you don't want ads, stop requesting pages with ads.
> But claiming that the ads are theft is far more of a reach then claiming ad blockers are.
[citation needed]
It’s exactly the same. The electricity used to render the ad (which sometimes will contain video, animations, crypto miners, and other undesirable garbage) costs me real money. If they don’t want me to block ads, stop serving me ads with garbage in them.
> advertisers generally aren't trying to serve you malware
My friend, you are commenting on an article about an advertiser deliberately serving malware.
I meant the ad service with whom the site does business. They're just negligent, not intentionally serving the malicious ads. Yes, somebody somewhere deliberately paid to get the ad served.
Ah, yeah, just a little harmless negligence. In that case, I’ll keep blocking all their ads, and feel 100% morally and ethically in the right.
Edit: and in the case of this article, the ad service is Google, and the site serving the ads is Google.com. Not a great look for a trillion dollar company.
For a company of this size, not taking steps to prevent all malicious ads from being created before they’re even served once is a deliberate choice they’ve made, which I would argue amounts to Google deliberately serving its customers malware.
are you implying that consuming media whilst blocking ads is stealing or do i just not get the sarcasm here. genuinely can't tell.
you're right about the second part i guess. not everything is intended for a public audience (like some cringe video clip with friends from a few years ago). with everything else (cinema, music etc.) i'd argue that my need for entertainment is more important than making sure some billionaires make 20 bucks on my purchase, especially if i can't afford it.
personally, i pirate everything and pay for stuff made by independent creators (foss devs, indie artists etc.) that i really like. perfectly moral
And Apple, who likely would have shipped at least a basic ad blocker on its platforms by now, were it not for the tens of billions of dollars per year that Google pays them.
I don't know if that's what the OP meant with that question, but I do think this is a valid question: why don't they? It would certainly improve the user experience.
Interestingly, there's a bunch of HNers who chide us and tell us we all have a moral responsibility to allow malware to be installed on our systems, because using an ad-blocker is "stealing".
Not exactly HNers. Most likely bots or at the very least paid shills.
No, you have the moral responsibility to not steal and no inalienable right to consume all media you can get your hands on.
Adblocking does not constitute "theft" under even the most strained comparison. Just because the post office keeps putting trash in my mailbox doesn't mean it's theft for me to only keep the letters I care about. Throwing ads/spam/trash into the bin instead of keeping it in my house is not theft.
>Adblocking does not constitute "theft" under even the most strained comparison.
As long as you accept that things like walking into a restaurant bathroom and taking a roll or two of toilet paper or going to a bank to take one of the pens don't constitute theft under even the most strained comparison. Using an ad-supported site with an adblocker is imposing costs on a service provider by abusing a service provided under certain assumptions that you're knowingly and deliberately violating.
And when an ad on one of these ad-supported site infects my device with malware, putting my financial security and, potentially, my livelihood at risk, is said website going to reimburse me for any resulting losses?
Not if you don't sue them for damages.
Strange, I don't recall signing a contract stating that I'm obligated to help the websites I visit derive revenue from said visits.
The mental gymnastics to make ad blocking seem immoral are insane.
No, it isn’t. And comparing ad blocking to theft of actual physical items is absolutely wild. You must realize that they’re completely different, right?
Under your reasoning, I’d just argue that ads are a blight on the web, and steal from me by deliberately and knowingly wasting my computer’s resources and attempting to serve me malware. What do we do now? Whose right not to be stolen from wins out?
>And comparing ad blocking to theft of actual physical items is absolutely wild. You must realize that they’re completely different, right?
Serving a page costs money. Whether a physical good is exchanged isn't particularly relevant.
>I’d just argue that ads are a blight on the web, and steal from me by deliberately and knowingly wasting my computer’s resources and attempting to serve me malware. What do we do now? Whose right not to be stolen from wins out?
Ads are a blight on and off the web, but the advertisers generally aren't trying to serve you malware (though they don't always try hard enough not to). But claiming that the ads are theft is far more of a reach then claiming ad blockers are. If you don't want ads, stop requesting pages with ads.
> But claiming that the ads are theft is far more of a reach then claiming ad blockers are.
[citation needed]
It’s exactly the same. The electricity used to render the ad (which sometimes will contain video, animations, crypto miners, and other undesirable garbage) costs me real money. If they don’t want me to block ads, stop serving me ads with garbage in them.
> advertisers generally aren't trying to serve you malware
My friend, you are commenting on an article about an advertiser deliberately serving malware.
I meant the ad service with whom the site does business. They're just negligent, not intentionally serving the malicious ads. Yes, somebody somewhere deliberately paid to get the ad served.
> They're just negligent
Ah, yeah, just a little harmless negligence. In that case, I’ll keep blocking all their ads, and feel 100% morally and ethically in the right.
Edit: and in the case of this article, the ad service is Google, and the site serving the ads is Google.com. Not a great look for a trillion dollar company.
For a company of this size, not taking steps to prevent all malicious ads from being created before they’re even served once is a deliberate choice they’ve made, which I would argue amounts to Google deliberately serving its customers malware.
"you wouldn't download a car"
heck yes i would
are you implying that consuming media whilst blocking ads is stealing or do i just not get the sarcasm here. genuinely can't tell.
you're right about the second part i guess. not everything is intended for a public audience (like some cringe video clip with friends from a few years ago). with everything else (cinema, music etc.) i'd argue that my need for entertainment is more important than making sure some billionaires make 20 bucks on my purchase, especially if i can't afford it.
personally, i pirate everything and pay for stuff made by independent creators (foss devs, indie artists etc.) that i really like. perfectly moral
I've had phishing served to me through google ads a few times, so this hardly surprises.
Never forget that Google is all but complicit in this.
And Apple, who likely would have shipped at least a basic ad blocker on its platforms by now, were it not for the tens of billions of dollars per year that Google pays them.
Why is Apple allowing Google to serve ads to Apple's customers?
You’re asking why apple doesn’t ship an adblocker in their browser?
I don't know if that's what the OP meant with that question, but I do think this is a valid question: why don't they? It would certainly improve the user experience.
I think the answer is somewhere upwards of $20 billion a year.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147007/google-paid-apple...
Because Apple sells its customers' traffic to Google for billions of dollars each year.