Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Ars Technica on the problem with adblocking

<< < (8/13) > >>

40hz:
This shows no sign of being bothered that their ads consume our bandwidth...
-Dormouse (March 11, 2010, 05:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

Of course this is all made possible by the existence of unlimited Internet plans.

If Comcast and AT&T have their way and start metering bandwidth once again, these ad supported sites will have to drastically rethink their business plans. Much like the fax and email quasi-spammers were forced to do a while back.

You had the CAN-SPAM Act. I can easily see similar legislation that would require websites to put up a splash page notifying the viewer that the site they're attempting to access has 'advertising mechanisms' which may consume metered bandwidth and: "Do you want to continue?"

And then there's the issue of whether or not you would need to be an adult to legally agree to that... ;D

What a mess.

zridling:
But wait, if the ad never loads and is blocked from starting, how am I consuming their bandwidth? Effectively all I'm loading is text and a header file. No matter the site or its subject, content is king. Always will be. Like modern DVDs (pirate vs. paying customer), if you're going to frustrate my consumption of your content with ads, then -- for me -- your content is not worth reading.

app103:
This is not a new subject. In fact, I'd say this blog post had a better argument in favor of not blocking ads than Ars had.

But to that, this was my reply, and I still stand behind it, 100%. (the rest of the comments on this article are worth a read, too)

Purpose of the muzzle must be considered.

Is everyone that blocks ads actually muzzling an ox? Or are some people muzzling a rabid dog, in order to prevent themselves from being bitten?

How about if I am viewing your content on an old slow computer with a very slow dialup connection? Is it fair to make me pay a higher price than people with newer computers on a fast connection?

Ads slow down the loading of pages much more in the situation I described, and can potentially cause crashes.

For the better part of last year, the only computer I had was an old P1. It only takes a single flash based ad to freeze it and create a need to hit the reset button and reboot the computer, losing all unsaved work that may have been open at the time.

Is that a fair price to pay for anyone's content? What if I was working on a project that feeds my family and came to your website for information to help complete it? Should I lose my time and work for a glimpse of a small fraction of a page on your site? Should my family go hungry for a tiny useless glimpse of content that I never had the chance to use?

What about sites that use ad networks that do not properly screen their advertisers? Is it a fair price to pay for anyone's content with the security of your computer? There are a lot of malware infested ads out there and one can never be sure what website they will or won't be on.

Is it not unethical and morally wrong to tease people with things they can never have? What about ads attempting to sell things to people with no money? Does it even make any sense? I think it could even be considered cruel in some cases. Imagine forcing someone who is hungry and has no money, to constantly watch advertisements for food.

What about the visitors sensitivities to certain things causing an adverse physical reaction? Is it a fair price to ask of an epileptic, for them to have a seizure from the flashing ads on your site?

It is everyone's right to protect themselves and their property from harm, including the harm your ads may do. The fact that you didn't think of how they may harm someone when you pasted the ad codes on your site, and even if you don't agree with anything I have said, it still does not take away my right to protect myself and my property.
--- End quote ---

wraith808:
But wait, if the ad never loads and is blocked from starting, how am I consuming their bandwidth? Effectively all I'm loading is text and a header file. No matter the site or its subject, content is king. Always will be. Like modern DVDs (pirate vs. paying customer), if you're going to frustrate my consumption of your content with ads, then -- for me -- your content is not worth reading.
-zridling (March 11, 2010, 10:39 PM)
--- End quote ---

I think they mean the bandwidth from the content of the site- not the ads, i.e. the text and header file.  And though that may be small individually, collectively that can be a large amount.  Not arguing one side or the other- just pointing that out.  And I don't think they'd have a problem with the people who choose not to read the content because of the ads, just those that block the ads and still consume the content.

f0dder:
If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue

--- End quote ---
This shows no sign of being bothered that their ads consume our bandwidth, distract our attention and give us nothing we want in return.
-Dormouse (March 11, 2010, 05:15 PM)
--- End quote ---
Most consumers have unlimited internet plans, these days - and the size of an ad is hopefully going to be just a fraction of the content you want to view.

If you never click on the ads, even when you see them, there's absolutely no point in wasting bandwidth (both ways) by having them onscreen. So the argument isn't really about whether the ads are blocked but whether they produce enough revenue, and there's an assumption that adblockers will be clickers if only they could see the ads. I suppose the next stage, if there isn't enough ad revenue after eliminating adblockers, is to make bigger more intrusive ads or to ration pageviews to users who click often enough.-Dormouse (March 11, 2010, 05:15 PM)
--- End quote ---
I was under the impression that you also get revenue just for displaying the ads? Might get more from a click-throug, though.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page