Wednesday, November 26, 2014

The "ethics" of blocking ads (And/or scripts) on websites.



For some stupid reason, one topic that gets people fired up on tech blogs and messages boards is whether or not you should block ads when visiting websites using an ad blocker like Adblock Plus or even further, using a script blocker like NoScript. 

Hell, it can happen outside of the blogs and boards too.  Case in point, someone I know asked me what I use as a browser, so I answered his question honestly:

"Firefox with Adblock Plus and NoScript.  Surfing goodness!"

He then asked me this question:

"Do you keep the ad and script blockers enabled on every website you visit?"

So again, I answer honestly:

"That I can get away with, yes!"

He then said this, with a straight face:

"If you do that you're being disrespectful to the sites you like.  Don't be surprised if a good portion of those sites either go offline or turn into pay-to-view sites because people like you can't be bothered to look at their ads."

I just said, "whatever," and I walked away.

It's the same thing on the blog and boards, someone will suggest using an ad and/or script blocker, and someone will give a lecture that by using such add-ons you're being "disrespectful to websites you like to visit."

Their argument is this: Many sites get revenue to run by showing ads on the pages.  If "enough" people block ads from being displayed, the site's revenue will choke off, and the website's author may be forced to either take the website down, or become a pay-to-view site where people need to pay to see the content.

That argument is valid, but also stupid.  Here's why, but first....

"Disrespectful?" Last I heard, a website is just another set of 1's and 0's.  It's not a living thing that has feelings and emotions.

Back to why:                                                                                     
                 
Internet Explorer still has the biggest slice of the pie when it comes to web browser usage for all windows-based PC users.  Not because it's any good, but because a lot of people don't know any better.  IE does not have an ad blocker available for it that is anywhere close to the effectiveness of something like Adblock Plus.  Now, take the remaining percentage of people that use Firefox, Chrome or a combination of both.  How many people who use those two browsers know that such an add-on like AdBlock Plus even exists?  Not very many, I can tell you that.  Hell, I didn't know about Adblock Plus until someone mentioned it on a forum I was visiting!  You take this one simple observation, and you'll see why the "you're choking off their revenue" argument is stupid.

Now I know what some people viewing this post are going to say:

"What if this blog goes viral and you get a chance to make some money off it?  I bet you would change your tune real fast on whether people should be able to use ad blockers."

First, I don't have ads on my blog (I tried to see if I can set up an adsense account for shits and giggles, and it wouldn't let me).  Second, I run this blog as a hobby NOT as a possible income generator.  That's what I have a job for.  So even in the future if google does place ads on my page, you're free to block them if you wish.

But there is another, bigger reason why I block ads whenever I can:

It's really about security.  Most ads you see on websites are not put there by the websites themselves.  They are run by a 3rd party advertisement agency that doesn't care what ads they shows as long as they are making money.  The agency might display an ad that contains malicious code that can infect a computer with a virus or spyware just by having it displayed on the screen.  Yep, just viewing a website that happened to show an infected ad right at that moment can get your computer infected!  It's called a drive-by download.

Think I'm off-base?  A couple of years ago, the Wall Street Journal had the exact same thing happen to it.  One of its ads that was displayed contained malicious code that gave people viruses just by having the site up and visible in their browser.  People complained, the WSJ apologized.  If these people used an ad blocker, they probably wouldn't be complaining.

That's the biggest reason why I use an ad blocker and also a script blocker.  The safety and security of my computer matters more than the 50 cents of revenue that the website stands to make off me.  Let them make money off all those internet explorer users.

To close: I will continue to use an ad blocker when surfing the web.  Like I wrote before, it's surfing goodness.  Oh, and to the people who try to argue in favor of the websites by saying "disrespectful," "choking off revenue" and other garbage: it's going to be hard to convince me you're not a shill. 

End of.

No comments:

Post a Comment