AdBlock: observing the debate

I've posted earlier about AdBlock Plus. In researching how to most effectively block people using ad blocking software I came across a number of sites that discussed the ethics and effects of Ad Block and ad blocking in general. It's an interesting debate, especially in light of the culture war between traditionalists and post-modernists.

Let me define the two camps for you.

Traditionalists believe in moral absolutes. The see morality as some thing created well above human influence, and therefore not something we can excuse away. Some thing are simply either right or wrong.

Post-modernists are moral relativists. They believe that morality is relative to the person and the circumstances. Moral relativists won't even condemn Hitler. You'll note the trend among many Liberals to attempt to excuse the 9/11 terrorists while blaming the US,  Bush, Big Oil, etc. Post-modernism is a logical fallacy since if nothing is absolute, then moral relativism's demand of no absolutes, itself, must be rejected as an absolute.

Government schools have been indoctrinating children in post-modernism since the 70s, some schools even before then. So our culture now has been polluted with a philosophical fog that has fuddled the minds of so many people. They haven't a clue about logic, rational thought and consistent beliefs. They excuse their own deeds out of convenience, yet condemn the same deeds done by others that inconvenience them.

Note how the excuses for using ad blocking software always utilize moral relativism, excuses they wouldn't tolerate if used against them.

Rationalization for ad blocking

"It gives the user control"

Stealing always does. Banks keep money in vaults, out of my control. Stores keep merchandise monitored by cameras and security guards, out of my control.

The point it someone made the web site, and designed it a specific way to present the information in the way the site creator intended. If you don't like that, then don't access it.

"Ads are annoying"

Having to pay for almost anything is annoying. I'd much rather grocery stores simply gave me food rather than making me pay. But, I recognize that I also like getting paid for my work. It's part of the exchange of value, and circumventing it removes the value. Stores that have to pay for added security because of theft, recover that expense in costs charged to all other shoppers. The same with web sites. It has to be paid for some how.

"If I want to block ads, then I wouldn't have clicked anyway"

No, that's rarely true. I as well as many people are "ad blind" and can ignore ads. But, occasionally, one catches my eye. If it's been presented in an annoying way, interesting or not, I will not click on it. But on rare occasions I'll notice something that looks interesting.

One former AdBlock user wrote...

I remember having Adblock about two years ago but I actually found that it made me look at adverts more.

Instead of simply ignoring adverts (which is dead easy), when the page loads your always on the look out for adverts to block.

 "The only ads blocked are those the user has specifically set the software to block"

No, the vast majority of people who use this kind of software grab the most comprehensive list, and forget about it. They don't want to take the time to sort between the obnoxious and the discreet.

"Using Ad Block is no more different than muting the TV when a commercial comes on"

Muting the TV is an active choice made for each specific ad, using software to block all ads is a blanket censoring of all advertisement. I would be surprised if there actually was someone who took the time and effort to mute every commercial as it came on TV.

"Website owners have abused ads so we have the right to block them"

I hear this often. What it boils down to is, "Because someone, somewhere, did something wrong to someone, I'm justified in stealing from you."

"Ads use up my bandwidth"

That makes as much sense as claiming killing someone was justified because they were breathing your air. If you're on the internet then you're using either dial-up or broadband. In either case your usage is not measured in bandwidth. For dial-up it's measured in hour online. With broadband it's unlimited unless you're doing something like running a server and using up an outrageous amount of bandwidth. The amount of bandwidth used by ads is insignificant.

Even loonier excuses.

"I'm sorry sir but you and any other designer which opposes freedom of will are the thief."

"I'll make you a deal: you stop trying to store files on my machine without my permission (cookies), and I'll stop blocking your ads."

"Any webmaster who puts external ads on their site is violating their visitors' rights."

"The advertisers are stealing from me, the end user, because I didn't give them permission to display an advertisement on my computer!"

"You can't accuse us of being immoral unless you've lived a 100% perfect life."

What the other side is saying

PopularTechnology.net—Why Adblock is bad for the "free" Internet

Adblock effectively robs these free sites of their revenue. If Internet Explorer came with a feature such as Adblock, you would effectively wipe out thousands of websites, maybe more. These are the same free sites users of Adblock frequently visit. The irony is how this is self-defeating.

Lumino.us—Adblock Plus Must Die

Adblock Plus is now the most popular Mozilla add-on (it was downloaded 146,901 times in the past week), and I can’t help but think this makes certain people uncomfortable. Maybe I’m dreaming here, but if 10% of all Firefox users installed Adblock Plus, that would constitute 2% of all web users. How many billions of dollars in lost revenue is that?

In a sense the answer doesn’t matter, because it will never get to that point. There’s simply too much money at stake to allow it to happen. Sooner rather than later, Adblock Plus will stopped [sic] by a legal ruling, or a new law, or god [sic] knows what, but it will be stopped. It has to be.

Information Technology and the Law—Firefox Adblock a Contributory Infringer?

Judge Posner, elucidating the holdings of WGN v. United Video (1982) among others, reasoned in Aimster that:

“[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner’s income from his original program, since “free” television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers.”

Like free television broadcast content supported financially by advertising, much of the content on the Internet today is distributed free to end-users for an indirect exchange of advertisement revenue. When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.

The history of the internet brings us the cautionary tale of PKzip. When Phil Katz stole the code for archiving files from Thom Henderson, Henderson sued. Katz used computer bulletin boards to spread the fable that he was being sued by a "mega-corporation" solely for using the letters "ARC". The fable was much more interesting than the truth and when the smoke cleared Henderson's fledgling company, actually much smaller than Katz's, went belly-up. Katz had had enough time to write his own archiving software and then marketed it as PKzip. Katz received justice after years of hiding from police (for unpaid traffic tickets), as his chronic alcoholism ended his life in a seedy motel at the age of 37, worth millions, but living in filth.

My guess is that the larger advertising companies like Google and Yahoo are afraid that if they try to shut down ad blocking software in the courts, they'll suffer the same PR backlash Thom Henderson did. I envision Google, Yahoo and the other advertisers as pre-pubescent kids against the wall at a junior-high dance, pushing each other and saying, "You go first," "No, you go first."

The legal precedent is there as well as the resources to wage the legal battle. It'll only be when the software starts seriously cutting in to their profit that they'll act. Meanwhile we the publishers who rely on advertising revenues are left to our own devices.

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 2, 2007 9:51 AM