A noble thought, but

> Do consider what killing off most of the independent professional info websites will do to the Internet.

Where do I sign up for that?

The web was never a platform for publishers, it was a platform for users (some of them publishers). Big publishers never wanted it and hated it but were forced to use it or face irrelevance. Now they act like they own the place and are entitled to their business model.

If you don't want your readers to be able to triage content and data once they receive it, go build your own network and publish on there.

Using advertisement blockers is not only not an unethical thing to do, it is the right to do to force back those who seek to usurp and abuse a popular commons that was build to serve all equally.

Well, I couldn't agree more. The concept that ad-blocking is bad is right up there with the content industry thinking, believing that the Internet couldn't, wouldn't exist without them. Rubbish.

The Internet was not a platform for users. It was a platform for nuclear weapons, therefore by your logic anything that's been done to it since the 1960s must simply be wrong. Why don't you go and start your own network where you can read and write, post videos, and exchange other information?

Regardless of promotion, ad blocking is inevitable on the web. Imagine if your TV could distinguish a sporting event from the ads and logos displayed on the field, and automatically hide (in real time) everything but the game you want to watch? Advertisers would lose their minds... but this is exactly how the web works and always has. The site delivers instructions for drawing its parts, and my browser can choose how/if to render that content. The business model has always been tenuous, and that's not my problem, because it's not even a problem, it's just the fact of the matter.

The example of automatically removing logos from video seems like a great computer vision project.

There have been lawsuits over exactly that, I think - specifically about ad-skipping DVRs.

ReplayTV back in the day. Man, was that an awesome, if underappreciated, product for its time. Seriously loved the upgrade capability and user-centric features (like commercial-skipping, until litigation came along).

Yes. The Internet wasn't created to support someone's ad network.

That's why web advertisers are pushing publishers to create more video content. Ads inserted at the beginning of a video can't be blocked with current tools.

Because of that, for all browsers I'd like a setting to block video auto-play, as I rarely watch the video "content".

Firefox has this already - don't think the others do though.

"When I shoot you, you might be dead. It's not even a problem, it's just the fact of the matter"

Calling that line of reasoning tenuous would give it too much credit. I'm not surprised to hear it - it's a fairly common approach in the tech world. We only stop to think if we can do it, not if we should do it.

Which has landed us where we are, in an arms race around ads, where everybody mostly only cares about their personal interests and technological feasibility. It's time we started talking about ethics. And if you open up that dialog, what you're doing is deeply problematic - you deliberately violate an unspoken assumption, that content creators deserve some kind of remuneration for their work.

It is, in the limit, giving up on the social compact in favor of pure individualism. It's never worked out in human history, and it won't work out this time, either. We can either all return to the table and try to find solutions that respect everybody, or we can devolve into individual greed followed by social chaos.

It's just the fact of the matter.

There is no unspoken assumption that content creators deserve some kind of remuneration for their work at any and all cost to consumers of the work. The current methods go to far and deserve all the backlash they get.

Um, did you actually read the article? It's precisely about the ethics of ad blocking.

There is no "unspoken assumption." If content creators deserve renumeration for their work, there are plenty of systems they can use to generate it. Display advertising based on third party serving/tracking technology is proving to be a bad one. Ad blocking is merely the signal to let content creators know they should look for better options.

Kindly note that I'm replying to GPs assertion that it's not their problem, and ad-blocking is simply "just a fact" - not the article itself.

This absolutist view - "ad blocking is always OK, because you can do it" - is what I take issue with, because it has ethical problems. It's wildly different from the article's stance that it is an ethical responsibility to use adblockers to cause a systemic shift away from the attention economy.

And yes, there is an unspoken assumption that work deserves to be remunerated. It underpins our society. There is also an unspoken assumption that in that interaction, there has to be respect for the consumers attention, resources, and desires. The ad industry is often violating that part of the equation.

If you use an ad-blocker as a tool to force the other side to rethink their approach, based on the stance that there's an ethical violation on their part, I fully respect that. I'm not certain it is a good solution, but at the very least, it is rooted in an ethical foundation, with an ethical goal.

"I'll always block it, just because I can" has no such foundation whatsoever, even if the actual effect is currently the same as the principled stand.

I appreciate the serious answer, and I suspect we don't disagree all that much.

I actively want a "systemic shift way from the attention economy" and believe that ad blocking is, somewhat bizarrely, the best practical tool to achieve that end. If there are some people who ad block for reasons I don't endorse, that is up to them.

I actually think ad blocking should be seen as, on balance, a powerfully good force for beneficial change. It's easy, it works, it makes the individual user experience better and has the ultimate effect of encouraging a better web generally. Doc Searls calls it the biggest boycott in history. He's not wrong.

I can't say I'm entirely unsympathetic to the view. I'm concerned that after everything settles, the floor will be littered with the bodies of ad-dependent companies, many of them actually a net positive for society before their demise.

One of the bigger categories here is journalism. Newspapers made - in hindsight - a giant mistake when they bet on advertising instead of subscriptions. The house is already rapidly collapsing around them. I'd like them to get out before the place gets levelled, so to speak. Because functioning journalism is absolutely crucial to a democratic society.

There's also the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong with advertising per se. It's how it's done that truly matters. Respect for privacy and attention is crucial here.

It's a large set of problems, and it affects a tremendous number of people. Which is why I think it matters to question our motives for anything we do there - and hence my objection to "because I can". That's the same attitude that got us here.

I remember back when hosting a website was orders of magnitudes more expensive than today, and how many hosted their own website, about something they had a passion about.

If all those who make websites to peddle ads were forced of the net, maybe there would be a space for those who have a passion and love to create.

If we cut down all these pesky trees we'll be able to enjoy the beautiful flowers of the forest. Where does that leave the forest though? The net has a problem with noise, not space.

You are right - harddrives are so cheap today that we can trivially host all the text anybody cares to write.

On the other hand, for any given query there is only 10 spots on the first page of google, and I really rather not have any of them taken over by spammers.

Affiliate links via standard anchor tags. Self hosted images if an image is needed. The targeting thing is such a waste of effort, everyone needs light bulbs, batteries, etc. Put a link up that says "If you need AAA batteries and you'd like to support our site click here". Batteries alone would probably work on me once a month "Thanks for the reminder, I will click that link with a smile."

What service exactly are these web developers even providing in the first place? The site is built. The servers are running. Any technical upgrades are almost certainly to the advertising machinery, and if you want to make back your server costs, you probably already manage that with donations. The internet is cheap as dirt.

If you are trying to make more than that, beyond of course the actual work that you put in, the reason you want to do so is because of the massive capital investment that you have to justify. Capital investment that was attracted because of the promise of advertising revenue.

You obviously have no clue, nor respect, of what efforts go into substantive websites that create original content. Just because you found a technical way to avoid advertising doesn't mean that you morally deserve to receive free content. All you're doing is killing the Internet so that all you'll end up with is Facebook where you can't get rid of the ads and small, irrelevant websites that resemble what existed in the 1990's. Enjoy.

I miss the 90s internet.

Mostly HTML, what little java or flash there was was usually trash video games sites.

You'd search (Lycos!) for content and what you got was raw data from crazies all over the world. Not the curated "don't hurt yourself" BS hits you get in the first 100 !g results. Or 100 sites trying to sell you trash.

The 90s internet was many the best of an otherwise weak decade! (and Seinfeld, of course)

EDIT: And the content was avilable with 28k to 56k modem. Today I can't even check my email (why not??? grrr) with that.

>small, irrelevant websites that resemble what existed in the 1990s.

I take issue with this statement. The websites back then were small but they were not irrelevant. If anything they featured more relevant and original content than the majority of sites today. Combined with the tech of today like free CDNs I don't think we'd be much worse off.

I would enjoy it. I doubt you would enjoy one day getting some random malware through your ads that you leave unblocked.

And stuff like Wikipedia which runs ad free off donations.

Honestly, I'm okay with that, most info I get is from Wikipedia, scientific papers or tiny random blogs. What sites are you afraid of it killing? Junk news sites? Reddit? I can live without them. I struggle to think of any with significant value.

And what's Reddit but consolidated newsgroups within a single entity (and the ability to vote).

If only one could use a normal news reader to access it.

Indeed - I think ad-paid centralization (largely for ease of use sake) effectively drove a lot of great stuff off the internet.

That sounds great! The truly useful sites will survive with various combinations of subscriptions, donations, affiliate links, and micropayments. The rest can go away and nothing of value will be lost.

Wikipedia survives without advertising and has some of the best content available anywhere. Some sites paywall, and for specialist content that’s actually valuable, that will continue to be a viable model. And static sites are cheaper than ever, keeping plenty of niche content available. Affiliate advertising is still a viable model and there are even more ways to monetize content that don’t require display advertising. Clickbait might die a miserable death, and thank God for that. Valuable content will survive.

We don’t live in a world of Faustian bargains where we have to put up with excessive pollution—either of the informational or physical sort—as an unavoidable byproduct of value. There are better solutions out there, and all it takes to realize them is to take the minds that are wasted on tricking people into seeing or clicking on ads and put them to work on more useful endeavors.

Advertisers and their morality.. It's not less moral for me to get you're content for free as it is for you to create content to get my attention, and potentially my money. Just as you have right to do everything in your power to make money on your content, I have a right to do with that content whatever I want, and that includes stripping it from any and all ads.. If you don't like it you can hide it behind a paywall, DRM it, or get out of business.

Thanks for providing a recipe of a society where everybody hates each other because everybody is trying to "make money" off of each other. In reality, you're getting free content for which you're "paying" with having your attention bothered for a microsecond by an ad that's barely in your field of view. The horror is unprecedented and that is why this is what you give your attention and emotion to, not all those other horrible things that the world lives with. You're spoiled and you have no real worries, so you create a boogie man that you fight because it gives life meaning. That's my impression of this topic.

> You're spoiled and you have no real worries, so you create a boogie man that you fight because it gives life meaning.

You don't know shit about me, about my worries and about what give my life meaning so gtfo.

Have you even read the original blog article?

A webservice is not "content".

Do you even know what you're arguing about?

Ajit? Is that you?

Capitalism works in both ways.. I don't buy stuff I can't afford, and businesses don't have to produce content that is not profitable for them.

That's exactly the problem the Brave browser is trying to solve, I highly recommend checking it out: https://brave.com.

Flattr is another option: https://flattr.com

Sounds like there are too many options.

Ajit? Is that you?

Put up a paywall and charge for your service. If your service is not one that people will pay you actual money for, reconsider whether it's actually all that valuable.

How does a lack of advertising revenue kill off independent publishers? Anyone can get a VPS for $5 / month and host whatever they want. 99.9% of them will never achieve a level of traffic that would either require additional investment or produce any significant advertising revenue anyway.