Re:Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a ...
by munificent on Monday January 31, 2022 @12:59PM
(#30151425)
There is, I think, a valid argument that we got here today because in the early days of the web:
1. People wanted content without paying for it.
2. Creators wanted/needed financial support to make and host their work.
Advertising filled the void between those two things. You can think of it as sort of a natural, emergent property. No one wanted advertising, but the way the individual actors behaved—web users preferring sites that didn't charge them, creators that didn't advertise going out of business—led to the rise of advertising.
I think that is part of why some people don't think of advertising as morally bad. No one deliberately nefariously foisted it onto the world, it just arose from the behavior of individuals. That behavior created an environment, and the environment evolved the dominance of ads.
You can use that exact same argument justify the use of ad-blockers now.
People using ad blockers are not actively trying to harm creators. They are just using the web and tools available in the way that makes the most sense for them. This is exactly the same as when they chose to prefer non-paid ad-supported content before. The system gave them options, and they chose the ones that they prefer.
Creators will in turn make the choices that make the most sense for them. If ad blockers mean that they no longer make money from ads, they'll find other ways to be sustainably creative. Markets aren't magic solutions to all problems, but in this case I think the market is working pretty damn efficiently.
People are using ad blockers because ads are bad for them. If consumers improving the quality of their own life is a problem for the system, the system should change. And in order to change, it needs systemic incentives to do so. Ad blockers create that incentive.
An argument against ad blockers is essentially an argument for forcing users to consume something toxic. Imagine if McDonald's stopped selling burgers in isolation, required you to buy combos, and then forced you to drink your entire soda. When people who wanted to cut back on unhealthy sugar complained, they were told that they're the problem because McDonald's makes most of its profit from drinks. If they don't drink the soda then McDonald's won't be as profitable and then they won't be in business. That's basically the argument against ad blockers.
But... a burger joint that forced you to chug soda should be out of business, or should at least have to change its pricing in a way that lets people eat in a healthier manner. Ad blockers enable consumers to "stop drinking the soda" in the attention combo offered by sites.
1. People wanted content without paying for it.
2. Creators wanted/needed financial support to make and host their work.
Advertising filled the void between those two things. You can think of it as sort of a natural, emergent property. No one wanted advertising, but the way the individual actors behaved—web users preferring sites that didn't charge them, creators that didn't advertise going out of business—led to the rise of advertising.
I think that is part of why some people don't think of advertising as morally bad. No one deliberately nefariously foisted it onto the world, it just arose from the behavior of individuals. That behavior created an environment, and the environment evolved the dominance of ads.
You can use that exact same argument justify the use of ad-blockers now.
People using ad blockers are not actively trying to harm creators. They are just using the web and tools available in the way that makes the most sense for them. This is exactly the same as when they chose to prefer non-paid ad-supported content before. The system gave them options, and they chose the ones that they prefer.
Creators will in turn make the choices that make the most sense for them. If ad blockers mean that they no longer make money from ads, they'll find other ways to be sustainably creative. Markets aren't magic solutions to all problems, but in this case I think the market is working pretty damn efficiently.
People are using ad blockers because ads are bad for them. If consumers improving the quality of their own life is a problem for the system, the system should change. And in order to change, it needs systemic incentives to do so. Ad blockers create that incentive.
An argument against ad blockers is essentially an argument for forcing users to consume something toxic. Imagine if McDonald's stopped selling burgers in isolation, required you to buy combos, and then forced you to drink your entire soda. When people who wanted to cut back on unhealthy sugar complained, they were told that they're the problem because McDonald's makes most of its profit from drinks. If they don't drink the soda then McDonald's won't be as profitable and then they won't be in business. That's basically the argument against ad blockers.
But... a burger joint that forced you to chug soda should be out of business, or should at least have to change its pricing in a way that lets people eat in a healthier manner. Ad blockers enable consumers to "stop drinking the soda" in the attention combo offered by sites.