The internet is not an honesty box.

Well I think it is - they're offering something with an understanding.

Yes the understanding isn't legally enforced, but socially that's what they're expecting.

Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree, rather than continuing to take while knowing that it's not what they wanted.

How far do you take this point? Because the social expectation is not just that you allow the ads to be served, but that you read/watch them and that they increase the likelihood of you buying the products/services being advertised. Is it immoral for me to ignore the ads that I allow them to display on my computer? And if not, what is the difference apart from the effort I'm putting in?

I think the normal expectation would be that the advertiser pays for the ads being shown together with the content you're really interested in, and it's the advertisers' problem if the ads produce any value for them.

No I don't agree with this - the expectation is that the ads are there. Whether they're successful or not is their problem.

This feels like an arbitrary line to me. The host expects the ads to be rendered, and that's my problem. The advertiser expects their ads to be viewed, but that's their problem. What's the distinction?

Is it that I'm only in an implicit social contract with the person serving the content I want? Then it would be morally fine for me to block ads as long as I trick advertisers into thinking I didn't- the host only cares about whether they get paid. And what about on YouTube or Instagram, where the advertiser is the host? Google expects me to view their ads, not just render them, and I'm definitely in a social contract with them.

Or is it that they are allowed to stake a moral claim on the content of my browser, but not on my attention? Then I'd be allowed to block full-screen ads that force me to find an X, or autoplaying ads with sound, as they are forcing me to give them something they have no right to. And if I had an attention deficit disorder or a shopping addiction, all ads would be in that category. Even without such things, every ad accesses my attention without my consent, even if it's just the attention required to ignore them.

> Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree

If you think the current state of online advertising as a business model is actively immoral, as I do, then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do.

> then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do

Why not avoid the businesses instead?

Do you think people in costco should avoid trying samples if they don't intend to purchase the item?

No - do you? Trying samples is what they're presented for.

By your own logic, shouldn't you avoid eating samples for products you have no intent on purchasing?

Certainly this doesn't hold up without an explanation and you shouldn't expect the reader to provide that for themselves. If that sounds wrong to you, I'd invite you to put your thoughts into words.

Samples are funded by the expectation that some will follow through with a purchase and justify the free distribution of those samples.

Websites with ads are funded by the expectation that some will click through, make a purchase, and justify the free distribution of those bits.

If you eat samples with no intent of making a purchase, you are subverting FoodCo's expectation that samples will lead to sales. You are making their business model unsustainable.

Why do you think the free taking of bits (which cost much less to serve, and is much less tangible) is less justified than the free taking of food samples? In both cases it subverts the business model expectations of the party offering the free stuff.

Individuals are not obligated to support the business models of companies that give them free stuff in hopes it will make them money.

You said this:

> By your own logic, ...

And didn't explain why OP is being hypocritical with their arguments. It seems you are misunderstanding their position.

No that doesn't make any sense - the whole point of a sample is to give to people who don't already have an intent to purchase. That's what the company wants to do and their offer to you.

I don't think these replies are the clever 'gotchas' that you think they are.

If the goal is to end online advertising as a business model, then not visiting the site is either morally equivalent (no change) or morally worse (does not harm the business) to visiting it with an ad blocker (does harm the business).

Their understanding is entirely in their own mind. I, and a very large percentage of internet users, reject it. Content publishers might want this social contract to exist, but it does not.

I personally don't find ad-supported content objectionable. But it's still my browser running on my computer and I'll do what I like with it.

> Their understanding is entirely in their own mind.

Well yeah that's how society works.

Unless you want written code for all social interactions? Most don't.

No, nice try I guess but this is wrong in several ways.

Morals are not defined by capitulating to the wishes of others. If it was, the moral thing for advertisers to do would be to not try to show people ads who don’t wish to view them but do wish to consume content. Your argument here falls apart the second you consider any symmetry.

Furthermore, there are decades of history of advertisers being perfectly aware that most people would prefer not to see the ads, given a choice. They do not, in fact, expect people to just watch the ads. As evidence of this fact, they have come up with dozens and dozens of legal and technical mechanisms to force people to view their ads despite their preferences.

> Morals are not defined by capitulating to the wishes of others.

Respecting, not capitulating.

> If it was, the moral thing for advertisers to do would be to not try to show people ads who don’t wish to view them but do wish to consume content.

No, if the website and user don't have a common understanding, then both can go separate ways.

> perfectly aware that most people would prefer not to see the ads, given a choice

And I'd prefer not to pay the bill in a restaurant, but that's not the expectation.

> they have come up with dozens and dozens of legal and technical mechanisms to force people to view their ads

And restaurants come up with legal and technical mechanisms to make me pay the bill.

Morals are not defined by respecting the wishes of other people either. You’re right to pivot to common expectations, that’s closer, but when you examine the actual expectations of both the public and the advertisers, you find that it roundly undermines your choice of framing here.

Restaurants are a false analogy. There is an explicit agreement known in advance by both parties, a legal contract with a restaurant when you order, and leaving without paying is a crime. There is no such expectation with ads.

This is cringey and goofy. It’s not a moral issue, you’re really stretching. Even if it was a moral issue, the global known public expectation of ads is that they’re sometimes tolerated and on the whole not preferred. You’re choosing to prioritize the viewpoint of advertisers over respecting the wishes of the public, while if you look at it from the public’s perspective, ads have never been the “moral” choice.

Your argument, of course, is also wearing blinders to the many ways that ads can be actually immoral, for example as a soft bait-and-switch, by offering one thing to entice while delivering something else with an agenda, and the ways ads are often directly immoral by using misleading or untrue information, selling goods and services that are overall harmful to the public, from excessive sugar to payday loans to expensive pharmaceuticals to politics.

The restaurant analogy works. Blocking web ads is not like ignoring a billboard, or turning away from TV ads. When you go to an ad-supported web site, your individual request actually costs money to serve. You are incrementally increasing their costs while denying them the corresponding income. You are making a decision to continue increasing those costs for your own benefit.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that the first request is a gimme. As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere.

Billboards and TV ads cost money too, generally speaking far more money per ad than web ads. The idea that they’re somehow different from website ads is wrong.

> As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere.

False, because that’s not the actual public expectation today. The common expectation that would define what is moral in this situation is that blocking is reasonable because ads are intrusive and annoying and often get in the way of the reason I’m on the site. I’d be fine with saying it’s “nice” and it’s “supporting” the site to not block the ad, but hard disagree that blocking is immoral, that’s just hyperbole.

That’s not really the advertiser’s wish either, they don’t want the result to be less traffic, they just want you to watch the ad. So your suggestion isn’t actually respecting their wishes.

The ads on the bottom of CVS receipts are incrementally increasing their costs. Do you feel a moral obligation to read each one?

Except when did I agree I wanted to pay for my lunch with my eyeballs .. ?

> Morals are not defined by respecting the wishes of other people either.

I think they are - it's moral to respect other people's reasonable wishes, or not interact with them if you're not able to respect them.

If I know someone expects that I'll bring a bottle of wine to their party, I should either do that, or I should decline to come to the party. If I know that's what they were expecting and I turn up empty handed and eat all their party food then I'm just a bad person even if no laws were broken.

'Nah nah nah no laws broken, agreement was never written down, no money changed hands' isn't a kind way to interact with people.

You’re moving the goal posts now. The actual expectation of the public today is that blocking ads is okay, just like muting the TV or fast-forwarding a video is okay. The actual expectation of the advertisers is also that people don’t want to watch ads, if they have a choice. They have acknowledged this directly in many ways. So the common expectation is that people prefer to not watch ads, therefore by your logic the only moral choice is to not try to show ads to people.

> therefore by your logic the only moral choice is to not try to show ads to people

No I wouldn't agree with that. I think it's moral to show adverts, but not to be subversive about it, and I think it's moral to offer a way to turn them off such as paid plans, which I often use.

This isn’t about what you think, your opinion does not define what’s moral. Morality is defined by what the public as a whole agrees with. Today, the public is okay with blocking ads. The public is also okay with showing ads and paid plans too. Therefore, again, this is not a moral issue. But if it was, both the common (public and advertisers) and public expectations alone demonstrate that the less moral choice is to try to show ads to people against their will when they’re consuming content unrelated to the ads. The advertisers have always known this and they are free to not pay for ads and not support the content, but they choose to because ads still work well enough, for better or worse, despite ad-blocking behaviors among people who care enough.

> This isn’t about what you think, your opinion does not define what’s moral.

Err that's exactly what my comment was about. I was sharing my opinion on what I think is moral. If you don't want to hear my opinion on it why are you reading the thread?

I'm not threatening to codify this into law and enforce it on others if that's what you were worried about lol!

Seems like they work in ads and are grappling with the moral cognitive dissonance of their income stream....

I don't work in ads - I work in compilers, for a company with a conventionally paid product (which advertises, like everyone does.)

I disagree. There are forms of adverts that my browser extensions will not block - simple images for example. It’s not my fault that sites choose not to use these any more, and instead use a model that is, in my view, an unacceptable security risk.

If it’s unacceptable, don’t visit the website again. That seems more honest to me.

It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs?

The ultimate purpose of ads is getting money from us, why can't we have a say about how the request is presented to us? Ads are not a privilege or a right, they're beggars posted at every corner of the Internet.

> It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs?

Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts.

> Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts.

By not consuming intrusive ads, and by not buying products promoted with unethical practices.

You can't possibly defend the current state of private spying and surveillance, it's dystopian. The data collected is sold (directly or indirectly) to bad actors, and is ripe for abuse. You can't just say "deal with it or GTFO", ad blocking is the only recourse we as consumers have to voice our opinion.

> ad blocking is the only recourse we as consumers have to voice our opinion

It's not - you can prefer paid services over advertising-supported services. Buy a physical magazine rather than a digital subscription. Etc.

I don’t view it as my role as a consumer to prejudge the business model of the websites I visit. If a website does not want my view, they can block me or use a paywall. That’s fine.

But a website could cover the marginal cost of serving me content with simple image adverts, sponsored content, donation mechanism, subscription or otherwise. They may decide that having X% of viewers block ads is a ‘cost of business’ and is worth it to increase viewership.

Modelling the situation as ‘honest’ to accept ads and ‘dishonest’ to block them may undermine the chosen business model of the site, and not visiting again models the monetisation strategy as static, which it is not.

It’s interesting that moral and social burden is somehow put onto people that don’t want to be tracked/shadow profiled/spied on, and NOT on the companies that do tracking/spying.

What moral and social burden? If you don't like it, ignore them and don't visit their websites. They aren't forcing you to.

I am sorry, was it you that wrote "I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong."? If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is.

> I am sorry, was it you that wrote

HN lets you see who wrote a comment - it says above each one.

> If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is.

I mean you don't have a burden to visit their website if you don't want to. If it was a government organisation then yes.

I don't know what code their sites will send my browser until they send it. But I do know that my browser tells them not to track me in its initial request, so they are free to send me away and not let me "in the door".

But they don't, they let me in despite me being very clear that I am entering on the condition that they don't track me, so here we are. They don't get to pull the surprised-face card when I then proceed to not let them track me.

Adjacent to that, I think a "I'm not going to display your ads" or bluntly "don't show me ads" header would make perfect sense and yet I'm quite sure that webmasters would treat it the exact same way that they've treated do-not-track.

If they don't want people to customize the way they view content, they shouldn't put it on the web. Nobody is forcing them to use HTML.

I think its more like: you visit the honesty box for eggs, but someone follows you home and watches everything you do for six months.

Also the "honesty box" vendor put all the more ethical egg sellers out of business by undercutting them.