1) Spam is not the same, you didnt ask for it so you are rightly refusing and actively blocking it.

2) Content is not free. Someone had to create it, and they can either charge you directly or let you see it for free by also showing you ads. When you block those ads but still read the content, you're stealing the access/time/production/value of that content without letting the publisher recoup any of their investment or make any profit.

3) I'm not really sure where this anger comes from. Advertising is such a big and growing industry because it works. This is not some evil conspiracy nor are all the companies full of idiots. You will find regular people much like yourself working at all of the advertising agencies, networks and publishers.

Impressions do work. It's not a "belief", it's a fact. Think of it like an empty road with a billboard and a store at the next exit. You can have a blank billboard and see how many people stop at the store. Then put up an ad and measure again. That delta is a significant and measurable difference and with digital advertising, it can be tracked to a very specific level to prove it works. There are also many different types and formats of ads which work in different stages of the sales conversion funnel. YOU might not think it works, but that's not what the massive amount of data and results show every day.

My anger comes from the fact that businesses are constantly trying to sell me things by harassing me. I have no problem with paying for things that I actually want, and I gladly pay for content if it will make the ads go away, but it normally doesn't. If you buy a subscription to a news site you still see ads. I pay plenty for content when I buy books, though. If people are not willing to pay for the content on a site like BuzzFeed, it just shows how little that content is worth.

And advertising is really not a growing industry, at least not as a share of GDP. It's basically a zero-sum game. Online advertising spending is only growing to the extent that it is replacing spending on radio, TV and billboard advertising. Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-03-03/advertisings...

1) Impressions do work, that's what my example was about. 2) Ads are the trade for free access to content. If the ads paid for the road you're driving on, then yes you'd be "stealing" access to the road by ignoring the ads.

The businesses aren't harassing you, they're just spending on ads and those ads show up on publishers who have opted to use the advertising model instead of subscriptions/paid access. There are lots of issues with paid access like not enough demand, price sensitivity, hard to gain new traffic/shares, etc. Advertising is just more reliable and easier to implement and allows for quicker growth.

If sites are using subscriptions and still show you ads (and you're actually logged in as a paying member) then they're trying to extract more money or the price is not covering all of their costs or something in between. That's an issue with the publisher, not the ad companies.

Everything is zero-sum when measured to GDP because there's only 100% of the GDP to go around. GDP is a VERY big number and it's growing, and thus the absolute dollar amount of advertising is also growing and outpacing supply of inventory. That being said, advertising won't become a larger part of GDP because there are only so many buyers that also have to grow as businesses first to increase their total budgets. It makes sense that it tracks in line with the economy and it's not really feasible to make big changes because businesses are not going to stop spending on something like manufacturing their product to instead divert it to advertising.

Something which boggles the mind is how a lot of people who work in advertising still don't understand the concept that you do not have an innate right to your users' brains.

Putting it down to the technical level: When you send me bits, I have complete right and control to refuse them on a selective basis. I have a right to write a program that will refuse them on a selective basis. I have a right to share that program with other people, and those other peope have a right to run said program.

Adblock is not stealing, no matter how much you want it to be. If ads are paying for the content, the business that uses them should be made aware of the risks of adblock and the portion of people who are not willing to accept ads (and at which level they won't accept them).

Advertising in its current form is broken by design. It's a wonder it works at all. And yeah maybe we would be better off without it. The businesses that depend on the kind of ads adblock blocks tend to be shitty, low-hanging fruits, "appeal to the masses" sort of sites. Yes exactly, Buzzfeed. That's a debate for another day, but the point still remains: broken by design. Don't blame the users who just fucking want to be left alone.

Nobody's claiming a right to anyone's brain. It's the fact that you're accessing content that was only offered with the advertisements.

Boiling things down to the technical level just avoids the actual discussion. Sure bittorrent is just a protocol and software, but downloading movies illegally is still piracy right? You can build whatever software you want, but if it's used to DDoS someone then there's a problem. It's not about the tool, it's what its used for.

By blocking ads, you are breaking the terms of use of all the sites that provide you content for free in exchange for ads. If you want to be left alone, then just dont go to these sites... Advertising isn't broken, it's the morality of users who want anything and everything for free.

No... you're not. You're just not. When I visit a website, I don't agree to any terms of use. I don't sign anything. And if there's some out there that make me tick some bullshit box, it's nothing legal.

You have a superbly warped view of the world and I really can only encourage you to get out of your advertising bubble and try to look at websites with a less-informed eye, a process which is not easy to do I'm well aware.

Users don't want "anything and everything for free". They just don't want you. I'm happy to pay sites, apps I use on a daily basis but I'm not happy to let them serve me ads. Especially when those ads suck - and they do suck. This is content I am not willing to subject my retinas to, and by extension my computer because it only serves to slow it down, and sometimes be an infectious carrier.

You're claiming a right to people's brains. You're claiming people who don't observe that right are breaking "terms of use" (they're not).

"Just don't go to these sites" doesn't work. The internet is not a place where I research the publisher of the content I am about to consume before I even consume it by clicking the link someone just sent me. You're not fooling anyone, and I really hope you're not fooling yourself in thinking that.

Terms of use dont require a signature and online/global environment makes it more difficult but they are real and do apply. Perhaps you've never actually created any content but you can talk to the millions of creators out there who would like to be paid for their work and get some more perspective.

Users do want to get stuff for free. The creators/publishers give away content in exchange for ads. If they choose to have paid access, then that's your option. It's up to the publishers to decide how they want to give access to their content and service. If it's through ads, then that's the deal.

If you don't want ads, then you should only stick to publishers that offer paid subscriptions without ads. You don't need to research the publisher, if they have a paywall then you'll see it when you click. Otherwise they're opting to show ads instead. Tampering with their response to only see what you want isn't ok just because you have the technical ability to do so. It's similar to pirating movies, just because you can doesn't mean you argue that its legal or right.

Maybe more people are willing to pay money to read articles without ads, that's something content publishers need to research and offer themselves but that's a completely different topic. Adblocking right now is somewhere in the gray area of legality and morality and while you can choose to do it, please don't assume that means it's right or fair or that we're all idiots trying to force it on you.

I work with content creators in the gaming community on a regular basis and I am well aware of the "content creator's perspective". Believe it or not, a lot of content creators fully understand why someone would use adblock. They also understand that their success isn't measured in how many ads they print, but how much reach they have; and if you start pissing on people who block ads (Who are going to be a huge part of your userbase), you will suffer for it. ESPECIALLY in the gaming community, which holds grudges like you wouldn't believe.

The only ones who believe blocking ads is in a "grey area of morality" are advertisers. You can't just claim something is unethical because it hurts your business. I boycott Paypal for example, and I'm sure Paypal would make the case that it's unethical to boycott them.

Entering the business of giving free shit in exchange for the good will of people to funnel them advertising revenue is, and should be, a calculated risk.

There is no such thing as an "exchange of content for ad impressions". The "exchange" between the user and the content producer is free, and the real exchange happens between the content producer and the advertiser. The interaction between the business and the user is limited to the content they offer, and anti-value added by the advertiser (which is then an exchange between the user and the advertiser).

As a user, I choose to make an exchange with the business (in most cases not involving money), and I choose not to make an exchange with the advertiser because I don't trust the advertiser. I don't want the advertiser anywhere near me or my children. Work on that image and we can talk.

We're not discussing the risks of advertising vs subscriptions. The long-tail of websites and niche content only exists because of advertising. There are way too many sources of content for even the best theoretical and fair payment solution to handle. Advertising is the primary viable business model for internet content.

And yes, publishers still allow content to be viewed even with adblockers because its hard to defend against, they can claim higher reach/users numbers and they might benefit from shares. It doesn't mean they want to and I'd bet every one of the creators you talk to understand why adblockers exist but would rather they not apply to the content they produce. Ask them that specifically if you haven't already. A small anecdote about the gaming community does not apply to the entire internet when for most publishers, their financial success is exactly tied to how many ads they serve and how much revenue they generate.

What I feel you're missing or just actively ignoring is that just because you can do something, does NOT make it right. Technology has made it very easy to find, download and filter exactly what you want but this enabling has lead to things like massive piracy.

Let me just ask you this: Do you think it's "right" to just download a movie without compensating all the work that went into it? Because consuming written content without paying and blocking the ads is exactly the same thing.

This is a strawman because you need to go out of your way to download a movie without paying for it, and in most countries, that is illegal.

You're completely missing this very important difference: It's legal to block ads and view free content. It's not legal to download things you're supposed to pay for.

As for whether it's "right" or "ethical" to block ads, that's a decision the industry you work for would love to get its hands on. Fact is, it's all take and no give with for-profit businesses. You mentioned HBO Go, well how about all those pay-for services which still show ads? How about the TV channels that still show ads? How about all the services on the web that you pay for and still don't have the decency to disable ads? They're common, and all the strawmen you're bringing into the discussion are carefully avoiding that little factoid.

> taking something from them without something in return, unless it was a gift, is stealing

Oh I've had enough with you already. The websites are gifting the content with the understanding that a part of their revenue will come from ads. With that understanding is also the understanding that there's also people who don't block ads. To those who do, they're eyeballs. Non-paying eyeballs, but still eyeballs, and there's a lot of content producers out there who would kill to have this huge segment of the population reading, viewing, listening to their stuff.

You go on a lot about how "people always want all their content for free". Ignoring the fact that it's a bullshit claim, with you specifically and the advertising industry in general, it's all take and no give. If the users are not seeing ads, they're STEALING!

Maybe they're not giving you, as the advertiser, business. But they're not stealing from the business they actually deal with. You want to claim they steal from you? Fine. That's debatable but it at least has some merit. But don't try to paint yourself as this white knight in shiny armor who would defend those poor mom&pop sites whose monies are being plundered.

PS: You wanna know why I'm so bitter? Just two weeks ago I was right in front of an ad network who asked one of the gaming fansites I deal with (a major French fansite), listening to them making demands on how the site should be redesigned to fit their worthless ads and how we should start blocking people who use adblock and telling them to turn it off. This is your fucking game. You want people to disable adblock, you don't care about our users.

No, you're not. Just as you're not stealing when you mute commercials on TV or go to the bathroom, or fast-forward past them, or use the 30-second skip button. If they want to try that business model, it's on them to make it work, not on users to make it work for them. They're saying, "Hey, we think our content is good enough that you'll put up with huge percentages of our pages being taken up by other irrelevant stuff." If it turns out the annoying stuff is too annoying, that's their problem to fix, and not putting up with it is in absolutely no way stealing.

Lots of media IS free (say, Wikipedia) and there's lots of free stuff to read out there on the Web. Similarly there is a lot of paid content going over HTTP, and my Kindle and iTunes apps are full of it.

Did someone have to create yet another dull top 10 list or quizzicle? Maybe, but the value of this writing, as determined by what a person would be willing to pay for it, is pretty low, aka essentially nil. Putting this up for free on the Web with advertising is one monetization strategy, but the simple fact that it's up for free doesn't create a reader obligation to look at the ads.

Listeners don't have an obligation to contribute to NPR, either: they do so because they value the institution and its media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_awareness

This absolutely does work on a non-trivial amount of people. Even when said people are aware they are being influenced. Anecdotal; I grew up with McDonald's fast food. Even though today I've taken up a much healthier diet for years, I'm still a bit sad McD's cannot be a part of my family's life. I'm aware it's because of those golden arches and that Ronald person that was always in commercials during my Saturday morning cartoons. My superMarioBros.3 toys came from McD's happymeals. To this day I still buy many Nintendo-brand t-shirts for myself, and even Nintendo stuff for my kids, and I know it's because Nintendo has etched into my head their marketing from before I was even 10 years old.... but I can't shake it off. McD's mixing Nintendo characters into their marketing image makes it even harder for me to ignore them... but I do because I see the real effects of eating unhealthy. Otherwise anything that doesn't have a very clear negative effect, the Ads do work on me. If I see something advertised often enough without running into any negative commentary about it, the next time I need whatever that company was advertising I will look to them first.

Still, I'm in charge of my device; I'll browse/block/ignore whatever I damn well please thank you.

But it does, lots of smart people spend lots of money on it and recoup their investment. People spend a lot of time and money figuring out exactly how impressions drive sales. Do you think no one measures ROI on ads?

I'm really trying to understand why you think this is all fake. We can and do measure ads pretty accurately. Attribution is far from perfect but aggregated against a large audience who's exposed to ads vs a control group, and with tracking all the way down to conversions, we can see there is a difference.

My company works with Nielsen to certify and double-check our results as well as numerous other partners that only do attribution which is why our clients trust us.

It's not impossible. It's done everyday and it's backed by science, technology, data and results.

I think that modern advertising is based on faulty, outdated psychological theory and that all the statistics you can come up with to demonstrate otherwise are tainted because the studies are all funded by ad company dollars.

What theory is that?