Does Adblock Violate A Social Contract?

almondjoy writes "Newsforge is currently running a story on Firefox extensions where the author states the following regarding use of the AdBlock extension: 'If you use this tool ... there are those who would assert you are not holding up your end of a 'social contract' between yourself and the Web site that you are browsing' Would you be volating a social contract hitting the 30sec skip button on Tivo? Or putting a strip of paper across the bottom of our TV screen to block out those super annoying scrolling banners? I have found that using the combination of AdBlock and FlashBlock extensions in Firefox has greatly enhanced my browsing experience. Has acceptance of web sites crammed with advertising content become part of my social contract with society?"

the answer is..

[BYC(VCU.EDU)]

Doesn't SPAM violate the same contract.

Annoying People != $$$

[A Boy and His Blob]

The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people. Pop-ups, pop-unders, floating ads, the all singing all dancing flash ads, anything that blinks or wants you to answer a trivia question, ad infested web pages that have half a page of text and require you to hit the next button to continue to the next page. These are all ANNOYING, that is why people are blocking or otherwise avoiding them.

You don't see people going to extreme lengths to block Google text ads. Why? Because they are fairly unobtrusive, yet still visible enough for people to see them.

If advertisers don't want me using Adblock they should use small, unobtrusive, static images and I will happily turn it off. But until then, they can whine and complain all they want. Just my two cents...

Bullshit... social contract isn't violated by a to

[rsborg]

Social Contract, per definition, is between people. Therefore, the closest adblock could come is to being a "social contract infringement tool". However, it doesn't really capitalize on this (ie, there's no centralized adblock-blacklist server), and it's fairly obtuse to use (ie, my wife doesn't grok it completely)... so I doubt you could say that it intentionally infringes.

What gets me is that arguably, social cotract was first violated by offending websites and ad-server ppl in general, with things like popups, glaringly bad animation (ie, flashing colors, etc). Not to mention the EVIL doubleclick and their "we will track your ass... try and avoid us, punk" attitude. Which is what I believe the adblock authors were trying to control/avoid/defeat.

I won't adblock a server/ad that's generally nice or doesn't get in the way of my browsing... think google or other text-based adverts, or even non-animated, "non-epilepsy inducing" image ads. THATs a real social contract... because google/etc know that their revenue relies on their good behavior. I respect that.

Finally, on a dialup (like at my parents place), adblock SIGNIFICANTLY improves performance. I think removal of bloat is impressively important for non-broadband folks, and that's another case of advertisers "messing with social contract". I especially hated it when the page would load fast, but the ad at the top woudl sit there and hold up the entire page from rendering. WTF.

What social contract?

[AstroDrabb]

What social contract? Since when did "we" have to guarantee poor businesses models based on annoying the crap out of your users with flashing gif and flash ads? Anyone remember the annoying "punch the monkey flash ad"? I block ads on /. and every site I use with adblock and flashblock. If I want to support a site I like, then I will donate a couple bucks to them. For example, if you look at my /. UID I have an asterisks next to it, that means I am a subscriber. I just donated $5 USD to /. and do this about two times a year. To me /. is worth $10 a year. Now imagine if the 100,000+ /. readers all donated $5 - $10 a year. /. wouldn't need stupid ads.

I also don't feel bad about not watching most commercials on TV or ripping the DVD's I buy and removing al the crap from them. I paid for the product, I don't want to see more ads. I pay about $140 a month to my cable company for Digital cable, Digital Broadband and a Digital phone. The least the cable company can do is get rid of ads for me, though I know that day will never come.

The only ad content I don't make an effort to block are text based ads like Google uses. I have no problem with those types of ads since they do not distract me. The day most/all web ads are text based and don't flash to "get your attention" is the day that I will stop using adblock and flashblock to block web ads. Oh, and adblock has two modes: "remove images" and "hide images". The "remove images" option doesn't download the images and the "hide images" option downloads but doesn't display them. So if you want to surf a site and still help out the web advertiser, just use "hide images", though I use "remove images" so I can get faster page load times.

Balderdash, Codswallop, etc. etc.

[Space cowboy]

If a commercial website can't support itself via its audience, that website should die. If the users of the website are sufficiently motivated to pay for content, they will, and it will survive. Here's a hint: if you need to be paid, then be up-front and honest about it (eg: LWN [lwn.net]). If your worth preserving, you'll be fine.

There is no such thing as an implied or "social" contract - by their very nature, contracts are not implications! The whole terminology is a marketing exercise designed to appeal to the "guilt" that just because someone is giving you something, you ought to pay for it.

Sheesh! Social contracts! What next ? Breathing contracts ?

Simon

the preexisting contract

[Surt]

Stated that websites weren't allowed to pop-up advertisements. When they started to do so, a renegotiation of the contract became necessary, and the new contract states that while web sites may attempt to pop up windows, I am free to disallow that on my system.

If web sites have a problem with this, they need to learn to read the fine print before they sign.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

There can't be any social contract between people who haven't even communicated with each other.

My machine, my choice

[bmw]

Social contract or not it is really my choice whether or not I want something displayed on my screen. If the revenue generated from ads on a particular website is suffering to the point of not being profitable then perhaps it is time to look at new ways of making money. You can't try to enforce some form of draconian control over everyone's computers. This is my machine and I will decide what is downloaded, displayed, and run on it.

I've been browsing before there were ads.

[jhill]

I would have to say that the social contract that's being broken are by the people advertising. I've been browsing the web since it's inception with HTML and the like. The things that's been invaded is my space, not the other way around with me blocking it.

Adblock, flash block, block images from this server will always win out with me.

There's an old saying...

[deanj]

There's an old saying that seems appropriate here:

Free speech is the right to say whatever you want; it's not the right to make people listen.

Unfortunately, they do sell

[Improv]

There are always bozos who actually buy things they get spammed about, which is why spammers continue doing what they do. It would be nice to fine the companies whose products are being pushed by spam as a way to combat this, but then of course companies would aim to have their competitors fined. Better, I think, to just shoot the spammers on recognition :)

In any case, using Adblock is a good way to deal with things until a more permanent and global solution to end internet advertising can be found.

Social Contract in the real world

[sellin'papes]

There is no social contract with advertisers in the real world. When you walk down the street, if you are looking at the ground, you are not violating a social contract you have with the advertisers to keep your head up and keep an eye out for new products.

Why should this be different on the internet?

Pure BS

[stinerman]

This "social contract" BS is something marketers dreamed up to make it "bad" to block their ads. The TV people say the same thing about how you're "breaking contract" by muting commercials, getting up off your duff for a drink, or skipping past them on a recording you made.

I didn't sign any contract. I didn't agree to any ToS. I don't want to see your commercials, so poo on you.

Same thing can be said about..

[thenetbox]

Same thing can be said about.. Popup blockers and Spyware removers. Are they breaking a "social contract" by removing the spyware/blocking popups that some sites/apps use? I understand what the article is saying but but they could have worded it better.

There is no social contract

[ksvh]

The idea of a "social contract" is just a scam some people use to con other people into thinking they have obligations that they never actually agreed to. Any real contract is written down and signed by the parties agreeing to it.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[Mick Ohrberg]

The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people.

Unfortunately, this is not true. Rest assured that if it wasn't profitable, advertisers wouldn't spend the money on creating annoying and intrusive popups etc.

Re:Somebody has to pay for the web sites you use

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

And conversely, should we implictly pay for the bandwidth to receive content we neither requested nor wanted? I think not.

Of course not

[SecurityGuy]

Advertising exploits a coincidence. It is not an obligation on the viewer. I don't enter into any agreement, implied or otherwise, with /. when I come here looking for content. That I happen to look at the ad on the top of the page as a consequence is a side effect that slashdot and other web sites choose to capitalize on them. Good for them. If and when most or all users start blocking ads, they'll have to find another means to survive, or just close up shop.

It isn't your customers obligation to fund your business. It's your obligation to satisfy your customers sufficiently well that they fund your business. Not many companies seem to remember that.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[jimicus]

The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people.

I would take it a step further. The thing advertisers don't get is that if someone is taking steps to ensure they don't see your ad then the chances of them actually buying anything from you had they seen your ad are absolutely miniscule.

THEY VIOLATED IT, NOT US.

[gurps_npc]

The main problem is that the Advertisers have ABUSED the crap out of the consumers. Pop ups, pop unders, etc. etc. Ads then when you close them, they open new ads. etc. etc. etc.

Adverisers took the social contract, ripped it into fifty billion pieces, then get upset when we don't abide by our side of the contract?

Look, I am perfectly willing to see reasonable, well placed ads. I am seeing a Vonage banner ad above Slashdot write now. I am NOT forced to see intrusive, obnoxious crap that intereferes with the reason why I use the service. Anything that requires me to "click" on it to send it away qualifies as abusive intereference, and should be outlawed.

Morons think "If I can get them involved, they will pay more attention to my ad" Instead most consumers get ANGRY at both the site that is abusing them and the moron company that thinks "bad pr is better than no pr".

Social Contract cuts both ways

[ArmorFiend]

The Social Contract cuts both ways, and I don't see advertisers holding up their end of the bargain with truthful ads. Are the boobs in True's advertising blitz actually using the service? Methinks not. Does clicking here actually get a free iPod? Methinks not. Does whatever those damn strobing ads ... nevermind, no.

When media sites start carrying advertising that's not disrespectful of their audience's intelligence, then I'll worry about bypassing it disturbing a social contract, but while its not adhering to the social contract itself then they can bite my shiney metal ass.

Yes, it does

[BiggsTheCat]

Quite simply, sites that put ads on their page depend on the profit from those ads to support themselves. The page authors chose to put those ads there. If you don't want to see the ads, then you have no right to view the content. If you refuse to see the ads, you should find your content on another website.

Reading the content of a web page is not a right, it is a privilege afforded to you by the website's author and it comes with strings attached, like ads.

It is unfortunate that so many websites choose to use popups and horrible flashy ads that don't entice people to click anyway to make a profit. But you should take that up with the webmasters.

Just like downloading music on a p2p system is a violation of copyright law. You have no social right to listen to that music. You have no social right to see a webpage with its ads filtered out.

Re:My opinion

[headisdead]

Indeed, ignoring the gratuitous reference to a "social contract": put simply, AdBlock is not in any way "unethical" because advertisers pay on the assumption that they'll make money. If they don't think a certain type of advertising will generate revenue, they won't use it. Why won't advertisers mount megaphones on the top of cars screeching "NIVEA HAND CREAM!" in residential areas? Because it would piss people off, make them less likely to buy Nivea hand cream; or, more importantly, just be ignored. I use AdBlock not primarily because I don't like having to see advertising per se, but (A) because busy, moving, flashing ads interrupt my browsing experience and (B) because I have never clicked on an ad in my decade-plus internet experience. Most advertisers pay on clickthrus, and I bet that most AdBlock users, like me, would never clickthru anyway. Indeed, if I didn't use AdBlock I'd end up making more corporate enemies than I do by using it--"Eugh! That Pepsi Flash ad is horrendous! I'm never buying Pepsi again!" If AdBlock use affects advertising revenues, then advertisers will come up with a better way to sell their product. If it doesn't, they won't. Somewhere in the middle, they'll make advertising even more pernicious; but Mozilla's development platform means they'll always be someone around to program a way to get around their get around. Isn't OSS great?

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[WaterBreath]

There are always bozos who actually buy things they get spammed about, which is why spammers continue doing what they do.

Yeah, but those of us who are competent enough to block the annoying ads are also probably intelligent enough not to buy anything from the advertisers even if we were forced to view the ads. So I don't think they're losing any sales. Though they probably are losing money, paying for our pageviews without us actually seeing the ad.

More loaded questions

[stratjakt]

Has acceptance of web sites crammed with advertising content become part of my social contract with society?

The answer is yes. You get the content for free, the ads pay for the site.

Of course, "social contract" is just a PC euphamism for "not being a dick".

Blocking the ads makes you a dick, and does violate the "social contract". Lots of good sites are gone forever because of the attitude that "nobody has the right to show me advertisements".

However, when a site is "crammed with ads", or has popups or hijacks your browser, tries to mislead you, etc, then the webmaster has violated HIS side of the social contract (that is, he's being a dick).

There are worse atrocities in the world than a little advertising. I don't know why everyone has to be such a douchebag about it. I mean, having a speakeasy ad at the top of this page isn't going to be the end of my world.

Re:What social contract?

[nacturation]

I block ads on /. and every site I use with adblock and flashblock. If I want to support a site I like, then I will donate a couple bucks to them. For example, if you look at my /. UID I have an asterisks next to it, that means I am a subscriber. I just donated $5 USD to /. and do this about two times a year. To me /. is worth $10 a year. Now imagine if the 100,000+ /. readers all donated $5 - $10 a year. /. wouldn't need stupid ads.

To play devil's advocate here, why do you need to block ads on slashdot? You pay the $5 and you get so many credits which will block ads on your behalf. Slashdot has set a price saying that each ad is worth so much money, so your $5 gets you the ability to block X ads. In effect, you're gaming the system by using slashdot's paid ad-blocking system as well as using your own. If everybody did what you did, slashdot would still need ads because they'd get shortchanged on revenue.

Nothing to do with a social contract

[WOSSquee]

I don't think it's about a social contract, what it comes down to is that I will NEVER buy something simply because I saw it in an ad. I don't buy things based on ads, I buy things when someone cool says it's cool (Penny Arcade is a good example.) I can't remember ever buying something because of an advertisment. Even a TV commercial. (The exception, I think, is the Saturday/Sunday newspaper ads from CompUSA and Best Buy and Circuit City, but that's only because I'm already looking for something and they just happen to have it on sale) Since I'm NEVER going to buy something based on an online advertisment... aren't I saving the advertisers bandwidth from not downloading their ad? More to the point, aren't Adblock users as a whole saving advertisers a quantifiable amount of bandwidth (money) by not downloading ads for things they aren't going to buy?

Re:Bullshit... social contract isn't violated by a

[stinerman]

Finally, on a dialup (like at my parents place), adblock SIGNIFICANTLY improves performance.

Thank you!

I'm still on dial-up (free from university), and I often use Adblock in this way. Many pages I frequent have some images that simply waste bandwidth. For instance, I have blocked a lot of the images on my on-line banking website so that the response time is better. Getting rid of those images cuts down how long I'm dialed in.

Complete misunderstanding of "contract"

[BobGregg]

Social or not, a contract represents an *agreement* among people or groups. To have a valid contract, first there must be a common agreement that the terms of that contract are actually valid. Our at-large social contract works because, on the whole, people agree that there are certain rules we must live by in order for society to work.

However, there has NEVER, implicitly or otherwise, been any sort of common agreement that society *must* endure advertising, regardless of degree of intrusion or method of delivery. When TV and radio were first brought on the air, the idea that commercial advertising would allow them to survive was not a given. The fact that it *did* allow them to survive happened to come to pass, but then again, there were no technological means for the public to manipulate the medium for their own benefit - for a while. However, there was no obligation for society to absorb content broadcast to them, and indeed when options became available, they were used.

When the first tape players became available, there *were* arguments and court cases regarding recording off the air, whether it was "legal" to listen while skipping recordings, etc. These arguments have all been had before. And consistently, it has been recognized that people hvae no inherent "obligation" to absorb content in any way other than however they see fit.

I have no obligation to read the ads in a magazine. I have no obligation not to turn down the dial on the radio when commercials come on. I have no obligation to sit by idly while pop-up windows dance across my desktop. THERE IS NO SUCH CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, social or otherwise. If my actions, and the actions of millions of others, somehow cause those broadcasting content discomfort or loss, that's their problem, not mine.

I have no obligation to support *any* business model for anyone else. Indeed, if there were such an obligation, then society could never evolve or adapt to change, could it?

In short - that's just plain old horse manure.

Ignoring the explicit will get you the Implicit

[dsanfte]

Ignoring expicit ads on web pages will drive the adoption of ads embedded in the content, which you will be impossible to block.

Be careful.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, it's just like TV. The more they annoy me, the more effort I will make to remove the annoyance. If they don't annoy me, I won't bother, and... get this... I'm likely to actually view the ad. I do not, however, like to trade annoyance for content. Plus, it's not like annoying ads are making sales to me anyway. If anything, I will make it a point to avoid the product.

In summary: "Social contract" my ass.

I reserve the right to block ads. If they don't like it, they can charge me for the site. If it's worth it to me, I'll pay. If it's not, it's their loss.

Maybe they can follow my social contract: Don't make ads that cause epileptic seizures and bleeding ears and I won't be inclined to block them. How's that for a social contract?

Re:Bullshit... social contract isn't violated by a

[TWX]

A point that is missed by lots of people, and even myself when I don't actively think about it, is that since we're using web browsers that aren't subject to hijacking or spyware, we don't see the other reason to get mad at web site owners and advertisers.

As far as I'm concerned, they've violated any form of 'social contract' en masse by hijacking peoples' PCs for new ways of delivering ads. I believe that installing software through bugs in the web browser is tantamount to breaking into someones' computer. Companies that design and implement such software, and other companies that contract for their ads to be delivered should be prosecuted and their owners/directors jailed for their abuses.

I also have an opinion about software companies leaving their products vulnerable for years like this, but that's for another debate.

Re:Yes, it does

[gurps_npc]

Quite simply, they have ABUSED that priveldge. and people HAVE taken it up with the web site's authors, they ignore us.

Reading the content of a web page may not be a right, but they do NOT have the right to use up my bandwidth (and if I view over my cell phone, they are CHARGING me to do it).

Look, what they are doing is far worse than what we are doing. Why?because I did not sign anything/click on anything that said I agree to see their ads. Neither did any governemnt agency say, hey that's OK. They did NOT even warn me before making money off of my time that they were going to force me to see the ad.

Contracts are things BOTH people agree to. There is no "implicit contract" unless both sides are acting reasonable, and the advertisers ceased to act reasonable a LONG time ago.

By showing their web site to people WITHOUT getting agreement before hand to show me the ad, they accept the fact that I am under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to see the ad. Instead the ad is treated just like any other content - it is something they are offering but NOT requireing me to see. I am perfectly within my rights to see some of the content on their pages but not all, and perfectly within my rights to see only the non-ad content.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[GreyWolf3000]

It probably doesn't work on people running AdBlock with Firefox.

The real danger would be if default FireFox came with AdBlock + a blacklist. Then there would be a problem.

Yeah, it wasn't a "social contract" relationship..

[Omega]

I agree, this isn't a "social contract" type of relationship. It's more of an arms race -- and there are lunatics on both sides.

Some advertisers think that the only way to sell to people is to get in their face, and demand their attention like a screaming child. Hence, you get crappy ad formats like Eyeblaster and Pointroll. This is a way to piss people off, more than a way to induce them to buy your product, and I think their high click rates are only due to people trying to find the "Close" button to make the ad go away. Fortunately, not all advertisers are like this. Many are starting to recognize that something big and flashy is only "cool" once and otherwise subtle and contextual is really the only way to endear you to your customers online.

Meanwhile, some users think that there should be NO ads on the internet. They think that it's their right to access their favorite sites for free and they shouldn't be bothered with the ads that actually pay for the site to exist. Many content publishers work hard to make sure their ads aren't obtrusive, fit well within their site and they fight back against the Bad Advertisers (see above) by refusing their business -- but that doesn't matter to these users. They demand free stuff!

Fortunately users and advertisers recognize there is a middle ground, and so there's still a lot of harmony in the advertising-supported-website / good-user-experience world.

But the lunatics on both sides are forcing the issue to a head. They're starting an arms race, between the AdBlock/FlashBlock software, and designing a site around advertising (instead of vice-versa). If these people keep pushing it, soon lots more free sites will be entirely done in flash (or some other proprietary format) where you can't disable the ads; and the ads will become the content itself. Increasing product placements on tv shows are just a natural evolution of advertising supported broadcasters losing money from increasing use of commercial skipping systems. Pay-tv like HBO is one answer but not the answer to everything. There can be a middle ground, but both sides have to work for it.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[Tlosk]

The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people.

And why is frequently difficult for them to "get it"? Could it be because they see little or no decline in viewership of their content when the introduce these obnoxious adds due to many of their visitors using blocking technologies that allow them be spared the advertising? If more people recognized the social contract and stopped using the content, it would serve as the natural brake it should on overzealous advertising, instead of the arms race we have now with ordinary users as the casualties.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[jeblucas]

You hit the nail right on the head. I am very particular with my AdBlock usage. I remember seeing the screenshots [mozdev.org] at the extension website with filters like */ad/*. I thought, "That's a little draconian. I don't mind seeing an ad that's not a huge pain in the ass." Sure enough, some ads take up tons of screen real estate, some creep across the screen, some blink and twitch and scare my Mom--those have to go, but I usually try to narrow down the filter to who's actually annoying me (questionmarket.com, are you listening!?)

Right now my filter has entries like:

http://*.ru4.*/*
http://*.2o7.net/*
http://*.dou bleclick.net/*

I've never actually visited those sites--I don't see why I have to receive images from them, especially if they are offensive. (That's offensive [reference.com]as in "Of, relating to, or designed for attack." I still see Google Ads, I still see the ads on Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]. They aren't presented in a manner that obtrudes. That's what matters.

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[N3koFever]

That's why you can set Adblock to hide the ads instead of blocking them completely (in Adblock preferences). You don't notice any difference on your end but the browser still downloads the ad so that they get their page view even though you never see anything. Everyone wins except the advertiser, and I have no qualms about taking money from them if it means they'll have less money to spend on seizure-inducing Flash banners.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[ajs]

So the question is this: are there more people who will buy their product because they're NOT annoying than there are who will buy their product even though they ARE annoying? I think you'll find that there are more sheep than you think in this equation.

In some cases, not being annoying should not be the advertisers's choice, and I think the Web is one of them. Google demonstrates quite clearly that inobtrusive ads MAKE YOUR SITE MORE POPULAR! This is a hugely important point, and one which advertisers are going to really hate having to face. It's not that they get to make a financial call on the return on investment, it's that the sites with all the users will soon be the sites with the least annoying ads. THEN polite wins.

Fuck your ads, and fuck you.

[DroopyStonx]

Sorry, but I signed no "social contract". I am not obligated to look any ads.

I hate this mentality that companies have in that "consumers" are expected to devote their lives to VIEWING ADS. Companies are just pissed that they can no longer make sheep out of those who acknowledge the problem and use wonderful tools like AdBlock.

Besides, if someone uses AdBlock, it means they don't WANT to view your ads, and if someone doesn't want to view your ads, guess what the chances are of them buying something from it? Oh, pretty slim to NONE.

Re:Somebody has to pay for the web sites you use

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the fact that you paid for 'bandwidth' (being defined strictly as being able to move information into your computer from the internet) entitle you to 'content' (being defined as services and information provided to you by website creators who get their 'wages' through advertising revenues).

These are two separate things. The money you spend on bandwidth never reaches the content developers. What you are paying for bandwidth wise is similar to purchasing a garden hose. You still haven't paid for the water yet.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[rainman_bc]

True that. X10 would still be in business if that marketing plan was successful.

What is comming next

[John Seminal]

Social Contract, per definition, is between people.

A social contract is between ALL people, the whole society. It is why we can punish people, even if they disagree with a law.

I won't adblock a server/ad that's generally nice or doesn't get in the way of my browsing... think google or other text-based adverts

Are the adblock programs smart enough to know what to block, and what not to block? How do they learn? Do they have some algorithm. It is a big, large web out there.

Have adblock programs ever blocked content you want?? I am assuming they block third party content, like a banner originating from a different IP address than the one you are surfing. If that is the case, won't it ban all content from third parties? Or does it have a list of advertising domains, and blocks those?

What gets me is that arguably, social cotract was first violated by offending websites and ad-server ppl in general, with things like popups, glaringly bad animation... Not to mention the EVIL doubleclick and their "we will track your ass... try and avoid us, punk" attitude

I agree 100% with everything you wrote. The advertising can be annoying.

But the problem is something different than advertising. It is a content problem. I remember when the web first went live (in the early 1990's). I can't remember any advertising. I can't remember any spam. NONE!! I don't remember websites with only one purpose, to send you to a different website. Now these websites use tricks to get a high return on google, and there are so many, it is hard finding legitimate websites. I'll give you an example- there is only one bangbus website, but there are 1000 websites trying to lead you to bangbus, each probably getting a penny for a refferal. I'll give you one more example, a better. Try doing a search for alaskan crab fishing jobs. They pay between $20,000 and $100,000 for 3-4 weeks of work. And they can't get enough people because of the high-risk nature of the work (I think over 100 die each year, tides get to be 100 feet high, you are 100 miles from shore, it is ice cold, you are wet, people lose fingers easily while trying to grab the big cages in the ocean filled with crabs). Anyways, I did a search, and outside of the State of Alaska, there is not one website I could find in the first 500 returns by google that was not selling "Make $200,000 in Alaska fish industry, send $29.99 for my book". It is all bullshit. I tried to search using words like "blog" or "experiance", I tried to limit the search to "site:edu". Then I tried searching for cruise jobs... it is even worse.

The problem is THERE ARE TOO MANY JUNK WEBSITES.

Oh, I promised to tell you what is comming next. People will hate this. Some websites are going to 100% flash for all content. They integrate their advertising in the flash. You either have to have flash turned on, or you can't use the website at all. The worst ones are where you get a 1 minute commercial flash before the website appears. Yahoo is now doing this with fantasy baseball stat tracker. You pay 7 dollars for this tool, it used to be a java applet, it is now flash. The stat tracker is a real time update of scores. The old java applet loaded quickly, and went straight to scores. The new flash now has a 30 seconds screen for GM cars, then it goes to scores.

Re:the answer is..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes, of course. But website ads aren't spam, so that's really neither here nor there.

Re:Balderdash, Codswallop, etc. etc.

[digitallife]

Yeah, but too bad this so called social contract is with a company. Lets be honest, companies are not people, and do not have morals. The only thing a company cares about is its own well being, and the only reason it would ever pretend to follow a 'social contract' is if it was forced to (by law, or business survival).

I hate when people pretend we owe something to companies.

Hmm

[DaveJay]

After some consideration, I'm going to say "No, it does not violate the social contract."

Here's why:

1. There is no such thing as a social contract, as the word contract suggests that there is a fixed and unalterably correct way of doing things. What we have are social conventions, which are flexible and ever-changing, and generally vary by region and by circumstance.

2. If one person (or corporation) decides that a certain behavior is the "appropriate" or "right" thing to do, that doesn't mean the rest of society agrees. In fact, the "right" or "appropriate" thing to do can be defined directly by whatever the majority of people are doing. By that definition, the day the majority of people skip or otherwise avoid/reduce exposure to advertising is the day that doing so is considered socially acceptable. I believe we've already reached that day.

2b. However, the link between majority behavior and socially conventional behavior is even more tenuous than that, because the behavior in question doesn't have to actually occur within a majority -- it simply has to be considered acceptable by the majority.

In the case of blocking ads on web sites, here's how this all pans out: the person presenting the web site, and paying for it with ads, would prefer that people do not block the ads so as to increase revenue. But they have no more claim to the moral high ground than someone who presents a web site and pays for it by selling personal information, and would prefer that people do not withhold their personal information so as to increase revenue.

Does that mean that lots of web sites may shut down if they can't gain enough revenue from web ads? Absolutely. But that's because the business model is flawed, not because a theoretical "social contract" has been broken.

All this seems to be is an attempt to make people feel guilty, so that they will behave the way the web site owner(s) want them to. But that's nothing more than peer pressure, except that for most people the web site owners are not considered peers, and thus their attempts to pressure will have little or no impact.

Mind you, peer pressure can be powerful, and is certainly one of the mechanisms that determines social acceptability of a certain behavior...but advertisers and content providers are not and will never be "peers" of consumers in that sense.

Re:Yes, it does

[mopslik]

If you refuse to see the ads, you should find your content on another website.

I take it, then, that you will never:

• Go to the bathroom during a commercial
• Change the radio station when the songs switch to ads
• Skip previews when you rent a DVD
• Read a newspaper without examining every advertisement
• Skip a non-articled page while flipping through a magazine

I mean, you wouldn't want to be exploiting those providers by not viewing their advertisements, would you? Somehow, you're asserting that advertisers/providers have a right to force you to look at them.

Just like downloading music on a p2p system is a violation of copyright law.

What a broad generalization. Ever tried getting some legal tunes from indie artists? Or being in a country [canada.gc.ca] that allows downloading music?

You have no social right to listen to that music.

Yes, but your analogy is nothing close to that. A more appropriate analogy would be purchasing an album by $BAND and being forced to listen to $TRACK1_ADVERTISING_SPIEL_FOR_3:00 each time you attempted to play the disc.

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[RLW]

Well said.

I would just like to point out that your last statement about "...losing money paying for our pageviews..." is not at all detrimental to the advertiser. Since it doesn't matter if you have add block enable or not, the add will still be generated on the server. So no matter what you do there is a view and a charge. Now taken in to context with your earlier statement about those who use the add blocker will not patron the advertiser in any case just means that the add will be served and either blocked or ignored. The only one who wins in either case is the website charging for the add view. The only looser in either case the advertiser. The only person who could either win or lose is the viewer. Since the site's and advertiser's fates will not change either way then why not use the add blocker? Now the viewer wins too. Persons who wish to buy products from such advertisers will *not* use the ad blocker. So they also win.
Wooo Hooo!
______________________________________
There are 10 kinds of people,
Those who know binary and those who don't.

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[killjoe]

I call it the sucker tax. The world needs suckers so that the rest of us can get breaks. Rebates are an excellent example. The suckers buy the product and don't mail in the rebate, we mail in the rebate and save money. We were able to save that money because the suckers subsidised us by paying more.

Same with ALL advertising. You get to watch TV because the suckers are buying everything Britney SPears puts out.

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[WaterBreath]

Though they probably are losing money, paying for our pageviews without us actually seeing the ad.

I need to clarify, since two people already mistook what I was saying here... I was referring to the company who placed the ad, not the site hosting the ad. The ad-placer must pay the site you're browsing for your pageview, even though you did not see the ad.

One of them has to lose if you don't look at the ad. If you have it "hidden", then the advertiser loses. If you have "blocked" it completely, then the site hosting the ad loses the ad revenue for your visit.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[lheal]

Both PP and GP are right and both are wrong.

Good Advertisers know that their ads have two audiences:

1. people who respond to their ads and
2. people who don't.

Spammers, pop-up makers, purveyors of deceptive banners, and those who use other "interesting" new ad models [slashdot.org] distinguish themselves from Good Advertisers by not caring about the opinion of the second group.

Whether something is profitable or not doesn't tell you how many people didn't like the ad. You don't know how strong a negative sentiment you're creating until next year.

Spammers don't care about next year, because there will be another sleazy product to sell then.

There is no contract.

[Roadkills-R-Us]

No signature, no verbal promise, no handshake, no nothing.

Frankly, I hate the idea of "free" websites with ads. You want to espouse your views? Pay to do so. You can share a server with a bunch of folks for a pittance a month. Blogging can be had ad-free cheaply.

I wanted more than that, and I know what I'm doing, so I bought a used server and pay for rack space, and so far there are no ads. There probably will be at some point, but they'll be low key, and they won't pop up, pop under, grab, track, or anything else. They'll just sit there (like google ads do). That'll be to help cover costs on the public service site. Or I may just do a PayPal donation thing like some sites do; I have had folks send me money and gear in appreciation.

But my personal stuff? I pay for that. Why should someone else have to pay for my "right" to express myself? That's INSANE.

I pay for my internet connection. I pay for my server. I have *zero* obligation to allow myself to be annoyed by anyone else's choices.

Spot on

[Skeezix]

I think the web ads do sell products and services, otherwise no one would bother. However, by using an extension like adblock, I am simply removing annoying advertisements that I will never click on to purchase an item. As a general principle I do not click on these ads and would never consider making a purchase based on a banner ad or popup that I saw. If a company wants my business they better find more creative ways of marketing. And some companies get it. Offer competitive prices, great customer service and a quality product and then make your site easily reachable through google searches, word of mouth, price searches, etc. Get some good reviews by reputable sources. When I want to make an online purchase I do research, google searches, and talk to friends about what their experiences have been. Then I make an educated decision. To summarize: no company is losing any revenue by my using adblocking software.

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[Anonymous Coward]

Rebates are an excellent example. The suckers buy the product and don't mail in the rebate, we mail in the rebate and save money.

I never think of these schemes as "rebates". It's more "this is what we will pay you if you turn over your personal information to us".

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah, and if you get up to take a leak during a TV commercial YOU ARE STEALING. If you dump all those little cards from your magazine YOU ARE A THIEF. If you skip by all the full page ads for ladies' underwear in the newspaper, YOU ARE VILE SCUM RIPPING OFF HARD WORKING AMERICANS GO BACK TO CHINA YOU COMMIE!*&*&@^#*&#^$.

Get real. The idea behind advertsing is that it comes with the product. There is no requirement that you read it, and even if you did, there is no requirement that you respond to it. They are gambling that enough people will be affected positively by the ads that the increased revenue will offset the cost of delivering content. If it's being selfish and harmful to skip ads, it seems like you would think it should be illegal. Advertisements are enticement. If they don't entice, then it is the fault of the advertiser, not the customer.

Like I said before, if the content providers don't like me skipping their ads, then they can charge me for the site. No one is forcing them to "give away" their content. Why do you think they continue to do it, though? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

You see, it's called capitalism and it works both ways. If you can't stand the heat...

Re:the answer is..

[Acts of Attrition]

This "social contract" has been violeted by both online and offline companies all the time. What do I owe them?
They put commercials on cable television that I already pay for.
They put commercials on DVDs that I already purchased.
They put commercials before movies that I already paid to go see
They put commercials in my email inbox.
They sell my personal information without even telling me (unless it's in super super fine print)
They try to throw away all my consumer rights just by opening their package (EULAs)

Etc..

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[Maclir]

There is an alternative to advertising for Television. It works in the UK with the BBC, and in Australia with the ABC.

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

The original and most basic concept of social contracts is that you don't violate rights of others in order that your rights aren't violated. In more mathematical/business terms it's a less than optimal strategy for the best guaranteed average result (i.e. using a risk management strategy instead of an optimization strategy). Unfortunately people are trying to apply social contracts to freaking everything these days which is stupid. Also they're trying to equate social contracts with moral imperatives and they are not the same thing. Many times moral imperatives and social contracts overlap but they are not the same thing.

As a result, I say no you aren't violating a social contract because there is no social contract yet with the web, it's still in a optimization and competition phase (they try to spam me, I try to filter them, they try to pop-up, I try to block them) and we haven't reached an equillibrium where a social contract can evolve. Also, I'm not sure how a company pursuing an optimization of profit to the detriment of their customers can or does participate in a social contract. Second even if you are violating a social contract, so what? They aren't moral imperatives and though they sometimes overlap I'd say choosing what you passively read/see and what you don't is never going to rise to the level of moral imperatives.

just my 2 cents.

I'm Using Lynx. Do I violate it also? Doubt it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using a browser which is deliberitly not able to display image and flash ads. Am I violating this so called 'social contract' also? Not likely.

You are both suckers

[soft_guy]

You bought something you didn't really need. By doing so, you prop up your corporate masters. That makes you both suckers.

Fuck 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not concent to the implied contract. You have no signature from me saying that I do so, and any that might be implied are hereby revoked.

If you continue to give me content despite this, I take no responsibility. I suggest that you refuse to offer the content if the ad is not pulled down in a reasonable period of time (say, 5 or 6 seconds)

Re:What social contract?

[Herr_Nightingale]

A social contract is simply the desire of a community to ensure mutual survival, and in most cases this means that everybody acts in an expected manner. It stands to reason that a certain amount of this ad-blocking behaviour is expected, and therefore within the social contract.

Likewise it is expected that if you repeatedly poke any person in the face with a stick s/he will seek to end the stick-poking behaviour.

Rebates!

[RLW]

$30 rebate at Fry's for a really cool computer tower box. 5 minutes, enbelope and stamp. Two weeks later a check for 30 buck-o-roonies. You must really make a lot of money per hour to top $30/5 minutes! In that case I wish I had your pay scale! You must be a lawyer or something. ;-)

Re:There is no contract.

[Minna Kirai]

No signature, no verbal promise, no handshake, no nothing.

So what?

Go into a restaurant, sit down and ask for a sandwich. Eat it, and then explain to them that because you didn't sign anything, make a promise, or shake hands, you don't feel an obligation to pay.

Lunacy of advertising.

[gosand]

In summary: "Social contract" my ass.

Amen. Does it mean that I am violating a social contract if I run a website and don't put advertising on it?

Advertisers made their own bed. I remember a few years ago, there was a website up that hosted clips of funny TV commercials. They had a rating system in place, and it was really cool. Then they were shut down, for rights infringement of some kind.

So let me get this straight - advertisers create commercials for their products, and they do so in such a way to get people to watch them. But then they shut down a website that was giving them FREE advertising of their products. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and speaks to the general lunacy of advertising in general.

They've gone too far, is about the just of it.

[cbreaker]

I think most folks out there browsing web sites are willing to put up with some degree of ads. And I've even clicked one or two.

But a few ads spread here and there is quite a bit different then big javascript or flash popups, animated flashing GIFs, intermission pages, and other obnoxious adversisements (like keyword highlighting, OMFG I hate it. I will not visit Toms Hardware anymore because every mention of "Server" or "Network" or "connection" is highlighted with some popup ad.)

People will only accept so much before seeking alternatives, and when they do, sometimes it's too late to go back.

No.

[codefool]

The 'social contract' aspect only holds up if there is knowledge conveyed to the consumer of the expectations prior to performing the act which would evoke the social contract. That is, the consumer would have to know that pop-up ads and the like were going to be presented, and as such accepts them as part of visiting the site. Proceeding constitutes consent at that point. It is not a social contract to say 'Now that you're here, here's your end of the bargain...' etc. Of course, telling a potential visitor that they are about to be bombarded with annoying ads would most likely erode traffic, hence prior warning probably won't happen. They also can't have it both ways.

Since no site will warn me about ad content prior to visiting their site, no 'social contract exists', and I can freely block them as I please.

Hero!

[cyfer2000]

BTW, is that blinking ad illegal in some countries and harming people with eye sight disability?

Re:the answer is..

[Traa]

I'm with you but your argumentation can unfortunatly be used against you.

Because of the commercials cable television doesn't cost as much.
Because of the commercials DVDs don't cost that much.

Etc..

Worst is, if you mention that you would be willing to pay more for cable tv without the adds...they point you to HBO :-(

Re:There is no contract.

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

Sandwich - Physical Product. Website - Not.

You get a +1 Missing the point in my book.

It is not understood, nor is it generally accepted that I have to support your "right" to have a website. You run a business online? Then your product (product!, product!, product!) should be able to support your business and its advertising (your website - hey, look at that!).

Wait, your website is you product? Great, then charge for the content. Content not worth paying for? Then it isn't a viable product, now is it.

Re:the answer is..

[rworne]

You are right on track.

The social contract is not between "an" end-user and "a" website, it's between all the end-users and all the websites.

I didn't care about the ad banners or Google's ads on webpages. I do care about alternate red-blue-green blinking animated GIFs, Java and Flash crap dancing around the screen, deliberately trying to block text, popups and popunders, and endless Automatic Installer windows asking to install Gator or some other crap. This doesn't even touch those who try to install stuff without permission.

No, the contract has been violated by the marketers and the webmasters who use them. I'm now just defending myself with a squid proxy and adzap. Collateral damage like Slashdot's ads getting blocked is the result.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[ConceptJunkie]

Thank you! You deserve a +5.

The same people (perhaps) who are decrying the RIAA as scum of the earth for pursuing piracy* are crying foul when their beloved fringe blogger has all her ads blocked. Boo frickin' hoo!

People seem to forget that Freedom of Speech is inseparable with the Freedom to Ignore Speech.

* Yes, I realize that's not the only reason the RIAA are scum.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[chmilar]

I recall a news story, years ago, about a study of television ads. They compared the effectiveness of gratingly annoying ads ("we have the lowest price, or your mattress is FREE!") to clever, entertaining ads that people enjoyed watching (and probably even won awards).

In the long run, the brand names and products from the annoying ads "stuck" in people's minds long after they had forgotten the ad. The names had been detached from the sensation of anger and annoyance.

When standing in the supermarket aisle, looking at all of the laundry detergent choices, you will pick the one from the company that bombarded you with annoying ads, without realizing why.

You might remember the entertaining ad, but not the associated product.

Make money without bothering people, please.

[rice_burners_suck]

You know, I don't think there is any social contract between a web site maker and me. If there is information that I need on that site, I would rather read it without all kinds of annoying things jumping out all over the place, taking forever to download, sticking spyware all over my computer, and otherwise screwing things up. I have much better things to do with my day, and I don't usually click on ads anyway, or buy products that are advertised in this way.

What I do click on are those text ads that Google places on the side of its page. This is actually a convenience for web browsing. First of all, it stays out of the way, doesn't take any time to download, provides useful information, and leads folks to products and services that might actually be useful.

Therefore, I am saying that I have no problem with web site owners making money off their creation, but please do it in a way that is comfortable for the readers, too.

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[Sheepdot]

No offense, but you're a sucker for shopping at Best Buy when you can use Pricewatch instead.

Re:There is no contract.

[LetterJ]

And, you're missing the fact that "worth paying for" currently has a literal floor value of (in American currency) $0.01 and in practical terms more like $1.00 for single transactions.

I have several content-based sites that do OK with Google Ads (covering expenses). On a typical day the amount that an average visitor "pays" $0.002 to view a bit of content by a certain percentage clicking on an ad. Through advertising, that bit of content has a value of $0.002.

Exactly which revenue collection source enables me to collect the $0.002 that the current advertising market has indicated that my content is worth (a price that is viable and workable under the current system)?

A really good content site might have 4 heavily viewed articles/tutorials and generate numbers like I mentioned above. With current ad participation, a site like that could easily have 5000 article "reads" and would make somewhere in the ballpark of $300/month. That's a clear indication that those 4 articles have actual market value. However, take away the aggregated payment via advertisement and you lose the ability to effectively collect the already determined price for the articles since even a full-pass, reading all 4 articles still falls under the $0.01 that hard currency handles and well below any practical online payment mechanism.

And, before you think that, again, this is some great conspiracy of people who just don't understand the difference between physical and electronic items, I'd like to point out that this type of aggregated payment happens all over the place for both tangible items and non-tangible items.

Lots of people (and governments) rely on this type of payment to provide entirely viable products and services. Consider city water. I pay a couple of dollars per 1000 gallons. Between my household use and my lawn, etc. I use enough to generate a bill of $60 or so every couple of months. Each gallon has an actual cost, but it's entirely unpractical to try to buy each gallon from the city individually. Remove the water meters and aggregated billing/payment and it's not like the cost of delivering clean city water went away or that the value of doing so went away, it's just the the mechanism for collecting payment per unit consumed fell apart and stopped the system from working.

Do you think your individual taxes pay for even 1 police officer to keep your neighborhood safe? Does that mean that a police officer's salary and benefit to the community isn't a "viable product"? Absolutely not. Rather, it means that the value per citizen is low enough while the cost of providing is high enough that the cost needs to be spread out across a population of people.

Re:the answer is..

[AviLazar]

You are not willing to pay a penny for tv huh? So I guess you think you deserve you should get it for free. Well what do you do for a living. When I come to your office - i think you should perform those services for me for free.

Just because it is in a public space. Just because it is not tangeable does not mean it is free. It is a service - in TV mostly entertainment. In website it could be entertainment/information. SOmetimes free, soemtimes not. In the end someone has to foot the bill for the service of someones time for creating the content, for paying of the server, electricity, maintenance, etc. While you may lack the forsight and believe that you deserve everything for free - you are dead wrong.

Those creators of the websites want you (obviously) to view their information but pay for it by viewing their ads. If they didn't want you to view their ads - they would not have put it there. Why should the burdeon be put on them? WIth the exception of malicious websites (which i do not agree with) why should a webmaster have to make access to his site restrictive and unfriendly because *YOU* feel you deserve something for free?

As for your That's how the social contract works -- You are dead wrong. Show me where this says this tidbit of information. A social contract is one of mutual respect. A website puts up its content - the website owner pays fee's and spends his/her time. They, in good faith, would like for you to view their ads which help them keep that material going. Again, with the exception of malicious websites - there is nothing wrong with this.


But again, you probably feel you deserve everything in life for free. Right - go work for free

Re:the answer is..

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

If I call 1-800-TRUMP-CASINO (or whatever it is) you can bet I expect to be put on hold a bit and hear about their upcoming vacation specials.

If I call a weather hotline, I expect that before, after, or during, I will hear "this weather report brought to you by (nameless grocery store) where you can save on your groceries every day" or something.

When I call a friend, I don't expect an ad. When I visit a friend's website, I don't expect an ad, either.

It is a nature of the beast that ESPN.com, for example, serves up commercial advertisements to pay for bandwidth and content. To block them most certainly violates the social contract.

But geez... get over it. You're not a criminal, just an jerk. There are millions of people who are worse jerks than the people who block ads. Personally I don't use ad-blocking software (although I am most certainly capable) and instead just simply refuse to visit sites with annoying (read: pop-up, pop-under, sound, CPU-intensive, etc) ads. They have offered up a social contract which I am unwilling to accept, and so instead of ignoring their offer and taking their content anyway, I move on.

There are too many sites on the internet that don't have annoying ads to worry about the ones that do.

Re:the answer is..

[Acts of Attrition]

A few years ago I was paying 8 bucks for a movie ticket and I got no commercials before it (except for movie previews) Now I pay 10 bucks and I have to watch commercials before the movie starts, often delaying the start time.
Your argument is that these commercial are offsetting costs. Doesn't look that way. It's pure profit going into the pockets of folks who don't think my time is worth paying for. This is also at a time where the movie industry is making more money then they ever have.

Re:There is no contract.

[Skidge]

It's coming full circle. From the way the media portrays it, the web is now all about blogs, which, right down to it, are not much more than "hobbyists putting up pictures of their cats and the latest Star Trek convention".

Re:the answer is..

[LittleBigLui]

Because of the commercials cable television doesn't cost as much.
Because of the commercials DVDs don't cost that much.

Prices are set by what people are willing to pay, not by production costs.

Re:the answer is..

[maxpublic]

Those creators of the websites want you (obviously) to view their information but pay for it by viewing their ads. If they didn't want you to view their ads - they would not have put it there. Why should the burdeon be put on them?

Because that's the law, set by case precedent in all other media? Or would you like special laws just for web content?

You'll note that recording a TV show on your VCR and fast-forwarding through the commercials violates no law and no implied 'social contract'. Why should you get special treatment?

Max

Re:Unfortunately, they do sell

[MacDork]

I call it the sucker tax.

I call it the rat race refund.

Re:There is no contract.

[Lew Payne]

LetterJ -- Thank you for bringing reason and connon sense to a topic that most people seem to be unable to discuss rationally, let alone form a substantive opinion.

Most of the people here seem to just argue that if it were them, they'd run their site differently... and that is, of course, why so many web businesses are no longer in business -- they didn't focus on the relevant economics of their business model. That seems to be a concept most SlashDotters don't yet grasp... they're still too busy rebelling against anything and everything that threatens to replace their little "free" space on the web with capitalism. How ironic.

Re:Annoying People != $$$

[cje]

Plus, it's not like annoying ads are making sales to me anyway. If anything, I will make it a point to avoid the product.

As an expansion of this line of thinking, I wonder how many Adblock users would be rampantly clicking on flashing ads if they weren't running Adblock? I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me that the typical Adblock user is not going to be the soccer mom type who downloaded Firefox because she heard about it on the news or saw the ad in the New York Times. The way some people complain about this, you'd think that they were under the impression that Adblock users would be buying thousands of dollars worth of merchandise each day if they would only allow the ads to be shown.

Adblock is simple to install, but its care and feeding (i.e., maintaining an up-to-date set of filters) takes a bit more savvy. Your typical Adblock user is more likely to be an experienced, technically-oriented Internet user, and as near as I can tell, these people are not in the habit of clicking on banner ads to begin with. I've bought plenty of things online, but I've never done so (to the best of my recollection) because I saw an obtrusive advertisement jump out at me when I was reading one of my favorite Web sites.

Adblock can almost be viewed as sort of a Do Not Call list for obnoxious Web site advertising. The analogy isn't perfect, I admit, but what's the big deal? People who sign up for the DNC list are not going to buy things from telemarketers anyway, so why bother calling them? People who use Adblock are not going to be playing your silly "punch the monkey" game anyway, so why waste the resources to send it to them? Hell, if anything, advertisers should be sending me money for all the bandwidth I'm saving them.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Re:the answer is..

[wfeick]

I use the ad blocking software, but that's mostly because ads have gotten so out of control on the commercial web sites. There's a tiny bit of content in the middle of the screen, and the rest is moving graphics, flash animations, and pop up/under windows. All of that is hugely annoying, and yet Google ads don't bother me because their understated and textual. With most sites, it seems the content is just an afterthought to the advertising.

The phone queue advertising really bugs me too. I'm already paying for my cellular service, and yet any time I call them I have to listen to adds about more ways they can squeeze money out of me. It makes me wonder if they require everyone who calls in to hear some ads, even if there's a customer servce rep sittle idle. I probably shouldn't post this, because if they're not doing it already, they will be soon.

And while I'm bitching, while using a Wells Fargo ATM a while ago, they stuck an ad in my face and required me to say yes or no to it before they'd let me progress to getting some money out. I tore the bank manager a new one over that, as well as called in to complain. It wasn't until that point the they told me you can opt out of this sort of stuff. I wonder how many people are still seeing those ads, or if they got enough negative backlash that they stopped. Bastards.

Re:There is no contract.

[LetterJ]

In such discussions, those who have historically been most vocal in this venue tend to regurgitate platitudes that are just as inaccurate (in the real world) as those they criticize, albeit on the other end of the spectrum: RIAA, MPAA, etc.

When Jack Valenti declares that downloading is starving set carpenters, Slashdotters retort that theft can only exist when someone is deprived of physical property. Both sides are attempting to paint the issue as a black and white matter. Reality is ALWAYS more complex than a simple binary view.

It's overly optimistic to believe that the advertising model that dominated the 20th century will continue, unaltered into the distant future. Likewise, a belief that a sudden army of creative altruists will instantly rise up after the collapse of traditional advertising and create $400 million movies, weekly dramas, novels, a wide variety of music, etc. *including* sorting, filtering and bringing to consumers' attention all of that content is a naive position as well. They point to independent film and music as alternatives. Indeed, there is great content to be had there. However, having watched my fair share of indy films, I'm no longer that interested in watching another movie about people sitting around a coffee house table, spouting nihilist dogma for 2 hours. Similarly, indy music tends to focus on pretty specific genres and the filtering of that music to find the quality requires some hefty time dedication.

Most intellectual property has high development/creation cost with 2nd - n copies having extremely low distribution costs. These low costs of distribution are what Slashdotters tend to focus on, arguing that, given the cost of the plastic disc, DVD's should be under $1 and tickets in the theater should be priced similarly.

However, movies, music, etc. are all rely heavily on spreading the money that they are seeking by doing the work across a large audience. If either the audience will be too small, the method of aggregating to risky or uncertain, the market-tolerated pricing too low, etc. the incentive will not be there and the work will not be done.

Note, that I did not mention cost because what is probably the biggest misunderstanding about price is that costs have nothing to do with it except to define a numeric floor, below which not only is it not worth selling a product or service, but it costs more than you can obtain. Price is a function of demand in relation to supply. Period.

Napster, Bittorrent sites, etc. have all changed the supply end of things, creating a bit of instability by increasing the supply of given albums and movies. However, if this continues (with no alterations to the way these businesses do business), those filesharers will be left sharing an ever decreasing pool of content.

Re:There is no contract.

[Total_Wimp]

Furthermore, suppose I have formed a powerful political party, the NAIPle (Nonviolent Advertising-Ignoring People), one million members strong, who all have made the same solemn vows that I have. We're not doing anything illegal. But our presence in the system seriously degrades the value of advertising. Are you going to say that we should be thrown off the internet, merely because we make a certain way of making money unprofitable?

Thrown off the internet? Heck no! In fact, I think that political party is totaly cool. Part of the advertising social contract is the ability of the viewer to totally ignore ads. Advedrtisers have no one to blame but themselves if their ads are so invasive and utterly boring that people tune them out. I've personally been using ads as bathroom break time since long before Tivo ever existed.

But for gosh sake man, don't be whining and crying about how people shouldn't be advertising to begin with. It's their right to have that business model as much as it's your right to ignore it.

TW

Re:I've got a simpler solution...

[toriver]

If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.

What you fail to realize is that there is no such thing as "ad policies" laid out for the visitor. The site manager might have a business model, but how this is implemented is not the visitor's problem.

People seem to think that because something is electronically based, it's subject to a different moral code.

You have obviously not read the discussion; Try again.

There is no "moral code" for readers: If a magazine has a product flyer in it I can throw it away without even looking at it; The magazine publisher still got paid. The "moral code" error is on the part of the online advertisers which do not trust "visit counts" - and with good reason since the numbers can be fudged. So they count actual ad views instead (something that cannot be done in the magazine example).

Popunders are a case in point. Used appropriately, they can be a very good thing

Popunder ads are like the flyers mentioned above, except ten times as annoying.

But in the meantime, if you block ads from a site, yes, you are in fact ripping them off and freeloading on someone else's nickel.

Or, in other words: Web technology can not be forced to support our business model, so we will try to insult people and see if that works.

(If you want revenue, a programmer can set up automated ad "showers" and "clickers" for you. To the "web technology" it will look like any other ad view, so you should be happy. Yes? Ad blockers use technology to filter them out, you can use technology to pretend they don't. Remember not to "show" or "click" too often or the advertisers might become suspicious. And use different IP addresses.)

Re:the answer is..

[b0g0n]

It takes two people to reach an agreement. I never signed any contract.

Laws, time-evolved institutions, and barracudas

[Roadkills-R-Us]

Good point. And even if you never see the menu, we all know that's how the system works; it developed over time and became a part of everyday life. The closest I can see with the web is a server. If I go park a server in your rack and start using your space, electricity, bandwidth, A/C and so on, I can jolly well expect to pay for it. Random, public content off the web is hardly the same thing.

There are also laws regarding restaurants, precisely because people came up with reasons they didn't think they should have to pay. In at least some states in the USA, these are a subset of "defrauding an innkeeper" laws which go well back into English history, and tend to still be very harsh. There are no such laws governing the reading of public content on the net. There are laws to deal with content that requires payment or contract to pay.

The only extant contract here is between whoever is providing the content and whoever is storing and/or serving it. It's up to the content provider to come up with a viable system that gets their content viewing paid for. It's one thing if you can convince me to agree to watch the ads on your site; if I agree to that, I should be bound to do it. But my entering a URL and hitting return, or clicking on a URL someone sent me, of I found on google, or whatever, doesn't obligate me to anything.

Some sites (please note correct spelling 8^) have a reminder like "If you found this site useful, please support my sponsors". In such cases I'm fairly likely to at least look around and see if their sponsors hold any interest at all. In fact, I tend to do that anyway, if I find the site useful. If not, I'm unlikely to pay attention to their sponsors unless the sponsor has done something worthy of my attention.

Barracuda's ads on /. are a great example. (It helps that I sometimes find /. useful. 8^) The first time I saw a Barracuda ad, I checked out their site. Within a couple of days, I had contacted them. Within a week, my free demo unit was on the way, and within a month we had bought that unit. We love it; it works as promised, they have great support, it makes our sysadmin lives easier, and our users are despammed, devirused, d dewormed, etc.

HOW did this happen?

1) /. has real value, so I come here every day.
2) Barracuda had a good ad, which wasn't intrusive (I will no more buy from annoying advertisres than from spammers).
3) Barracuda followed up.
4) Barracuda provides something I needed at a price I was willing to pay.

If all advertisers followed this model, which has worked very well for Barracuda, I suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion!

The only problem is, as Spurgeon noted, that 90% of everything is crap. This includes web content, products being marketed, and the advertisements themselves.

Here, let me help you with that.

[bitspotter]

OK, so you host a website. A popular website. So your host sends you a big bandwidth bill every month. How do you pay for that?

Interestingly enough, all your viewers have flat-rate broadband, and, individually, don't expend a whole lot of bandwidth on your site. They could use four or five times the bandwidth on it, and wouldn't notice the difference.

I have an idea - how about, instead of annoying us, you let us help you host your website and take some of that burden off of you?

The solutions are still taking shape (things like Dijjer [dijjer.org]), but soon there won't be much excuse for ads anymore as a way to pay the bandwidth bill.

But do you really think websites will take the ads down once distributed tech thins down your bandwidth bill?

How about we make a deal - you take off the ads, and we'll host your content. Now THERE's a real social contract.

It's not a social contract

[Castar]

No one has agreed to the trade-off between content and ads, not even implicitly. It's a gamble on the part of the business owners, like many other things. Many stores and restaurants give out free samples, in the _hopes_ that people who were lured in will buy their product. If you don't buy anything, you're not breaking a "contract", it's just that their gamble didn't pay off.

If a business decides that they can lower the price of their product by including ads, that's a business decision that carries some risk. It's not a requirement that consumers must follow. If a business came up with the idea that they'd give a free car to everyone who came into their ice-cream store, they'd go broke. That's not "breaking a social contract", that's bad planning.

"Your failed business model is NOT MY PROBLEM."

Re:"social" contracts

[DavidTC]

Erm, no.

A 'social contract' isn't a contract at all. You're thinking of an 'implied contract'.

A social contract is the thing everyone participates in to make society work correctly, and is not a 'contract' at all. They are simply polite behaviors.

You walk on the right, I walk on the right. Look, we no longer run into each other.

You don't be annoying with your cellphone, I don't be annoying with mine.

You tell me if you see me walk off with my headlights left on, and I do the same for you.

You refrain from killing me, and I refrain from killing you.

Etc, etc. When violation of a social contract causes serious problems, we tend to outlaw it. When it's minor, we just call those violators assholes and shot them the bird.

Now...I refrain from blocking your ad, and you...refrain from blocking mine? WTF? I have no ads.

'Social contracts' have no bearing whatsoever to ads. Ads are unidirectional, from a very small subset of people to the population at large, and hence they can't possibly be part of any social contract.

Re:the answer is..

[bit01]

To block them most certainly violates the social contract.

Nonsense. Not doing what they want doesn't make you a criminal or even a jerk. It makes you a free agent, a citizen, making a personal choice. In a free country one of the choices you are legally allowed to make is to ignore advertising, whether by technical or other means. Calling this a "social contract" is just a marketing 'droid trying to, as usual, manipulate people by manipulating the language [smh.com.au].

---

Keep your options open!

But mum! He started it

[paragon_au]

So your agurement is "Because someone else does it, it's ok for me to do it" ?
Bullshit, the internet is a chance we have to make things different. Look at maddox [xmission.net] he nevers put ads up, and he gets tens of thousands of hits, or what about Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. They are doing what everyone should be doing, I provide you this content for free, in return you provide your content for free.

When adbanners first came out, people were fine with them. Then more and more came out, pop-ups, pop-unders, spyware, everything. Had it just stayed at adbanners everything would have been fine. Now we are left with no choice but to block them. Most people don't block text ads. So use them if you must. But first think about what you are providing, is it a "I want money" or a for the public good website?

The internet is one medimum that corp's haven't yet taken control of. Do you want them to?
Or would you prefer the people to remain in control, and live by our rules, not the rule of the almighty dollar?

/rant

Re:There is no contract.

[Juvenall]

Most people don't ask for a tissue, they ask for a Kleenex. It's not just a copy, it's a Xerox. We don't search for something online, we Google it. That picture of George W. Bush being dry humped by Abe Vigoda isn't simply fake, it's Photoshopped.

See, a good advert isn't simply about clicking now or even directly influencing your buying patters. It's all about branding. While you may never buy/visit an advertised product/site, the more exposure you have to a good ad, the deeper your mental connection between the brand and the focus.

So a few months down the road, a friend asks you "Hey, do you know any good hosting services", your brain will connect the term with, say, the Rackspace advert you saw on Slashdot.

If you just ignore the ads, you're at least giving the owner of the site a chance. If you block them all together, you're just taking all the pennies from from the little tray.

Re:There's an old saying...

[nitehawk214]

If something similar to an ad blocker filtered out criticism of the current government of (insert your country here) would that be ok?

Sure, as long as you had control of it. I am allowed to censor what I see (and I should be the only one who is allowed). In fact I do this every day by refusing to watch/read news that does not intrest me.

Terms of service

[Anonumous Coward]

By visiting my website you agree to accept and view commercial content on the site and to not block, remove or otherwise make inaccessible said material, bla, bla, bla...

By transmitting your website to my browser you agree to not transmit or attempt to transmit any commercial material to my system, bla, bla, bla...

Re:the answer is..

[b0g0n]

Indeed.

Marketers are free to pollute my life with advertising, and I'm free to do my best to ignore it. If advertisers are free to pursue more modern, aggressive and intrusive methods of beaming their messages at me, I'm free to deploy ever more powerful means to block and intercept them.

I'm waiting for somebody to start selling Carl Sagan's AdNix. I want one. (I would buy PreachNix, too.)