Exactly. In principle I don’t mind advertisements; newspapers, magazines, and broadcast TV shows have ads, and I have no problem with them. I also don’t mind certain Web ads, such as the banner ads that were commonplace in the 1990s. What I do mind, however, is when advertisers feel they could do whatever they want to users. It started with annoying pop-up ads back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which led to the creation of pop-up blockers. Then the ads started delivering malware, which necessitated ad blocking as a means of protection. Then ads started carrying audio with them, and later video ads were introduced. The ads themselves started to become scammy and in some cases outright grotesque in ways that would never be allowed in reputable newspapers or magazines.
I use YouTube Premium because of YouTube’s massive music collection; it and SiriusXM are the subscription services I use. I don’t mind paying for content, but what I do mind is the notion that somehow the website owner has a right to my screen and my computational resources. If I mute my TV or change the channel during commercials, it would be absurd to suggest that I’m “stealing” from the TV station. If I skip past the BMW or Tiffanys ads in a magazine, I’m not “stealing” from Time or Life or National Geographic. Why is blocking an ad on a website different? If I put a piece of paper over the ad, am I still “stealing”? Give me a break! Once something is downloaded on my computer, I have control over how the data is displayed, period. It would be different if users were hacking into systems to bypass paywalls.
My support for ad blocking is not about users feeling entitled to free content; it in reaction to the anti-consumer attitudes some website owners and advertisers have, which have led to degrading the user experience of the Web and increasingly desktop computing in general. Ads by themselves are not bad, but certain websites have brought the situation upon themselves by behaving in ways that are contemptuous to users.
I use YouTube Premium because of YouTube’s massive music collection; it and SiriusXM are the subscription services I use. I don’t mind paying for content, but what I do mind is the notion that somehow the website owner has a right to my screen and my computational resources. If I mute my TV or change the channel during commercials, it would be absurd to suggest that I’m “stealing” from the TV station. If I skip past the BMW or Tiffanys ads in a magazine, I’m not “stealing” from Time or Life or National Geographic. Why is blocking an ad on a website different? If I put a piece of paper over the ad, am I still “stealing”? Give me a break! Once something is downloaded on my computer, I have control over how the data is displayed, period. It would be different if users were hacking into systems to bypass paywalls.
My support for ad blocking is not about users feeling entitled to free content; it in reaction to the anti-consumer attitudes some website owners and advertisers have, which have led to degrading the user experience of the Web and increasingly desktop computing in general. Ads by themselves are not bad, but certain websites have brought the situation upon themselves by behaving in ways that are contemptuous to users.