| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ethical issueEthical issuePosted May 4, 2009 21:48 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)In reply to: Ethical issue by jordanb Parent article: Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica) This isn't so hard to figure out. If you simply have never found an ad that interests you enough to click upon it, that's fine. If you are going to the site with a previously-determined policy to never click on an ad, regardless of the content, and you know that the ads are pay-for-click, you are breaking the quid-pro-quo. If you click on ads arbitrarily just to fund the site, you're breaking the quid-pro-quo of the advertiser.
(Log in to post comments)
Ethical issue Posted May 4, 2009 23:33 UTC (Mon) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link]
Is this really Bruce Perens? Or has someone hijacked his account? Maybe Jack Valenti back from the dead?
You're (intentionally?) missing my point.
There is a huge industry involved in 'harvesting eyeballs' and delivering them to advertisers. Some parts of it put up bilboards to try to distract people while they're driving. Some put them on sandwich boards and have people walk around downtown. Some mail advertisments to you---some stick them in your gas bill.
A large portion of the industry, though, involves providing a 'loss leader' free service where they hope that you'll be exposed to the advertisements while using the free service.
That may be television programming. That may be radio music. That may be a public bathroom with in-stall ads. That may be a free weekly newspaper. That may be web sites.
Heck, that may be stuff I have to pay for pay for, like for magazines, daily newspapers, LWN.net, and movies with Coca-cola ads and MPAA propaganda at the beginning.
In every case their business plan may be (in part) to 'harvest eyeballs' and sell them to advertisers but that doesn't mean that I 'agree' to surrender my 'eyeballs' to their advertisers just because I use the service they offer.
If they offer a free service on the assumption that they'll be able to expose me to ads, well I'm sorry but that assumption may not be valid. If they have a problem with that they're more than welcome to not offer me the service, or change their business model.
If they offer me a service for-pay then my obligation is to pay the agreed-upon rate, or to not use the service. But there's no 'ethical problem' with hanging out in the movie lobby while the advertisements are running, or turning on Adblock on LWN.net
Ethical issue Posted May 4, 2009 23:55 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Bruce Perens believes in Free when Free makes sense and when all parties are treated fairly, and otherwise he doesn't believe in either Free or Non-Free.Bruce Perens has a credit on several films (see IMDB) and produced this video commercial. The difference between the billboard and the TV commercial is that the billboard is not, in general, paying for the road. The guy with the sandwich board is a parasite on a public throughfare. The web ad, in general, is helping to pay for the content.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 0:41 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link]
> Bruce Perens believes in Free when Free makes sense and when all parties
> are treated fairly, and otherwise he doesn't believe in either Free or > Non-Free.
You were involved in the Linux revolution that has resulted in craters on the Peninsula where once great proprietary Unix vendors like SCO, SGI, and Sun used to live. Linux helped obliterate their business model, which caused tens of thousands of people to lose their jobs. How is that "all parties being treated fairly?" Sounds like the loss of a buisness model sucked pretty bad for them.
While it wasn't fair perhaps, I think it was absolutely Creative Destruction---just like Craigslist killing newspaper classifieds and Last FM and Myspace circumventing the Music Publishers.
You were in some movies and a commercial, fair. At one point I know you were a programmer (maybe still are?) Well, so am I, and there are a lot of people in our industry who feel that Free Software is demolishing it. Are they right? I don't know. But I don't attach riders (FREEDOM! (so long as it doesn't hurt anybody or disturb any buisness models)) to my enthusiasm for it.
I have the Freedom to make the software on my computer do whatever I want. That includes only selectivly rendering some web pages.
I really don't think that that really will destroy the advertising model, to be honest. But even if it does, too bad. Creative Destruction.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 1:04 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Linux helped obliterate their business model, which caused tens of thousands of people to lose their jobs. How is that "all parties being treated fairly?" What you're confusing here is the difference between not being obligated to provide a business person with a living and being obligated to treat that business person fairly when you do decide to deal with them. Competing in the market, which is what Open Source does, is fair because you the consumer have a choice of whom you buy from. To translate this to web sites, you are under no obligation to provide a web operator with a living. What that means is that you can ignore their content if you wish, and send them no money. It is not, however, fair to use their content while using some device to strip their potential to make any money from your use.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 1:27 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
I completely disagree.
I'm paying with my attention to their content. How they choose to monetize or fail to do that is their problem. There are a number of websites that I have paid money to for their content because they require it or ask for it. There are other websites that only monetize their sites based on advertising. The latter category do not profit off me. That is not my problem.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 1:36 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Most publishers are not in the business of lobbying or anything else that would put a value on raw attention directed only toward content with advertising excluded. So, your attention is of zero value to them.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 1:52 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
This is not an ethical problem. It is a business problem.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 2:22 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Actually, it is our problem, because the result of people blocking ads is that eventually you aren't going to be able to view sites with Firefox. Or any Open Source.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 3:22 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link]
Why use a chainsaw when you can use a scalpel?
No doubt Google knows that I'm not a banner ad clicker. In fact, I doubt any of us in this discussion are. It's only a matter of time before they begin offering affiliate service where one can check Google's records, and see if it's worth serving a page to someone, or if they should tell them to bug off. People who don't click don't get in. Simple as that.
You might think that that would encourage click fraud, but since google analytics is on just about every checkout page on the internet (and on most I've made, over my objections) they can make sure that your clicks are converting properly too!
Simple as that! If you don't convert, you don't get served. We only want good consumers here on OUR internet, comrade!
Not to worry about brick and motar shops either, with their street view and their efforts at face recognition (not to mention, ahem, your cell phone) it's only a matter of time before they're able to correlate your leaving your house and hitting Burger King with that ad you saw on ESPN.com.
Don't do fast food? Don't bother trying to go to ESPN.com!
Really, in such a world, it's difficult to say if the internet would be worse or better. All I can say for sure is it'll be different for the folks like us.
(Yes, I'm trolling. But so are you. I just can't figure out exactly when you started at it.)
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 18:49 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I think most web sites actually serve more pages to robots than humans. When I operated my own server, I considered blocking Yahoo, because they pulled down about twice as many pages as Google and resulted in 1/10 the hits that Google did. Currently my sites are with Dreamhost and it's all flat-rate.But I'd be all for blocking out folks who blocked ads from my own site.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 14:01 UTC (Tue) by mattl (subscriber, #56508) [Link]
Two things you might be interested in, Bruce.
* Ad Bard -- ad network for free software companies, selling to a free software audience. http://www.adbard.net/
* The JavaScript Trap -- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html -- you may have already seen this. How do you feel about this, in relation to blocking scripts, and thus blocking ads, in the browser?
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 18:53 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I'll look at Ad Bard. I am not a fan of Javascript in general. I think eventually we might have a way to do good web pages without it.
Ethical issue Posted May 7, 2009 21:46 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] We have had a way to do good web pages without JavaScript from the start. I have JavaScript disabled in my browser, and read lots of good web pages. lwn.net is one of them.
Ethical issue Posted May 7, 2009 22:16 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Oops. You're right. What I meant was that eventually we would have a good way to do interactive GUI applications on web pages without Javascript or Java.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 18:04 UTC (Tue) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that but forcing me to use IE will not force me to view ads. I'll simply change from using Adblock to something like Privoxy and the devs of Privoxy and things like it will make it transparent to the web servers as possible.
Ad blocking isn't the exclusive domain of Open Source. Heavy handed action against open source network products won't force people to view ads. Or you may have meant ads support some subset of FOSS development. Possibly true but not enough to put any sort of end to FOSS.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 18:57 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] DRM-enabled web pages can keep you from blocking ads. All they have to do is access the ad server via SSL, and fail to display content if the ad server connection fails.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 19:56 UTC (Tue) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link]
You really don't need DRM for that. I've seen a number of pages that don't load content until the ads are clicked through. Ads can also be incorporated more closely into content ala product placement as seen in most recent shows. Also if one wants to view flash content or movies, ads placed within those streams can't easily be gotten around. Adblocking software targets either keyword, construct, or external URL. All can be made much less obvious to adblockers for not much effort.
I suspect the truth of the matter is adblocking is far from universal and not enough of a hurt to advertisers to make my scenario more prevalent much less yours. It is also likely the truth that prevailing on people to view ads lest FOSS be screwed on the net isn't going to alter the situation one way or the other. And if a publisher really wants to employ that sort of DRM, I have no problem taking my money elsewhere and letting them know why.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 21:55 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
All that means is I have to waste bandwidth downloading the ads. It
doesn't mean the browser has to choose to display them. You *cannot control* what the browser chooses to display.
(More: an awful lot of people have to disable ads, and images, because
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 0:20 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
What I really don't get is why click-through has become the gold standard in terms of advertising payment models on the web.
I don't click-through when watching tv..or when reading a magazine..or when driving down the road looking at billboards...or listening to the radio. How did we get to the point where circulation of the advertisement in front of someone was no longer a valid metric?
I think the click-through metric has really limited the diversity of what an advertisement can be for on the web. Actually I'm pretty sick and tired of the technology-centric and web-centric ads I'm seeing on the internet. Where's the mundane brick and mortar products and services in the advert rotation? Where's my 1:00 AM advertisement about Burger King telling me to drive-through instead of enticing me to clicking-through? Clicking-trough to Burger King's website is just a waste of time.. I don't need to click-through to a website to feel compelled to go out and get a Whopper. If the initial ad isn't compelling enough it didn't do is damn job. Where's the seasonal product ads? The Armorall ads telling me to protect my car's interior in the intense solar radiation let in by the ozone holes. Or the lawn and garden ads reminding me to get off the damn computer to buy a zero-turn radius lawn tractor so I can spend less time cutting the grass and more time on the computer? Sure I read technical news sites but I have a damn yard..i need weed killer too! Or far that matter cat food ads or dog de-worming medications. Our servers maybe going into the cloud..but our pets aren't...neopets just aren't that compelling. Where's the very poorly produced advertisements for the new local restaurant in my town like I see on cable and local tv? GeoIP is good enough to be a discriminating as most cable network or tv broadcast markets..why don't I see that sort of crap on websites I visit.
Getting a banner ad about the new cuban place in town is sure as hell more relevant to me then yet another iphone ad or yet another rackspace ad. I barely notice web advertisements because..I've seen them all....all 14 of them...and none of them are particularly relevant to my purchasing habits. That's the really annoying thing..its not the fact that they are ads on my websites..its the fact that I know they'll never be relevant to me...its not even even a question any more.
-jef
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 1:20 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Click-through is the standard becuase you are willing to accept click-through ads on your site, as are many other site operators. If a lot of us decided not to accept click-through and started a non-click-through ad aggregtor which we used, there would begin to be a market for it.
Situation is simple: this metric was available Posted May 5, 2009 6:18 UTC (Tue) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] I don't click-through when watching tv..or when reading a magazine..or when driving down the road looking at billboards...or listening to the radio. How did we get to the point where circulation of the advertisement in front of someone was no longer a valid metric? Advertisers want precise metrics. You can not offer these with TV, radio or magazine. The most you can say is number of times ad was shown on TV (not estimates - precise measures: this is currently not the norm but Google TV Ads started this approach and it starts to gain attention). With Web pretty much the most precise metric is number of clicks. You can combine it with conversion ratio and get the actual result needed by business. Perhaps more precise estimate will be better, but it'll require cooperation between ads agency and business and will raise all sorts of privacy concerns. Again: Google experimented with this too (I'm not sure if this service is widely available or not). GeoIP is good enough to be a discriminating as most cable network or tv broadcast markets..why don't I see that sort of crap on websites I visit. Probably because web-sites don't know enough about you to offer you this kind of ads? If/when Utopia will materialize you'll see your kind of ads there too!
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 11:59 UTC (Tue) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link] If you are going to the site with a previously-determined policy to never click on an ad, regardless of the content, and you know that the ads are pay-for-click, you are breaking the quid-pro-quo. How about if I go to sites with a pre-existing highly efficient subconscious ad filter that I know exists? Am I evil if I don't actively try to focus on adverts? Personally, I haven't used adblock so far for mostly this reason. I don't really look at the ads unless they're of the more annoying full page or jump over the text type. (Those I skip without much thought as well, if only for the annoyance factor.) Furthermore, I'm not much of a consumerist. Mostly items I want to buy I hear about from other people or several geek news sites (in articles, not ads). Even if this is not a categorical decision on my part, merely the way I am, since I know the ads are very unlikely to affect my consumer behavior even if I looked at them, I must be doubly evil for using open-to-all ad-displaying websites. Clearly, I just have no right whatsoever to use these sites just for being different in this fashion.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 18:59 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] How about if I go to sites with a pre-existing highly efficient subconscious ad filter that I know exists? That makes you like everyone else. It's fair to the advertiser.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 13:48 UTC (Tue) by wingo (subscriber, #26929) [Link]
Visiting a site, with ads or without, does not constitute entering into a quid-pro-quo arrangement with anyone.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 16:27 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link]
Exactly! The idea that "HTTP 200 OK" constitutes some kind of social contract is absurd.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 19:08 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] The means of transport, be it HTTP or otherwise, is irrelevant.Let's translate this into the physical world. Many retail stores in hot places draw the public by operating good air conditioning. If you shop, they're fine with you. If you just hang out there forever and don't buy anything, eventually they will use several different strategies to remove you from the premises. And it's their right to do so. But, you protest, I didn't sign any contract by entering the premises! Well, the fact is that even though you have not signed anything, the retailer has certain rights that they can enforce against you, and you are under a number of restrictions on acts generally referred to as crimes or misdemeanors. One could make a good case that the particular crime committed by ad blockers really is theft of services. I don't know of any cases yet, but it's inevitable.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 21:07 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link]
Your pseudo-intellectual blather didn't actually address my point. Where does the publisher's expectation of display formatting attach?
(A: Nowhere)
The publisher of some resource has no reasonable expectation that you will request further resources from third parties, which is what happens when you view an ad. You might be interested in the source of the page ("view source") or you might be interested in automatically summarizing the textual contents or possibly you might just be checking to see if the contents of the page have changed. In no case are you obligated, by any conceivable legal, social, or moral standard, to request and view additional resources from third parties.
However since you disagree, please defend your position here, and not just by insulting my worldview.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 21:25 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] The publisher of some resource has no reasonable expectation that you will request further resources from third parties You do not "request" advertising. Your web browser loads it, acting on the direction of the site presenting the content. If you alter that content deliberately, with the intention of depriving the content provider of their remuneration from the web site, you have no ethical excuse for visiting the site.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 22:14 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link]
Do you also feel that ICMP redirect packets are obligatory? After all, there do exist some systems which automatically respect an ICMP redirect.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 22:29 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] My concern is not really with how you process HTTP at a low level. It is with how you transact with a person who is offering content for you to view. I don't yet see how redirects come in to the picture.
Ethical issue Posted May 6, 2009 16:46 UTC (Wed) by branden (subscriber, #7029) [Link]
Wow, Bruce. Since you're dominating this discussion with your minority
viewpoint, I suggest it's time for you to write a guest editorial. Seriously.
But I'm unethical if I use lynx to surf the web?
Ethical issue Posted May 6, 2009 16:56 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I have already discussed text browsers. A text browser is its own punishment. If you have to use one, you are suffering enough to view the content, and are also placing yourself outside of the target market of the advertiser, so I don't believe that text browsers are a problem. If enough people used them we'd see more text ads.While I do think there's an issue to be made here, there are venues that pay better than LWN's guest editorial. I am not considering writing this one right now because I have bigger fish to fry.
Ethical issue Posted May 10, 2009 0:18 UTC (Sun) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
Good analogy, wrong conclusion. If you go to a store only for the air conditioning, the store does have every right to ask you to leave. And in exactly the same way, a site has every right to block me if they detect that I don't watch their ads. That does not mean I am breaking an implicit contract or agreement by going to a store only to cool down or surfing a site with ad blockers. Go ahead and block me, that is your right, but until you do, I will selectively block the crap from your site if I want to.
Overall, your reasoning sounds a lot to me like the misconception that freedom of speech implies the right to force other people to listen to you.
|
|
||||||||||||