|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

[Posted May 4, 2009 by jake]

A dispute between the NoScript and AdBlock Plus Firefox extensions has Mozilla thinking about changing its policies, as ars technica reports. "Maone funds the development of NoScript by placing advertisements on the extension's official website and by receiving donations from end-users. In order to prevent AdBlock Plus from undermining the financial sustainability of his project, Maone modified the NoScript website and circumvented the block. Palant responded by instructing the AdBlock Plus filter list maintainer—an individual known as Ares2—to add a filter that would specifically block ads on Maone's domain. Maone found new ways to work around the filters, but Ares2 consistently retaliated by adding increasingly draconian rules to the filter list."
to post comments

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 16:56 UTC (Mon) by atoponce (guest, #57402) [Link]

Oh brother. Seriously.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 17:13 UTC (Mon) by ajross (guest, #4563) [Link] (1 responses)

The linked article seems a little more favorable to the NoScript point of view than is warranted. NoScript runs ads, AdBlock blocks them. The clearly desired behavior would be for AdBlock to block NoScript's ads, yet from the very beginning NoScript has been taking steps to circumvent AdBlock.

I don't see how you can explain around this. Hacking AdBlock clearly went too far -- but even the earlier circumvention was wrong. AdBlock's later, more elaborate filter rules might have had unintended consequences, but they were quite clearly pursued with the goal of blocking advertisements. AdBlock occasionally breaks other stuff too, and I don't see them being criticised for it.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 18:59 UTC (Mon) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link]

Well put. AdBlock Plus does what it is designed to do, and many people find that to be a problem. There is always an arms race between ads and blocking. The site designers and the list maintainers come up with newer, better ways to circumvent each other, but not in software. Neither coming up with markup tricks that bypass the filter, nor coming up with filter markup that catches the tricks, is in any way detrimental to the functioning of applications on a given user's computer. That's the way the game is played.

On the other hand, using the fact of a common code base to disable the filtering software so that your ads can be seen is tampering with the operation of the user's computer. It is not the proper function of NoScript -- users don't run it to disable AdBlock Plus. Intentionally breaking software is nobody's idea of a feature. It's hard not to see that as breaking the rules.

Ryan Paul sums up his article by saying this:
--
"Although Maone has received most of the criticism and scrutiny in this conflict, the actions taken by Ares2 are also troubling. The overzealous filter updates that were pushed to AdBlock Plus users made it impossible for them to download the NoScript extension from the NoScript website. That looks like a breach of user trust that is at least as egregious as what Maone did.

The conflict is over, but it raises a lot of really tough questions about the implications of the extension system and whether developers can be trusted with the level of access to the program's internals that it affords them. As always, users need to exercise caution and be mindful of how deep extensions can reach into their browsing experience."
--

I'm not sure I can sympathize too much with the first half. You can go pretty far writing filters to obstruct the rendering of web content. Sites that demonstrate dedication to bypassing filters get heavily filtered. Sure, you can break a website's functionality that way, but I'd only condemn Ares2 if he did that to a website that wasn't trying to bypass his filters with ads. At that point, he'd be violating the rules of the game. But that isn't the case here. They were both in the arms race.

The thing to be condemned is that one step over the edge. That one step past what the user expects when they load your code. And Paul hits it square with the question about whether we can trust everyone with access to the internals. It works most of the time with Firefox, to the point that it's a legitimate feature of the browser experience. But nobody here is a stranger to the idea that it's bad security to make "trust third-party code to do the right thing" your default policy. That's the low-hanging fruit that enabled this step over the edge.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 17:21 UTC (Mon) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]

I don't really see the problem here. Adblock does simply what it's supposed to do : block ads. If a site circumvents the block, the adblock has to find a new way to block those ads. Which one was the site that circumvented the block is irrelevant.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 18:01 UTC (Mon) by perlwolf (guest, #46060) [Link]

I side completely with AdBlock on this one. If I have chosen (through AdBlock) to block ads from a site, and that site takes steps to bypass AdBlock and inflict those ads upon me despite my choice, then I am fully in favour of AdBlock taking extra steps to continue to block them. If the site persists in their circumvention to the extent that blocking the ads also interferes with the main purpose of the site, that is fine with me - I have no interest in visiting a forum that demands that I watch their ads. (It would be another matter if AdBlock had broken a site casually, but that was not the case here.)

Whether the ad-forcing site happens to also be a Firefox extension provider is irrelevant to this position.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that there could be a case made for "attempting to bypass a technological control measure installed by the owner of a computer" - i.e. the attempt to bypass AdBlock controls could be to one or more anti-hacking laws in various jurisdictions.

I am glad that NoScript has backed off on its circumvention. I think that was (belatedly) the right thing to do and I applaud them for it.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 18:08 UTC (Mon) by xl0 (guest, #52696) [Link]

It looks like the filter rules were also removed, at least I can see ads on the NS site. So, even more applause to Palant/Ares.

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 19:26 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (97 responses)

All of us have the freedom to refrain from using advertising-funded resources if we wish to do so.

If you do decide to use one, and you block the ads, you're breaking the quid-pro-quo with the publisher or web site operator. They put up the content (and in this case the software) with the assumption that they'd be able to get some remuneration to support it.

Obviously there are places where you really do want to draw the line and block stuff. I am currently blocking Flash just because it makes my computer too slow. Surprisingly, most sites have no fall-back image for the browsers that aren't able to run Flash, otherwise I'd still see their ads. And pop-ups get too obnoxious. But I have no word so far that NoScript was doing anything so obnoxious as that.

If they were to require that you view their ads to use their software, it wouldn't be Open Source (it's under the GPL). But they have a perfect right to expect you to view their ads on their web site.

Bruce

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 20:49 UTC (Mon) by dion (guest, #2764) [Link] (6 responses)

Actually no, or yes, but I don't care and neither should anybody else, because by enabling the crappy blinky ads you make it less likely that a proper payment model can be created.

If everybody used ad blocking then ads would not bring in any income and websites would be forced to find different and hopefully more profitable and less intrusive revenue streams.

Having a medium funded by ads is inherently very harmful, especially when they are the animated blinking kind that's so distracting that the actual content is invisible, so ads have to go, no matter what.

Just look at the iPhone App store, people get rich off of applications that do nothing but play fart samples, all because the barrier to making payments is essentially zero.

The sooner this ad nonsense stops the sooner we will get a proper economy established.

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 20:55 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

by enabling the crappy blinky ads you make it less likely that a proper payment model can be created.

Well, you need to think through what a proper payment model would be. You may have noticed that the iPhone is absolutely packed with DRM. If you want to be billed every time you view a web page, reliably, that's definitely the way to go. But I won't be going with you.

I think it's necessary to take the iPhone app store sales stuff with a grain of salt. I doubt you can really get rich on a whoopie-cushion app.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 18:32 UTC (Tue) by dion (guest, #2764) [Link]

Well, the DRM part of iPhones is a nasty little detail that I don't feel should be emulated, but the fact remains that a lot of people are happy to pay $0.99 for silly little apps when given the opportunity.

Now, I'm not claiming that billg would have been well served to go into the whoopie-cushion business*, but I'm fairly certain that more money has been made on one piece of fartware in the app store than on every single ad supported flatulence code in the world.

* But a lot of problems might have been avoided if he had done just that about 30 years ago.

Doing individual payments of less than a dollar by credit card is too inefficient both wrt. usability and the fees involved, but I'd be absolutely tickled to pay a couple of cents per day to read BoingBoing or any of the 20 other rss feeds I read, if only I could do it one payment at a time and I suspect that the vast majority of others would too.

The usability would need to be streamlined to the point where I could tell my browser that it should pay a particular website a certain maximum amount per day without asking me.

It might seem dangerous to put payments on autopilot like that, but we do it all the time, I can turn on my desk lamp right now without entering 23 semirandom numbers.

If websites don't want to serve me content then they are free to ignore my GET request, until then I'll feel quite happy not to spend bandwidth on fetching their ads as well.

Ethical issue

Posted May 8, 2009 9:35 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link] (3 responses)

>If everybody used ad blocking then ads would not bring in any income and websites would be forced to find different and hopefully more profitable and less intrusive revenue streams.

Like requiring users to subscribe and pay for accessing the site? Way less intrusive,...

Ethical issue

Posted May 8, 2009 9:44 UTC (Fri) by dion (guest, #2764) [Link] (2 responses)

Yes, if it's done right.

There's currently no solution that allows readers to pay tiny amounts to websites, so that forces payment to happen in larger lumps where you pay for a years worth of content at a time.

If all you had to do was to click the "Pay this site 2 cents for this article"-button then I suspect that would happen a lot more often than ads get clicked.

Ethical issue

Posted May 8, 2009 14:16 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

A good few journals have tried schemes like that. Unfortunately they
overcharged hugely: no I do *not* want to pay $25 for access to one bloody
article, dammit.

Oddly enough they then got their lunch eaten by open-access journals.

Ethical issue

Posted May 8, 2009 14:49 UTC (Fri) by dion (guest, #2764) [Link]

Naturally! What we need to do is to make the amount paid so small that even if the article is a complete scam you wouldn't be too unhappy about it.

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 21:38 UTC (Mon) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (34 responses)

Bruce. I have never ever clicked on a banner advertisement although I've only had ABP installed for probably about six months now (since shortly after LWN went with blinking ads, in fact). Yet most online advertisement is moving towards a pay-per-click model.

Am I not being unethical by going to a website where the provider is serving me content in the hope that I will click when I know for a fact that I will not? Would he have served me that page even with ads if he knew there was a zero chance that I would click and that he would get revenue?

Maybe the "ethical" thing to do is click on a few ads even though I have no intention of buying what they're offering?

Except, advertisers are paying per click on the assumption that those clicking are doing so because they're legitimately interested in the offering, and not just engaging in click fraud to support a content provider they like, so then I'm really just screwing over a different group.

And any coherent ethical argument you had collapsed when you said you "draw the line" at flash. Well. I draw the line at banners served off of severely overloaded, slow syndication servers which often dramatically increase the amount of time it takes the page to load. I also draw the line at scumbag syndicators like Google who want to use their ad affiliates as an extension of their already massive internet surveillance network.

When I came to LWN.net did I tacitly agree to have my browser render the invisible webbugs at the bottom of this page that lets Google make their file on me just a little bit bigger? Because I sure don't remember ever making such an agreement.

Web sites serving up content laced with requests to the user's web client that it render ads is no different than TV stations broadcasting content laced with ads.

They're free to not serve the content or broadcast if they feel that too many people aren't consuming the ads, but I never had any "quid pro quo" that I would let my browser render the ads, or that I wouldn't mute the commercial break and read a book until the show came back on, or that I wouldn't throw my coat over the in-stall advertisement pane when I go to take a dump in a public bathroom.

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 21:48 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (33 responses)

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.

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 23:33 UTC (Mon) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (17 responses)

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 (guest, #2510) [Link] (16 responses)

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 (guest, #45668) [Link] (15 responses)

> 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 (guest, #2510) [Link] (14 responses)

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 (guest, #15413) [Link] (13 responses)

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 (guest, #2510) [Link] (12 responses)

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 (guest, #15413) [Link] (11 responses)

This is not an ethical problem. It is a business problem.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 2:22 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (10 responses)

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 (guest, #45668) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #56508) [Link] (3 responses)

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 (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

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 (subscriber, #25547) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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] (3 responses)

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 (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

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
they simply take up too much bandwidth for narrowband. When I'm on
narrowband I don't want to wait for fifteen minutes for a huge mass of
adverts to download so I can read 2K of text: I want to download just the
text. I wish these figures were exaggerated.)

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 0:20 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (2 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (subscriber, #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 (guest, #6979) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #26929) [Link] (9 responses)

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] (8 responses)

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 (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

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] (5 responses)

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 (guest, #2510) [Link] (4 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #7029) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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.

Legal and moral issues

Posted May 4, 2009 21:47 UTC (Mon) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] (8 responses)

If you do decide to use one, and you block the ads, you're breaking the quid-pro-quo with the publisher or web site operator.

This reminds me of a claim by the CEO of AOL-Time-Warner regarding DVRs:

JK: Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.

CW: What if you have to go to the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?

JK: I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.

Legally speaking, I don't know whether there's any validity to this argument, even if you omit the bogus references to "your contract" and "stealing." One relevant precedent is probably the ruling that CleanFilms and CleanFlicks were violating copyright law by editing DVDs for Christian audiences. But even in this case, the studios refrained from bringing a case against ClearPlay, whose software performed the actual edits at playback time on the user's computer, which is most similar to how ad-blocking software works.

The other possible argument here is a moral argument, saying something like, "It's wrong to exercise your fair-use rights if doing so interferes with the business model of the copyright holder." In some cases, I might accept this argument, especially if the copyright holder makes a specific request that I look at their advertising.

But in general, I wouldn't feel guilty about using a newspaper clipping service to clip specific columns from a newspaper, incidentally removing the surrounding ads.

Legal and moral issues

Posted May 4, 2009 22:02 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

Entertain a theory. If in the future, a whole lot of people contract bladder difficulty to the point that it becomes reliable that a majority of people will go to the bathroom during all advertising, don't you think that advertisers will demand changes in the way advertising is run? You'll start to see a lot of 10-second spots interspersed with content.

Advertisers will absolutely not tolerate a reliable and widespread system for filtering ads from broadcast content. If one ever were to come about, they would obviously take action.

Currently, the advertiser has a reasonable expectation that a significant share of people will view the spot. If they fast-forward through the ads, they will at least see the first few seconds of the first ad, and thus there may be a premium for that placement because they may be able to interest you enough in the spot that you will keep watching. In addition, you will probably see some amount of the subsequent spots.

If you have a way to reliably remove all advertising, you're breaking the quid-pro-quo of the station.

Legal and moral issues

Posted May 5, 2009 0:28 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

or they can do product placement in the programs themselves (which they do)

if advertisers want to stop this arms race, crying 'theft' for people not watching the commercials is not the way to do it, the way to do it is to make the commercials interesting enough (and relavent enough) that people are willing to watch them.

how many people with DVRs record the halftime show of the superbowl so that they can see the commercials that are broadcast then?

I am willing to pay for good content, unfortunantly the providers of the content are not (currently) willing to give me an option of paying for the content without the commercials. if they were to offer such an option and find that nobody was willing to pay for it they may have a point of some sort, but until they do offer such an option they are being greedy in asking me to pay for the content AND deal with the commercials.

Why should they?

Posted May 5, 2009 6:25 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

I am willing to pay for good content, unfortunantly the providers of the content are not (currently) willing to give me an option of paying for the content without the commercials. if they were to offer such an option and find that nobody was willing to pay for it they may have a point of some sort, but until they do offer such an option they are being greedy in asking me to pay for the content AND deal with the commercials.

Some are doing this. LWN, for example. People are installing AdBlock instead. So you case is closed. This model clearly does not work without DRM and hardware support so we'll not see it widely used soon.

Why should they?

Posted May 5, 2009 7:46 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

actually, I would point at lwn as a success story (although not a perfect one)

compared to most tech websites it has very few advertisements, they are pretty easy to ignore if you want to, and to top it off they allow subscribers to disable them.

I think it would be interesting to know how many subscribers disable the advertisements here. I suspect that it is far fewer than it would be at most other tech sites (assuming they offered the option) because Corbett has done a good job of keeping the advertisements from being too invasive. (he's made a few mistakes along the way, but he's fixed the fairly quickly)

Legal and moral issues

Posted May 5, 2009 8:09 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (1 responses)

Television advertisers here in the UK are responding to a reliable, effective way to skip adverts by (shock, horror) making better adverts.

Rather than go down the route of lobbying Sky (the dominant pay broadcaster) to disable the fast forward and rewind features of Sky+ and Sky+HD during adverts, they're making adverts that make you want to watch them. As a direct result, I don't skip as many adverts as I used to, and I'm starting to remember some of the products that are advertised (118 24 7 for directory enquires, for example).

So, no, I don't buy your dystopian DRM future; note that Sky+ and Sky+HD are fully closed platforms, controlled by the provider who also sells adverts. It would be a simple software change to prevent me from skipping adverts, and yet Sky has chosen not to do so; not on paused live TV, not on recorded TV, not on the Sky Anytime VoD, not on PPV (where it's Sky promos until the paid-for content comes back wrong - NVoD, not VoD).

Legal and moral issues

Posted May 5, 2009 17:18 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

With ad-skip on TV, you have to take affirmative action every time you want to skip the ad. So, if
the first 1-5 seconds of the ad are interesting, you might not hit the FF button.

With the adblock software for web browsers, they don't even get 1 second of your time. The ads are
always blocked, no matter if they're interesting or not. It's like watching torrents of TV shows: the
ads are all pre-removed; whether they were interesting or not is of no relevance at that point, you'll
never know.

Of course, someone *could* make an adblock program that, at a click, removed the ads from the
webpage you're currently looking at. I expect that would not piss off content producers nearly so
much.

Already happens

Posted May 11, 2009 21:03 UTC (Mon) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link] (1 responses)

If in the future, a whole lot of people contract bladder difficulty to the point that it becomes reliable that a majority of people will go to the bathroom during all advertising, don't you think that advertisers will demand changes in the way advertising is run?

It already happens. The national grid registers a massive peak at the advert break during some of our more popular soaps as everyone puts the kettle on. The UK ad break presents an excellent opportunity for a brew :-) I suspect most people aren't feeling guilty about defrauding ITV out of it's ad eyeballs in the process.

Using something like ABP is my choice about what runs on my computer (Freedom 0). If the web site doesn't wish to serve the content to me because the ad's haven't loaded then I won't mind. I'll just not visit the site again and go somewhere else for the information. I suspect there will be an technological fix that removes such sites from my search results and we can both go our ways enjoying the 'net as we wish it.

..forgot to add

Posted May 11, 2009 21:07 UTC (Mon) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]

You'll start to see a lot of 10-second spots interspersed with content.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I don't see this happening. You'll notice TV ads in the UK are a lot less frequent than the US. This is because there is a fundamental tension between the commercial broadcasters and our zero-ad public television. I think the same sort of tension exists between no-ad and ad-heavy sites on the 'net - only more so.

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 22:44 UTC (Mon) by joey (guest, #328) [Link] (5 responses)

Bruce, I've observed that someone always says something equivilant to what you said when ad blocking is discussed, and the resulting thread tends to be quite predictable, and does not appear to change anyone's mind. So why recapitulate it here?

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 22:51 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (4 responses)

So, are you promising never to talk about Free Software / Open Source again, because arguments are predictable and you don't see that people's minds are being changed?

:-)

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 23:21 UTC (Mon) by joey (guest, #328) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, I decided some time ago to try to stop perpetuating pointless patterns of discussion. (As a side benefit, I now type about 90% less into the internet.)

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 23:25 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Well, some of us are far from sure that they are pointless, and will keep lobbying. Sorry to see you go.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 3:20 UTC (Tue) by riddochc (guest, #43) [Link]

Someone on the internet is wrong!

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 23:39 UTC (Tue) by graydon (guest, #5009) [Link]

Congratulations! Here's to a quiet net!

Ethical issue

Posted May 4, 2009 23:36 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (28 responses)

IMO, there's an ethical issue here in that we always need to think about how to support the resources we care about and rely upon. I believe LWN has demonstrated that people are willing to support resources they value; now if we could get just a few more people to do that, but I digress...

LWN, of course, runs ads. They help to top up the coffee fund. We want to deliver some sort of value to our advertisers for sure. But, so far as I remember, not a single LWN reader has ever promised to us that they would allow LWN-run ads to be displayed in their browser. So I do not believe that LWN readers are obligated in any way to do so.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 1:14 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (27 responses)

Today you are running Flash ads for Internet Explorer 8, which aren't going to get you much coffee. You need to update your competitive ad filter list.

While you haven't asked an LWN reader to agree to display the ads along with the content, I think that every web publisher has a reasonable expectation that the ads will be presented. In the absence of explicit law supporting that expectation, the advertiser has the right to block viewers who themselves block the ads. Unfortunately, this will eventually lead to web sites that only present to properly DRM-enabled clients, locking out Open Source. And that will come about because some selfish folks used adblock.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 1:20 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (4 responses)

by this reasoning it must be illegal to use a text browser, or to use my kindle to browse to a website (it doesn't do flash)

I really don't think things will go that way (and if some sites do go that way, more power to them, I'll just go elsewhere)

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 1:29 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

by this reasoning it must be illegal to use a text browser, or to use my kindle to browse to a website (it doesn't do flash)

Not at all. A text browser is its own punishment. If enough people used one, you'd see more text ads.

I block Flash solely because I don't like to have the web browser constantly eating the CPU while I'm not looking at it. Flashblock is entirely capable of displaying static images while it's blocking Flash. And Flash is capable of providing them. I would have no problem with looking at them. But most advertisers don't think about this, so I see blank boxes instead.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 16:59 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (2 responses)

Your ethical clarity just got a lot fuzzier to me.

Your argument is predicated on observable measurable action, but you
excuse failure of the web user to experience a site's ads based on
multiple possible grounds. Text-mode-browser using masochists get a pass
in your book, as do users who are jealous of their CPU's cycles, even when
those cycles may be idle ones.

I think everyone here can agree that the blind are not being antisocial
because they do not spend tremendous effort engineering ways to view the
overwhelming majority of ad content that is inaccesible to them.
(Google's text ads are still around, but nobody talks about them
anymore--I guess the novelty has worn off.)

However, I think the tension between your principles is untenable. Site
administrators and their human ad-providing agents can only determine
whether a given user/IP address is bypassing ad content or not. They
cannot tell why. They cannot determine intent. Consequently, if enough
people bypass ad content even for reasons you consider justifiable, the
jig will be up anyway.

Where that tipping point is, we don't know, and we--as most of us apart
from our Dear Editor don't host ad content--will not be the ones making
the decision as to when enough is enough and it's time to break out the
heavy DRM weaponry, a la Disney and its unskippable several minutes' worth
of ads at the beginning of its DVDs.

I think you're locating more moral responsibility with the web user than
he or she can sustain. The unwashed masses could *beg* for DRM-enhanced
ads, and they wouldn't get them if the ad providers didn't see the
business upside.

Whatever this is, it is not a free market comprising informed, rational
actors. Advertising does not work like a good, it works like a tax.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 17:17 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

It all comes down to intent.

The blind user is an excellent example, regarding intent. I can't believe that your intent in running Lynx is to avoid advertising. It is because you have a very limited connection or have some other reason for self-flagellation. Those who avoid Flash have similar reasons: it doesn't work, it doesn't work well, it is an unacceptable drain on system resources, it isn't free software.

Anyway, there are well-defined fallbacks for images that won't load and Flash that isn't being run. If the advertisers don't fill them in, this is not your problem.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 17:41 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link]

"It all comes down to intent."

Precisely my point. Here are a few of the problems with an intent-based
analysis.

GROUP ONE
---------

* It's practically unknowable to the ad-content provider. They can, at
best, guess.

* A technology can come along, like a proxying tool which attempts to
prevent users' private information from leaking onto the Web. To the eyes
of the ad-content provider, this may look like an effort to avoid
advertising.

* To minimize the risk of the DRM-doomsday scenario you posit, users
should avoid adopting new web-based technologies.

* In fact, people should avoid using *existing* technologies that protect
their privacy, if those technologies interfere with advertising that is
implemented in ways which compromise privacy (remember doubleclick.net's
invisible pixel?). Now, I don't think you actually believe this, but it
follows from your logic.

* Consequently, it *doesn't matter* if users have morally justifiable
reasons for avoiding ad content. All that matters is if the
ad-content-provider-determined tipping point is reached. Then we all
suffer.

* The "we all suffer" scenario is known as collective punishment, which is
itself regarded as immoral in most ethical theories.

* Confronting the prospect of an immoral action with the threat of a
disproportionate, retaliatory act of immorality is not the sort of quid
pro quo upon which sane social contracts are predicated.

GROUP TWO
---------

* People can practice self-deception, and often quite successfully.
People lie to themselves about why they're dating the person they're
dating, why they're eating the food they're eating, why they couldn't get
together the full amount of this month's child support payment, etc.

* If it is rational to seek to avoid advertising -- and I submit that it
is, for we are purpose-driven creatures and ads are, generally,
distractions from our self-selected purposes -- then your argument
encourages self-deception. I question the ethics of *that*.

GROUP THREE
-----------

In anticipation of the argument "intent is provable--it happens all the
time in courts of law", I hasten to point out that the relationship
between a web site administrator and a site visitor resembles that of a
court proceeding in just about zero significant respects. For advertisers
to devote the level of attention to each putative viewer necessary to
determine intent would destroy the economics of the entire enterprise.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 19:32 UTC (Tue) by szh (guest, #23558) [Link] (21 responses)

> I think that every web publisher has a reasonable expectation that the ads will be presented.

No, he may have a reasonable expectation that ads will be presented in 70-95% of the browsers. Expectation of 100% is unreasonable in the current market environment.

If tomorrow 50% of people will use things like AdBlock (next to impossible), then the reasonable expectation would be that ads will be shown only in the remaining 50% of the browsers.

P.S. I dont use AdBlock and I nearly never click on banners. If you had expectation that I would click - then it was unreasonable, because I have been living this way before you started to think(create expectations) about me.
And the thought that I have to change myself according to somebody's ad profit expectations is insulting.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 19:44 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (20 responses)

Translate this into the real world. If you use the table in Starbucks as your office - as a surprising number of people seem to do - you'd better keep buying coffee. Are you not then comporting yourself according to the merchant's expectations? How is this different from a web site?

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 20:17 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (8 responses)

Bruce, you keep using poor analogies. Unless it is a pay per use web site, you really should be comparing it to a free concert in a park. Yes, there may be vendors there, but you should not feel morally obliged to purchase something just because you attend their free concert. They are offering a free service, if they can't make money off of it, so be it, not your problem (unless, of course you want more free concerts). There is no ethical obligation here, just a decision about what you like to support. If you like to contribute, good for you, but please stop implying that others should just for being in the park.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 20:20 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

Unless, of course, you are running a retail site, which I do not believe is the case.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 20:41 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (6 responses)

"Free" very often comes with all manner of caveats and assumptions. For example our Free Software licenses. Most of them do not grant all rights, and many do establish a quid pro quo. The federal appeal in Jacobsen v. Katzer made that clear.

The charitable arts foundation may hold free concerts in the name of promoting music appreciation. If you come there to set up a hot-dog stand or walk around with a sign board, they will be within their rights to escort you off of the venue.

The retail store is not a charitable operation. Nor are most web sites that serve advertising. And they have the right to make even more assumptions about your presence as a customer or as a passive consumer of advertising.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 20:59 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (5 responses)

If you are referring to the common saying "the GPL says, if you modify the code you must contribute back..." it is, of course, false, the GPL does not say this. There is no quid-pro-quo in the GPL, which is exactly why it is a free(libre) license, it is also free of guilt such as shareware guilt.

I was not referring to a charitable arts foundation or anything like that, but rather to the free concerts that are hosted in many towns that are funded directly by the local vendors. And, I didn't think that you were talking about the right to post your own adds on someone else site, were we? And, of course, the web site has the right to kick me off, but that still does not make me ethically obliged to read their adds. The only way I would be obliged is if I explicitly agree to the obligation.

You keep throwing around the term quid-pro-quo. Perhaps you should lookup the wikipedia article about it and reference the section on prostitution. Do you think because you buy me dinner I should sleep with you? ;) (I am sorry for the base example, but it is from the wikipedia article on this subject.) No agreement, no obligation. If you tire of one sided giving, stop giving.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 21:18 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (4 responses)

It says if you distribute the modification you must distribute the source to the modification under the same rights as the original program. That is indeed a quid-pro-quo.

I think you are still treating the offering of a web site as an act of charity. Generally, it is not.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 21:31 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (3 responses)

It says if you distribute the modification you must distribute the source to the modification under the same rights as the original program. That is indeed a quid-pro-quo.

No, it is not, you should know better. The changes only have go to the person receiving the binary, not to the person providing you the source in the first place.

I think you are still treating the offering of a web site as an act of charity. Generally, it is not.

Yes, unless the terms of usage explicitly say differently, it is, at least as much as the corporate sponsored concert in the park is (or, if you prefer, on their corporate front lawn)!!

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 22:38 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

The changes only have go to the person receiving the binary, not to the person providing you the source in the first place.

There are three ways you can fulfill the GPL. 3(a) says you distribute the source along with the binary. In this case all parties that get the source can further distribute it all they want. This has not, in general, kept such modifications from the public.

3(b) says you have to give the source to anyone who requests it, whether they got the binary or not.

3(c) assumes that you made no modification, so doesn't apply.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 22:59 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, but since you can ethically (guilt-free) chose to not take action to return it to the original source, there is no quid-pro-quo. The fact that it may end up there by someone else's charity is irrelevant.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 23:14 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Actually, compliance with the license is the quid-pro-quo. You are granted the right to redistribute and modify in exchange for complying with all of the terms of the license. The fact that the source code distribution terms are selective in who is distributed to is not relevant, once you comply with the license terms the original author's interest is satisfied.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 21:06 UTC (Tue) by szh (guest, #23558) [Link]

> Translate this into the real world.

1) During this translation we switched to orders of magnitude more (spending per all unexpected users / profit ). So it may create difference between go out of business and slightly decrease profits while making the world little better.

2) People will generally be more comfortable with idea of buying coffee, while sitting in starbucks, than be presented with ads, while visiting a website. So the "normal" distribution of burden is different, i e the wishes of his higher profits are less welcome by mankind.

Moreover if I regularly view your website without ads, I might recommend or send some interesting link to your website to a friend who does not use AdBlock. In this case I will create a profit for your website without viewing your ads. So good content will pay off anyway.
I believe this will not work out in StarBucks, because of said much higher spengings per unexpected usage.

P.S. I would call a "wish" what you originally called "expectation".

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 17:05 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (9 responses)

"Translate this into the real world. If you use the table in Starbucks as
your office - as a surprising number of people seem to do - you'd better
keep buying coffee. Are you not then comporting yourself according to the
merchant's expectations? How is this different from a web site?"

Scale, Bruce. Size matters. Properties emerge.

If a web site had only the 20-50 patrons that a Starbuck's Coffee
franchise can simultaneously support (a generous estimate given the
staffing levels I've seen), the free-rider dynamics would indeed more
closely resemble the ones you describe.

Maybe a better analogy would be the blimps-with-Jumbotrons in the Los
Angeles sky depicted in _Blade Runner_. Was Deckard morally obliged to
look upward? Were the street passerby morally obliged to remove the
earphones from their retro-chic Sony Walkmen so they could listen to the
recorded voice offering them opportunities on the off-world colonies?

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 17:22 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (8 responses)

Blimps with jumbotrons are a parasite, they aren't paying for the sky. Advertising is paying for the content that you explicitly command your browser to view.

Apply the free-rider dynamics to your GPL software and you'll feel differently. Those folks who break the license and put it in their proprietary products without distributing any source are OK, because they are a relatively small percentage of the whole. Right?

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 17:55 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

how do you know that Blimps with jumbotrons are a parasite? they could be paying fees that provided the city with clean water. they could be carrying smog-scrubbing equipment that cleans the air they fly through.

if these things were true would we be obligated to watch the commercials because we breath the air or drink the water?

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 18:07 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

You still wouldn't have to direct your eyes there, just as there is nothing that makes you actually look at an ad on a web site even if your browser presents it. But for a less absurd issue, consider the bicycles that advertisers are placing in cities. I recently encountered them in Oslo. You don't have to look at the ads, even if you are using the bicycles. But the city accepts the presence of the ads as part of the contract of having the bicycles.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 18:38 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (5 responses)

"Apply the free-rider dynamics to your GPL software and you'll feel
differently. Those folks who break the license and put it in their
proprietary products without distributing any source are OK, because they
are a relatively small percentage of the whole. Right?"

Decide which argument you want to use. Should we subject ourselves to
advertising (with grim resignation, I suppose, if not with glee) out of
moral obligation, or out of fear for consequences?

You keep tacking back and forth between ethics and DRM Doomsday. I
suppose you want to make both arguments, but as far as I can tell you keep
flipping to the threat model when the premises of your ethical analysis
are challenged.

But, all right, I'll take up your challenge.

1) People should honor the terms of the GPL. I say this out of personal
selfishness because my career is largely grounded on its success, and out
of solidarity with my community, which is similarly dependent in many ways
on that same success.

2) Ethically, it's fuzzier. Why?

2a) We have to remember that the GPL is a copyleft, a deliberate and
calculated reaction to a monopolistic scheme called copyright which *is*
the status quo in Western society. A person who believes that the current
scope and power of copyright is substantially congruent with our social
contract would view the GPL as corrosive to that contract, and perhaps
itself unethical. You've probably seen more instances of that argument
than I have.

2b) I have personally violated the GPL without guilt, and, as it turned
out, with the sanction of RMS. Many years ago I copied a GPLed ELF
executable onto a floppy disk for a friend (or perhaps co-worker) who'd
unfortunately nuked some critical program like dpkg off of his system and
needed to restore it. I proffered no written offer of source code nor
made an oral offer of same. The sources were not also on the floppy.
(Had I been asked, I would have made a joke about it, and complied, but
still, I did not meet the requirements of the license.) Years later I
brought this case up on in debian-legal in the course of an argument with
RMS and he, as I recall, characterized such phenomena as unworthy of
notice. In legal terms, he regarded it as "de minimis" infringement, and
_ethically_ he was totally cool with it because that's exactly the sort of
helping-your-neighbor that would have taken place at the MIT AI Lab back
in the good old days (and perhaps still today). Yes, my intentions were
honorable and not at all like your example. But I will not robotically
attach moral opprobrium to a GPL violation for precisely this reason.
In your scenario, would my knee-jerk reaction be one of condemnation?
Almost certainly. But if asked for a sober, moral assessment, I will have
to actually, you know, find out the facts of the particular case first.
_Ethically_, I can do no less.

2c) Thanks for bringing up proportionality. Where is the FSF equivalent
of your DRM-Doomsday scenario? What misery are we GPL copyright holders
going to inflict on all of mankind (or, for greater congruity with your
example, all users of proprietary software) if we determine that there is
too much infringement of copyrights in GPL-licensed works? No one has
threatened any doomsday. (For that matter, I haven't heard the
advertising industry threaten one either--is your prediction an informed
one?) It has taken the FSF 25 years to bring one lawsuit, and while I am
not privy in any way to the negotiations being undertaken, I am pretty
confident that the main thing the FSF is after is compliance--not money
damages. To the best of my knowledge and belief (based solely on my
personal impressions of FSF principals and their writings), the FSF is not
motivated to excuse continued non-compliance in exchange for cash.

GPL licensors, with rare exceptions, seem to be fairly sane and rational
people. Your DRM Doomsday scenario posits that the web advertising
industry consists of people who are, at best, indifferent to web
accessibility not just for the blind, but for a lot of others besides, and
at worst are malicious madmen.

Well, okay. You and Arthur Miller may be right about that.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 18:56 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (4 responses)

Should we subject ourselves to advertising ... out of moral obligation, or out of fear for consequences?

I don't see these as separable. You should not remove the advertising for ethical reasons. If enough people behave unethically toward web site operators and the advertisers who fund them, there will be retribution.

Where is the FSF equivalent of your DRM-Doomsday scenario?

Well, having seen companies sued, by others, in connection with software that I created for Debian, it appears to me that the consequences of that action have already played out.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 20:24 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (3 responses)

And how are we worse off as a result?

It's not much of a Doomsday if we're not.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 20:44 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, the consequences are either laws, in which case they will be as mis-written as most tech laws coming from non-tech legislators, or it will be changes in conduct by web site operators and ISPs. If you want an all-Flash web, we're on the way there now.

Ethical issue

Posted May 8, 2009 18:32 UTC (Fri) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (1 responses)

I was referring to the consequences of the lawsuits against companies for
infringing copyrights in your Debian work.

Ethical issue

Posted May 8, 2009 18:39 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Yes. Except this time we're in the position of the rights violator, and we have no guarantee that they will treat us as fairly as we treat others.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 7:19 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I block animated GIFs everywhere because they distract too much from the
text, and I block graphical ads everywhere because they're invariably so
shouty that when beside the text rather than above it they 1) reflow the
text to the extent that they make it hard to read, and 2) interfere with
my vision of the text unless I close one eye.

So, no, sorry, I'm going to ignore their silly damn quid pro quo.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 10:45 UTC (Tue) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link]

Ok. This is going to be a bit heated reply.

I don't like the notion that my brain is for sale, but I guess that can't be helped; we all are selling our brains every second of the day in this market of attention. As this is the case, I'd appreciate a method that would even slightly respect my poor brain. Aggressively hijacking my attention is simply intolerably rude.

In other words, I'm going to start respecting advertising as soon as advertisers start respecting the content they hijack. Ads have lost because they have ventured far beyond the realm of acceptable that they have become a distraction, irritation, even an actual hindrance to enjoying the good stuff of the page in the first place.

Like so many others, I'd pay for content just to make the ads go away, not because I care about whatever is being advertised. I click on fewer ads than one per year. I have developed such a banner blindness, thanks to ads, that when I try to acquire some software for the web, I am simply unable to see the large "Download" button in the vogue on the web today.

I blame ads for making web worse. Asking me to see more of them is unlikely to improve my experience of the web. I'd rather just keep the browser turned off, but I can't live without the web.

So, if you argue that "if you don't like ads, just go away from sites that serve ads", you are overlooking a problem: I don't know in advance whether a site is advertising supported, so I click a link and have my brain sold again to unwanted advertisers. And yes, before you ask: I don't watch TV, listen to radio, or read newspapers because I simply can't tolerate ads.

Adblockers give some control back to me. I can avoid irritating, distracting messages and keep on focusing on the stuff that actually interests me. It might not be too far a stretch to say that I view this control of your own mind as an essential human right. No talk of quid-pro-quo is going to make me sympathetic to your position until I have a realistic option to avoid ad-supported areas of the web.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 16:25 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] (3 responses)

This doesn't seem like a very well-thought-out position, Bruce. The creator of an HTTP response has no expectation whatsoever in the manner of presentation that response causes in the user agent. Remember that term, "user agent"? Your browser or other agent works for you, not them.

Ethical issue

Posted May 5, 2009 19:18 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

The creator of an HTTP response

:-) This is a sort of narrow-mindedness that engineers are particularly susceptible to. The thought goes this way: The HTTP protocol standard doesn't say that there are any particular expectations of legal and ethical conduct over an HTTP connection, therefore there aren't. Ignoring centuries of legal and ethical structure which are the context in which your particular HTTP connection is functioning.

The worst version of this is the thought that you, and your colleauges, have created a "cyberspace" in which the laws of the physical world do not apply. "Governments aren't invited", the cyberspace denizens shout!

There is no cyberspace. You are functioning in a world that imposes a lot more rules than are enunciated in the HTTP standard.

Ethical issue

Posted May 7, 2009 4:05 UTC (Thu) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (1 responses)

I think the fact that no one agrees with you pretty clearly spells out that the social contract you believe is not actually existent within society.

Ethical issue

Posted May 7, 2009 16:17 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

No, it just means there are a lot of freeloaders.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 16:42 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (3 responses)

"All of us have the freedom to refrain from using advertising-funded
resources if we wish to do so.

If you do decide to use one, and you block the ads, you're breaking the
quid-pro-quo with the publisher or web site operator. They put up the
content (and in this case the software) with the assumption that they'd be
able to get some remuneration to support it."

Huh, so by continuing to use my 5 year old PPC PowerMacintosh, for which
Flash support is nonexistent to craptacular, I am breaking the social
contract with sites that run Flash-based advertising?

I know you're not going to tell me I should run proprietary software
(which I'm not sure still exists/is supported for this platform) just so I
can view Flash ads, and I'm reasonably confident you're not going to tell
me to buy a computer using a "mainstream" processor just to view that
content.

So, what *are* you trying to tell me?

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 16:51 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

I have already discussed my own issues with Flash. If the ad server doesn't provide a fall-back image for browsers that don't run Flash, it's not your problem.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 17:09 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, I'm getting caught up with your numerous posts.

You have not articulated the *ethical* difference between viewing Flash
ads and still-image ads.

What are the ethics of deanimating animated GIFs, as Privoxy does?

You are articulating a subtler position than I thought at first, but the
subtlely of the distinctions you are making undercuts the force, and
ultimately the persuasiveness, of your moral exhortations.

You're using black-and-white language in one breath to discuss an issue
you admit to be gray in the next.

Ethical issue

Posted May 6, 2009 17:31 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

the subtlely of the distinctions you are making undercuts the force

The main counter-argument here has been extension to the point of absurdity - "must I look at all billboards" and other such nonsense. Obviously one must make distinctions in the face of that. The other distinctions I am making illustrate the difference between technical matters and intent.

Intent remains key. If you intend to view content with the advertising removed, deliberately, simply because you don't want to view any advertising, I contend that you have no ethical excuse to view the content.

Ethical issue

Posted May 7, 2009 17:25 UTC (Thu) by perlwolf (guest, #46060) [Link]

I've been down the same path before, though. Television ads provide a time to go to the washroom, or to refresh snacks and drinks. With taped TV shows, I simply skip the ads.

AdBlock prevents sites from taking many times as long to load in the process of providing extra stuff that I don't want. Google has the rightr idea here - provide ads in a way that does not interfere with the user experience of the site.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 20:20 UTC (Mon) by riddochc (guest, #43) [Link] (4 responses)

This is really frustrating. I've got both NoScript and AdBlock Plus installed, for different reasons... third-party javascript coming from sites not associated with the server I'm connecting to are often of dubious value, and I find the web extremely difficult to use with the distraction of advertising. As you can see, I reward the content providers I value anyway, such as LWN.

I use lots of plug-ins, and this is the first time I've really felt that I should be auditing the code when it asks me to upgrade a plugin. NoScript updates so often that nearly every time I restart the browser (which is at least once a day) it asks me to update.

Alternatively, I might just ditch NoScript. Adblock behaves exactly as advertised. With this battle, it's quite clear to me that having NoScript installed could be just exactly as much a liability as the things it's trying to defend me against -- no, even more so because plug-in code runs with more privileges on my system than javascript run on behalf of a website.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 22:09 UTC (Mon) by joey (guest, #328) [Link] (3 responses)

> I use lots of plug-ins, and this is the first time I've really felt that I > should be auditing the code when it asks me to upgrade a plugin

This is a good reason to put plugins in distributions. Then the distro maintainers can do whatever code auditing is required, and in a case such as this fiasco, bugs can be filed on the distribution to get it fixed there.

I'm happy to be able to install packages from my distro (Debian) for adblock plus, firebug, and several other popular browser plugins. (There's also a package for noscript, though I don't use it.)

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 22:28 UTC (Mon) by joey (guest, #328) [Link]

After posting that, I took a look at the changelog for mozilla-noscript in Debian and found this amusing bit:

> * Does not redirect on upstream author page after upgrade. closes: #433032
>
> -- Arnaud Renevier <arenevier@fdn.fr> Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:29:30 +0200

That sets noscript.firstRunRedirection to false, disabling noscript's behavior of opening the ad-laden noscript.net page after being upgraded, which AIUI was the main original behavior the adblock guys objected to.

Does not work.

Posted May 5, 2009 6:30 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

This is a good reason to put plugins in distributions. Then the distro maintainers can do whatever code auditing is required, and in a case such as this fiasco, bugs can be filed on the distribution to get it fixed there.

Does not work. Remember mICQ fiasco?

Does not work.

Posted May 6, 2009 17:20 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link]

Upstream authors putting trojans in the software is not a problem unique
to packaged web plugins. It can (and has) happened to other software:

http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html

The remedies in situations like the mICQ fiasco are social, not
technological. I submit that in that case, the author didn't really want
a free software license on his code, but wanted to take advantage of (some
of) the distribution channels a free software license would have opened to
him. Instead of being mature and thoughtful by deciding to take his code
proprietary, he lashed out with a Trojan Horse.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 4, 2009 20:48 UTC (Mon) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link] (1 responses)

They should make a sitcom based on this.

Sitcom title

Posted May 4, 2009 21:53 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

One of the characters could be called GreaseMonkey.

Irresponsible behaviour

Posted May 4, 2009 21:35 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (1 responses)

Adblocking has had unintended consequences before, both with this software and other. That's why there's a big button to push in the user interface to temporarily disable the blocker if the site doesn't work with it. You're fully aware of this when you install the software.

The solution is not to descend into malware territory. I hope the author is ashamed as this irresponsible behaviour lowers public confidence of the project as a whole.

Irresponsible behaviour

Posted May 5, 2009 3:12 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

I hope the author is ashamed

I guess we'll never know... unless we read the third paragraph from the bottom of the fine article:

"I had this crazy idea of retaliating against EasyList 'from the inside', and in my blindness I did not grasp that I was really retaliating against my own users and the Mozilla community at large," he wrote. "I beg you to accept my most sincere apologies and believe in my shame and contrition."

Reading this in advance would have made it clear that the author is ashamed -- or claims to be. I'm tempted to suggest that reading before commenting is a good idea in general but who am I kidding? That's crazy talk.

Ad supported software... wow, that's new...

Posted May 4, 2009 22:12 UTC (Mon) by lbt (subscriber, #29672) [Link] (1 responses)

It seems that part of what NoScript does is try hard to place ads.
What's wrong with that? Are you upset that they're good at it?

If you don't want NoScript's ads, don't install NoScript, write your own code....

If you feel that NoScript is worth the ads then use it and don't blame them when the code you just got from them tries hard to show you the ads it said it would.

Ad supported software... wow, that's new...

Posted May 5, 2009 0:27 UTC (Tue) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]

The main problem, as you might know if you familiarized yourself with the situation, was that (at least at one point during this debacle) NoScript actively and silently crippled the functionality of an installed AdBlock on the user's browser.

Involved was also this or similar (I forget) malware in NoScript being obfuscated to make it more cumbersome to notice.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Paying for content

Posted May 5, 2009 1:26 UTC (Tue) by ceswiedler (guest, #24638) [Link]

I think that people are certainly well within their rights to block or skip ads. However, they should consider the fact that they get what they pay for in the end, and there's no (sustainable) way around paying for content somehow. I block LWN ads (well, I have AdBlock installed, and I see no ads) and I pay to subscribe to LWN, because I like its content.

If people skip or block ads, advertisers will stop paying for them, and sites will simply have to find another way to get revenue. That may be "unblockable" ads (e.g. TV show product placement) or it may be direct revenue models like subscription fees (e.g. HBO). Personally, I prefer the latter.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 5, 2009 12:58 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]

If Maone is adding countermeasures to the NoScript extension, the limit to what is justifiable in my mind would be to disable NoScript if AdBlock Plus is installed. After all, he is within his rights to not provide a service to people who refuse to compensate him. Interfering with other software on the system as he did though brings NoScript down to the level of malware.

Of course, if he wants the extension to remain free software, he wouldn't be able to stop others from removing such a check.

NoScript site makes my eyes bleed

Posted May 5, 2009 13:29 UTC (Tue) by chsnyder (guest, #52714) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't use AdBlock, and I don't want to block all ads, but this story is particularly poignant because of how intrusive the NoScript plugin and site are with regard to everyday Firefox use.

Maone is rewarding himself for sloppy development by pushing buggy or incomplete software to millions of users and then watching guaranteed page views roll in as the newly updated extension opens his homepage. What other popular extension does this?

What if every extension you installed opened its homepage every few days? I think you'd be outraged. Maone gets a pass because he produced a *really* useful extension and is obviously quite actively developing it. I have no doubt that NoScript is a full time job for him.

Here's the social contract I want to have with NoScript (and any other ad supported site, for that matter): Tell me how much I need to donate before you stop showing me ads. $15/yr? $20/yr?

I'm sure I would be willing to donate quite a bit more than you'll earn from advertising to me. But the other side of that bargain is that once I donate, you have to frak off and leave me alone until renewal time comes around.

NoScript site makes my eyes bleed

Posted May 5, 2009 22:35 UTC (Tue) by knobunc (guest, #4678) [Link]

http://noscript.net/faq#qa2_5 -- The supported about:config setting to disable the homepage from being shown on updates.

Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica)

Posted May 13, 2009 15:39 UTC (Wed) by hunkymouse (guest, #58565) [Link]

What's the cost *to the reader* of running adverts?
Most of the posts here, seem to be based on the assumption that it's zero, or trivial. My tests suggest this is entirely wrong.
The reason I use ABP is simple; it saves me a lot of download AND - more important - electricity. The problem is that people aren't just putting up a simple graphic any more.
Some sites are extreme. If you go to Fox Business, you can actually watch Mozilla Firefox start to rack up the cpu cycles. It downloads video after video; and while one is playing, the robot stuffs another six down.
The site's assumption is that my PC is a free playground for it, and that it is entitled to my cycles. But when it gets to the point that my PC is actually cranking its cpu up to the max, and turning its fan on to keep cool, and I can *see* my ADSL traffic rising as well, then the word "abuse" comes to mind.
Small, amateur sites such as NoScript aren't guilty of this, of course; but we can't ignore reality. Right now, as Don Marti points out, almost nobody blocks adverts, and the storm is a mouse-sneeze in an egg-cup.
But the trend suggests that sanctimonious sermons about the "ethics" of allowing adverts (and this means both pro and con!) are irrelevant. If people find themselves upgrading their hardware to run adverts, and spending money on power to run adverts, and paying an ISP premium to run adverts, then eventually the penny will drop, and ad blockers will become standard.
It's an issue which the rogue downloaders should be confronted with. Civilized behaviour isn't automatic; and IMV, we need to be ready to confront excess.


Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds