An interesting debate is rumblng about the use of Ad-blockers on web browsers…
Ars Technica’s Ken Fisher laid out his case “Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love” including this section which got me thinking:
My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love.
I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin.
As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We’ve all seen it happen. I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads.
I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can. Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads.
But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between. We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys. We simply ask that you return the favour and not block ads.
Tech-savvy or not, I’ve used some form of ad-blocking for years. Initially using pop-up stiflers and the userContent.css lists that are published to block ads — I’m now a satisfied user of Safari AdBlock and ClickToFlash … and regularly use Flush to clear out the Flash cookies that still accumulate like dental plaque. (It was animated Flash ads competing for my attention that drove me to it. We filter spam email for the same reason … don’t we?)
However, I sympathise with Ars Technica and other good sites, funded by eyeball$$. It’s an issue.
With the ‘free’ culture of the interwebs, what’s a wholesome site to do? Well, there ARE other models offering ‘premium’/members-only feeds and subscriptions etc.
But there’s another important issue, too, embedded in this debate:
A discussion forum I have supported and frequented for several years (PropertyTalk) has, it seems to me, always accepted advertising “of a truly questionable nature” (to use Fisher’s phrase from above) — in this case, from advertisers who are sometimes the subject of trenchant, comprehensive negative criticism (even exposé) on that very forum.
The unpalatable compromise of Fisher’s “sometimes we have to accept those ads” fits.
I understand. Economics. It’s not a charity. That’s OK, for me. I’ve blocked the ads.
And truthfully, for a long while, the shining light of this particular discussion forum was its courage under fire: resisting prolonged, heavy bullying by (coincidentally) its biggest corporate advertiser who clearly hated what was being said about the firm, its officers and its practices — said in the forum! To the site’s credit, a lot of that discussion was left unmolested.
But under intense, almost continual pressure and, eventually, legal threats, it seemed (to me and other observers) that the forum management’s resolve began to crack and crumble. Just a little at first. While in some crucial ways nobly staying true, in others they conceded. They caved in. Just a bit. For instance, they shut down some discussion threads, shredded others, ‘muzzled’, drove away or ejected some posters. Pissed off some others. Just a few. Quietly.
Very recently, it seems, under threat and pressure from different advertisers/spruikers, or the poor economy, or something, the ‘corruption’ (to use a word I really dislike) appears to have spread.
It has now reached the point where unlike the Ars-Technica forum where “we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads” … the forum Moderators and management appear to be actually CENSORING THE DISCUSSION FORUM to make the site more ‘hospitable’ for their shonky advertisers. Continue reading →
