It’s OK to block ads (2015)

https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-block-ads/

by hvenev • 11 months ago

118 112 11 months ago

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk

keernan• 11 months ago

For me, it is a straight forward proposition. There is literally nothing online so far that has ever interested me enough to pay money or with my eyeballs. I either see it without ads or move on without even a moment of thought.

roscas• 11 months ago

It very very sad that some people will even say "I like to see ads, it might have something I want...". They are not just dumb, they are dangerous. This ads companies have been online for too much time. It is time to bring them down. Fast. And with them all those parasites of ads associations and marketing. We do need to bring the level of ads to 0. Then start new.

dkdcio• 11 months ago

every hackernews thread on this topic has like 10 of those people and it genuinely baffles me. like in the year 2025 the idea that you need to see an ad to know to buy something you were otherwise unaware of is genuinely insane to me

al_borland3• 11 months ago

To take this a step further, I have had people argue with me that tracking and profiling online is a good thing, because it provides more relevant ads for things they want to buy. There are people who actively want ads that can better target and manipulate them into giving up their money.

I would like to say I've only run into one person like this, but no. I've lost count of how many of these people I've run into. I like to think I'm pretty good at understand other people's point of view, even if I don't agree with it. This is one I have a lot of trouble with.

I'm fine with relevant ads, but I think they should be relevant based on the context around them, not on the viewer. If I go to a website about trout fishing, show me ads that would be useful to a trout fisherman. There is no need to track anyone to do that.

bee_rider3• 11 months ago

Ads would be ok if they were non-personalized. Just buy ads for places that show similar content. Put ads for videogames on twitch streams, that sort of thing.

These tracking system: it’s just stalking, but done on such a massive scale that, unfortunately, law enforcement and politicians don’t see it that way.

DanielHB5• 11 months ago

My mom has been getting some supplement ads and asking me to buy them (she can't do online shopping, too computer illiterate). Man just yesterday she wanted to buy a supplement that was basically a redbull in pill form...

maximus_016• 11 months ago

How much do you value your time? A lot of people think like this and I'm not judging you or saying this applies to you. But I find it kind of odd when people I know who earn hundreds to thousands of dollars an hour won't pay even $0.10 for something that took them say 15 minutes to read. If their own time is worth $200 / hr, they thought it was valuable enough to use up $50 of their time. If they refuse to pay anything for the content, then in their mind the content was worth exactly $50, not a cent more to spare to the author of said content (eg $50.10, if you paid the author $0.10 and paid $50 of your time).

shortrounddev25• 11 months ago

I used to subscribe to the washington post before the most recent election. Im willing to pay for the content I see or read, but I can't possibly pay for ALL the content that crosses my vision. Like streaming services, I used to have just one, and now there are like 100. If I paid for every show I watched I'd be paying over $100/mo in streaming services. Now I pay for NPR'S premium subscription. If every writer on the internet paywalled their content behind some content network's subscription model, I would happily just not read it

somerandom24072• 11 months ago

Back in the old days, people would share useful information in the internet of their own accord. That still happens a lot today, too! In my opinion, most of the stuff that's ad-supported is not worth my time, as the "content creator" is trying to sell something or otherwise has an angle they're pushing. How can I trust what they have to say when I know they're only doing it to make some money? They will be less interested in helping me than helping themselves!

I think if you take ads away from the internet, you'll also take away a lot of the bullshit and inaccurate or misleading information. If no-one is making any money off of it, you'll be left with largely relevant information.

The internet today is like a free to air television network, but I remember a time when it was nothing like that.

ndriscoll13• 11 months ago

Not quite. Generally "content" from people trying to monetize their writing online (or who describe it as such) is not worth the time spent reading it, so in fact you're already in the hole before being asked to compensate them somehow. That I read/watched the stuff at all is often more a reflection of poor time management on my part than some high value of theirs (the OP essay mentions a similar point, and it's captured by the modern idea of "doomscrolling" recognizing "content consumption" as a potential behavioral addiction). So it's more that I think it takes a fairly high level of audacity for some rando to think people would not just be interested to hear what they have to say, but actually pay to hear their thoughts.

Generally the most useful information on the web is freely given. Turns out actual experts frequently like nerding out about their thing and trying to get other people interested in it/to understand some facet of it.

Dfiesl• 11 months ago

Its a neat and rational way of looking at things but does it always make sense to give your time a monetary value?

wiredpancake• 11 months ago

There is no universal, easy and feeless option to send money to people though.

Sure, I could pay for Hackernews or Github or whatever else (these may be bad examples due to the lack of ads) but lets even say the blogpost linked above.

If I could easily send 0.20$ to someone instantly, without much thought, I would.

I was hoping cryptocurrency would solve this, although the complexity and immense fees with most networks really rule that out.

carlosjobim• 11 months ago

You know that you are lying, in the defense of your precious precious wallet.

There is plenty of stuff online which is worth the money, just YouTube premium alone is a great bargain with the highest quality content conceivable inside. Or if you prefer empirical evidence, millions of people pay for Spotify.

alphazard• 11 months ago

I remember reading this closer to 2015. I'm convinced that these sorts of mental gymnastics and philosophizing are an info-hazard for otherwise smart and thoughtful people. Not a particularly dangerous one, but time that you won't get back.

Unless you are a psychopath, your human instincts will alert you to when you need to show respect or gratitude, or reciprocity is expected from you. You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things, especially when the other party is a large corporation bothering you over the internet. The whole premise of the article is just nuts.

TLDR: You should blocks ads because they are annoying. Don't overthink it.

themafia• 11 months ago

I'm not blocking ads.

I'm blocking unaccountable third party advertising networks that let random javascript code run in my session.

If site operators want to put their ads inline then there really isn't anything I can do about it and I doubt I would even try.

nosioptar2• 11 months ago

I would make no effort to block ads if they were either static images or text, required no js, and were clearly marked as ads.

JdeBP2• 11 months ago

When one is (in 2015) a doctoral candidate in ethics at Balliol, there is not really any such thing as overthinking this. (-:

martin-t7• 11 months ago

You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things

I think the danger is the opposite. Normal (non-psychopathic) people are prone to being manipulated into feeling for inanimate objects, such as corporations, especially if those are driven by exploitative incentives where humanizing _itselves_ is beneficial.

shortrounddev25• 11 months ago

I work for an adtech company and we recently discovered that we were serving ads to some users using ad blockers, but the impression tracker endpoint had bbeen blocked. We decided the best course of action is to just submit our bidders domain to whatever lists we can (easylist, ublock, whatever).

My project manager wanted to try just changing our endpoints periodically to evade the list. I said to him "You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go up against a software pirate or ad blocker when privacy is on the line!'

freeopinion2• 11 months ago

And then you keeled over while your project manager went on about their business?

moritzwarhier2• 11 months ago

Maybe they lost sleep over it, thinking

  Wait, these people are clearly not just saying: Do Not Track me, they're also saying: Don't show me ads!
  Which is a demand that any ad-tech company must take very seriously! We can't ignore the privacy implications of our ad networks. We better avoid any such privacy concerns and comply with the user's expressed priorities.

martin-t7• 11 months ago

Out of curiosity, how do you feel working on something that is zero-sum (does not produce positive value for society, only changes where the money goes)? Would you change jobs if a positive-sum job became available?

And to risk being seen as preaching, have you read https://drewdevault.com/2025/04/20/2025-04-20-Tech-sector-re... ?

shortrounddev25• 11 months ago

I work in retail media. There is a large difference in the kind of value we capture - rather than creating incentives for annoying or addictive behavior, we only show advertisements on ecommerce pages. If you are seeing our ads, you already have the intent to buy a kind of product, but the kinds of ads we show are trying to convince you to buy a specific brand of product.

Perhaps you searched "laptops". You see a handful of results, and at the top a banner says "Dell XPS - 20% off!"

Have we manipulated you in any way? Have we lied to you? The fact that a laptop is 20% off is valuable information to a user who might consider price in their purchase. What we sell is not advertising, but real estate on your screen

Am I in love with what I do? No. But we dont engage in the kind of advertising market described in the OP's article. What we do is the equivalent of a grocery store putting products on the end cap of an aisle and getting paid extra for the valuable real estate

charcircuit4• 11 months ago

Connecting people with goods or services they may find valuable provides a positive value to society.

cm20123• 11 months ago

It produces a lot of value when products are actually used as opposed to unused

lrvick3• 11 months ago

I run AdNauseam to click as many ads as possible randomly simulating ad-addicted humans, just to waste as much money of adtech companies and ad buyers as possible. This year I caused something like $10k to likely be paid for ads to be delivered to my computer that I sent to /dev/null and never saw.

I see no way adtech will reform unless conversion rates plummet to the point that the business model becomes unsustainable.

Genuine question: If millions of people ran automated ad-clicking bots, how would your industry survive?

ilvez• 11 months ago

Just for the context, in 2015 world's most used browser still had a sophisticated adblocking.

JdeBP2• 11 months ago

And a year or so later, the article's author went on to write this:

* https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108453004

busymom0• 11 months ago

What is it? The website doesn't say much other than the name of the book.

tjpnz• 11 months ago

There's no good argument for not blocking ads with so many of them pushing literal malware for criminals.

Ms-J• 11 months ago

Yes, it is not only OK to block ads, but should be done.

yen223• 11 months ago

In the 1970’s, Herbert Simon pointed out that when information becomes abundant, attention becomes the scarce resource.

Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable?

andsoitis• 11 months ago

Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable?

Attention's value lies in its scarcity and its ability to drive action, connection, and influence.

Every moment you spend focusing on something comes at the cost of not focusing on something else.

globalnode• 11 months ago

Its fuel for your life goals, lets you think about where, what and how you want to do things for yourself. As opposed to being led along by what other's tell you you want. I'm not a philosopher but this seems like a good reason for why its valuable.

TheBozzCL• 11 months ago

It’s literally what you experience in your life. I’d say I value my life a lot, in the end it’s all I actually own.

On the other hand, others value my attention because they can make fractions of a cent by making me look at stuff, because there’s a minimal chance they’ll convince me to spend money on stuff of probably little value.

Seems to me they don’t value my attention a lot, and I don’t get much of value out of it.

akho• 11 months ago

For a certain definition of information, its net volume and availability on the internet has been declining for quite a while. There is a growth of bytes with zero information content (ai slop, influencer video, ...), worse discovery tools (search is dead), and outright negative information (political disinformation, ads). Net value tends negative.

Attention is still being consumed.

12_throw_away• 11 months ago

I accidentally turned off my adblocker on youtube today, and I immediately got 2 ads, both of which were AI deepfakes of some celebrities selling "supplements" of dubious legality.

So, um, is this what internet ads are now? Because even if it weren't "ok" to block these ads, I'm sure as shit going to keep blocking them.

orwin• 11 months ago

Happenned two days ago for me, the rule to block shorts from appearing in my feed caught a bit too much, and I mistakenly deactivated ublock while trying to refine them.

YouTube ads are terrifying. Probably others are to, but my opinion to avoid any product showed on internet if possible is vindicated. How can I trust an Axe ad if it's advertised side by side with an obvious scam?

DanielHB5• 11 months ago

I actually use a full blown desktop computer as media center specifically because it can run adblock (and games). I got one of those "fly-mouses" (like a wii-remote pointer to control the mouse cursor), works really well and it is nice to be able to pull a wireless mouse+keyboard when you want to do more complex things.

We often use our TV to plan trips using google maps or do some planning using excel sheets with this setup.

Leynos• 11 months ago

Mate, you've had since 1995 to come up with a functioning micropayments system, and you're unhappy that I am not requesting every image referenced by your web page? I think that we are long past the point where we can safely say that this is a "you" problem.

honeybadger1• 11 months ago

every website that stops me from viewing it because i am blocking ads will never get a visit from me again. i don't watch television because of unavoidable advertisements. i will never accept advertisements as anything other than deception.

bee_rider3• 11 months ago

I have a lot more respect for pages that block me outright than those that try to circumvent my blocking or whine about it.

The standard on the internet is that people send what they want and the recipients render it however they want. That’s how it’s always been, and how it always will be. That includes the possibility that they won’t want to send me anything. But once it is sent, it is my bits in my RAM, to do with what I will.

lelandbatey• 11 months ago

Applying ads to the real world makes it clear: blocking ads is always ok.

If you were given free pizza and a stack of ad flyers, do you have to read the ads? Do you have to even acknowledge them? Can you accept the free food while putting the flyers directly in the trash?

Obviously yes you would toss those ads in the garbage, because what fool would give away food and expect you to look at ads in exchange? So it is with ads online: their business model is not your responsibility and you can ignore stuff (even automatically) if you want, they're your eyes.

h4kunamata2• 11 months ago

It isn't just okay but mandatory! 2015, 10 years later things got so much worse, only know some minority are realising all the problems behind an AD.

With the rise of privacy being breached by American companies and now AI, the way we deal with technology should change altogether.

Basics first, if you only use your PC to access the internet, YouTube, office/excel(LibreOffice) and alike, Mint Cinnamon Linux to replace Windows. No money wasted with licensing and its AI flooding you with ADs

Android and iPhone are such major issue with targeted ADs, GrapheneOS running on Pixel phones are the only way to have a phone and life without having all your personal life leaked, plus ADs.

At home, I run Pihole + Unbound as recursive DNS, OPNSense to force all the DNS traffic to them, and WireGuard to connect to home when I am out. Pihole blocked traffic goes brrrrrrrrrrr

If people knew how much crappy their phones, Windows/Mac PCs are sending out to Microsof, Apple, Meta, Google, etc, to be exchanged into targeted ADs, people would lose their mind lmao

DanielHB5• 11 months ago

I has gotten better security-wise at least, malicious ads can't infect your OS anymore just by being loaded. The browser sandbox is much more secure these days.

lrvick3• 11 months ago

If we do not count the multiple sandbox escape vulnerabilities that happen every year, sure. https://issues.chromium.org/issues/405143032

h4kunamata2• 11 months ago

I run Linux only at home and all my devices including WiFi6 router. That alone prevents you from getting malicious thing, you only get a Linux system infected if you have zero common sense.

The way how the permissions work on Linux prevents that from happening unless an user did an user thing.

With Windows, all you need to get malicious crappy is to use Windows. When the system itself is collecting sensitive information aka Microsoft Recall.

You cannot access the internet, have VIRTUALLY no problems with virus AND have privacy while using Windows. That is like saying you have an umbrella with a EF5 tornado passing by.

graemep• 11 months ago

I have found most people have just given up. I have in various conversations with people been told they will find out anyway, that I am naive if I think it is possible to maintain privacy, and similar.

npc_anon3• 11 months ago

People block ads and/or not pay for content because they can. Simply because it's possible. People have been conditioned to consider any and all digital content to be worth zero. Yet continue to consume it for hours on end every day.

When not paying at all is an option people will reliably pick that option. They'll even go into extremes to avoid paying. I know somebody that plays a particular mobile game about an hour each day. Every round (taking 90s or so) it's interrupted by 1-3 mins of ads. It's maddening. She suffers through this instead of paying a one-time $4.99. We're talking about somebody firmly upper middle class.

jen20• 11 months ago

Many things do not give you that option, and the ads are obnoxious and invasive to privacy. If that is the only option, you will get nothing from me, and your ads will be blocked.

Furthermore if there is a content subscription involved, I will only ever consider it via Apple because I refuse to risk having to telephone someone to cancel something I signed up for online.

The well has been poisoned by an obnoxious industry and that industry is unlikely to ever gain even a modicum of respectability.

npc_anon3• 11 months ago

You're just retrofitting reasons to justify the behavior I describe.

Forget about those reasons. They don't matter. They can have merit or not, it's irrelevant. Because the behavior takes place regardless. When people can legally avoid paying for something whilst still consuming it, they'll do that.

The idea that if only ads were more privacy-friendly people would not block them or start paying for content at any scale is laughable. They won't. When there's a free path, people take that path.

hellisothers• 11 months ago

But privacy, it’s not just ads, you’re taking information from me. Also people have tried to avoid ads since forever, trying to not record ads onto VHS for instance, this isn’t new.

IAmBroom• 11 months ago

Facile and wrong. People don't do anything "just because they can".

And anecdotes aren't data.

OldfieldFund2• 11 months ago

"all digital content to be worth zero."

People are making millions/year just by writing articles on Substack. Just look at the "paid leaderboards", number of paid subscribers, and multiply by 70% of the annual price of the newsletter.

Our newsletter is doing mid-6-figures. You simply can't find that content anywhere else, and I am not aware of a newsletter-piracy phenomenon. Even if it existed, I think many people would pay to have guaranteed day-1 access.

npc_anon3• 11 months ago

When I say "all" and "zero" it's obviously tongue-in-cheek, not a scientific assessment that is to be taken literally. Of course there's exceptions.

skeaker• 11 months ago

As they should. Never once have I seen any good outcome of ads on the web.

On the user end:

- People click scam download buttons or fake links and are blasted with scams or malware.

- Nobody I know has ever, not once, purchased something from an ad and been happy with it. The one person I know who did purchase something from a Facebook ad got scammed.

- The actual content people want to watch is delayed or interrupted by constant nonsense that they will never engage with.

So already there is absolutely no incentive as an end user to want ads. Then over on the content creator end:

- Because they work through clicks, ads generate a ton of bad incentives to make divisive content or just otherwise harmful content. See Elsagate for one way this manifests.

- For honest creators who make genuinely good and creative works, ads harm them by consistently underpaying them. Only the very absolute peak of content creators make a livable wage from ads alone. See the rise of Patreon and other such subscription methods that they have had to rely on to get away from ad revenue dependency.

- Ads also harm honest creators by incentivizing bad actors to steal their work, either by direct reuploads on various platforms or by simple plagiarism. See any Facebook page for stolen content or the whole James Somerton expose that happened a couple years ago for the plagiarism bit.

piperswe• 11 months ago

I pay quite a lot for digital content. I also run an ad blocker, because advertising as a whole is malicious and I consider my financial contributions to the digital creator economy to be sufficient.

juliangmp• 11 months ago

I think there's a divide between how we view the people that create the digital media we consume vs. the platforms they're stuck on.

Like, I've donated to certain creators through for example patreon, but I'd never even consider paying for YouTube premium or twitch prime.

amadeuspagel3• 11 months ago

This is one of the many cases where the dishonest rationalization of a selfish act is worse then the act itself. I block ads because it's convenient, but I don't deny that I'm free-riding on websites that only exist because other people view ads, I don't pollute our shared understanding of ethics, economics and the web with some bullshit rationalization of something I only do because it's convenient.

ndriscoll13• 11 months ago

The FBI literally suggested people block ads to avoid being defrauded. My understanding of the web was that it was first and foremost a non-commercial space, and spammers have always been impinging on that. Blocking their nonsense has always been the correct course of action.

In the case of children, I actually strongly believe it is immoral to allow then to be inundated with ads. It runs completely counter to teaching them virtues like temperance. It is not just "convenient" but an actual moral imperative to keep them away from those who would push consumerism onto them. This has only become more obvious as climate change worsens as the top problem they will inherit, or as we see 70% of adults in the US now destroying their bodies with disordered eating while still ubiquitous ads encourage them to continue. Ads are a blight. Allowing them to reach the next generation is somewhere between neglect and abuse.

So no, your idea of these things is not "our shared understanding".

amadeuspagel3• 11 months ago

The web is not one space, it's a protocol for everyone to have their own space. Someone putting ads on their own website is not spamming.

It’s OK to block ads (2015)

Related Stories