Ad blocking. Is it right to do?
The issue of ad blocking – using widely available programs to block advertisements from your favourite websites and blogs – has become a major battleground for web advertisers, website owners and the general public. But how does this affect you and your online experience?
Ad blocking 101
We all know the pain of online ads. Here you are, reading an article on your trusted online news publication, when out of nowhere a pop-up for the latest toothpaste flashes across your screen. Okay, maybe not all online ads are this blatant, but chances are even tastefully placed ads have taken away from your online experience in one way or another.
Enter, ad blocking. These apps automatically seek out obvious online advertisements and block them from your view, giving you a cleaner representation of the real site content. There are numerous free versions available and most can be added as a plugin to your favourite browser with a click of a button.
Ad blocking technology is possible due to intrinsic technical cues that differentiate a third-party ad from its site’s editorial content. Think of an advertorial in a print magazine – sure, it looks like a normal article, but the layout, font or spacing doesn’t quite match.
Essentially, ad blockers are making your web experience simpler and more enjoyable. So, what could possibly be the problem with that?
Point: ad blocking is like eating at a restaurant – and not paying
The reality is that internet content is not free. Even though you can visit your favourite blogs or websites and generally read as much as you like without paying a dime, that doesn’t mean that there are not thousands of dollars going into bandwidth, storage cost, editorial talent and more. So where does the money for all this come from?
For better or worse, most websites are ad-driven. That is, advertisers pay the site owner to display their ads based on the number of views the website generates in a given day or hour. Blocking ads denies this revenue, even though you are still absorbing the content; an act, some argue, akin to eating in a five-star restaurant and then skipping out when the bill comes.
This was obviously the sentiment of online tech publication, Ars Technica, when they launched a social experiment to test the intentions of the estimated 40% of total site visitors that employ ad blocking technology. When visitors had an especially popular ad blocking plugin turned on, the program blocked not only the ads, but the rest of the site content as well. The result was outrage from user rights supporters and a re-ignition of this polarising topic.
Counterpoint: the internet is a library, not a bazaar
On the other side stand the general public and user rights proponents. The argument here is that the web is designed to be a source of information and collaboration, not the income-obsessed marketplace and political soapbox that it has become. Viewers have no contract with site owners that require them to be a source of revenue in any way, shape or form.
Ad blocker proponents also argue that there are ways to tastefully display ads on websites and that blocking ads simply penalises site owners that don’t. This is not the moral, social-imperative issue that opponents make it out to be – it’s simply an extension of citizens’ rights to choose not to be marketed to.
To block or not to block
Both sides make viable arguments and there’s no doubt that the jury is still out on alternatives to the ad-based online economy. In the end, it’s up to you whether you think allowing ads supports web entrepreneurs or devalues the online experience.
If it makes any difference, Ars Technica eventually reversed its little experiment, bowing to the onslaught of comments and criticism from user rights proponents. However, they did manage to win over some users to subscribe to their fee-based premium services, so maybe there is a happy medium in the argument. The web is a vast and still evolving space, after all.