You'll Probably Hate this Posting about Ad Blockers and Ad Blocking
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001125.html
This is a discussion that I really wish didn't need to take place
at all.
But we're here, and while understanding how we got to this point is
obviously crucially important, mapping the way forward is even more of a
priority.
By now you may know that I've taken a rather hard -- and in some
quarters quite unpopular -- stance against ad blockers and ad blocking.
Luckily, I'm not running a popularity contest. So I want to briefly
explain some aspects of my reasoning on this.
I'm not claiming any brilliant philosophical insights, but I do perhaps
bring two aspects to the table of some value. One is historical
perspective, thanks to having been hanging around the Net pretty much
since its beginning.
The second aspect is the continual flood of unsolicited email (and
sometimes phone!) queries that I receive about Google, broader Internet
issues, and other tech-related topics. This provides me with an enormous
amount of data concerning Internet users' thinking and worries. It's all
self-selected of course -- so cannot be used for statistically valid
extrapolations -- but it does cover the gamut in useful ways.
The ad blocking crisis -- and I do believe we are now on the cusp of a
true crisis in this regard -- has been long coming.
There's no denying that in many ways Web ads have flown out of control.
People used to complain about relatively lightweight static banner ads.
But the rise of large, pre-loaded (and perhaps the worst sin of all,
autoplaying with audio) full-motion video ads was the straw that broke
the camel's back for many users. Browser developers have moved rapidly
to provide their own mechanisms to prevent those from suddenly blaring
out of your speakers unexpectedly, but there's no denying the existence
of an "arms race" in ads, particularly from less savory sources.
But we get into trouble rapidly if we try treat all ads and all ad
networks as being inherently evil, and the collateral damage to the
forces of "goodness and niceness" (as Maxwell Smart used to say) can be
devastating.
Because all ad networks and all ads are definitely NOT created equal.
And despite the statements of many ad blocking proponents who claim to
only be concerned about "bad" and "misbehaving" ads, or slower page load
speeds, or ad-enabled malware, my view is that in most cases these
claims -- and the circumstances that flow from them -- are both cavalier
and hypocritical.
Email I've been receiving on this topic over the last few days has
broken down mainly into two categories.
First, there are the small websites, often one-person sites, or husband
and wife, who operate on essentially a "hobby" basis and are terrified
of losing even the relatively small amount they receive from ads that
help them keep their heads above water and the websites on the air.
Ad blocking proponents by and large are taking a remarkably evil
attitude toward such sites, saying things like "if you can't find other
ways to make money go out of business" -- or much stronger language.
Outside of the fact that many of these sites aren't even businesses in
the first place, just informational and/or fun hobby sites, the reality
is that replacement income models for the existing ad regimes do not
exist for most of these websites in a practical sense.
Rupert Murdoch and other giant media conglomerates will find ways to
adjust and survive, but for the little guys the situation is much more
bleak.
Paywalled subscription models are utterly impractical for most of
them -- the uptake would be minuscule. Micropayment systems have been a
parade of failures, and none exist today with sufficient reach to be of
any value at all in these circumstances, even assuming enough people
would bother signing up to pay through them in the first place -- a
highly doubtful proposition.
This "let the little sites die" attitude on the part of so many ad
blocker fans seems most odd given that many of these same people and
groups have long at least paid lip service to the concept of diversity
on the Web. They've complained that the "big guys" have all the
advantages -- even as blocking advocates push a tech that would
inevitably funnel an even larger percentage of Net revenues to the media
giants as small sites are starved out of existence.
Nor do these proponents seem to care about Internet users who do not
have the disposable income to pay actual cash to access sites that they
formerly got for free via ads.
Remarkably, at the same time they complain about "walled gardens" or
"in-app purchase abuse" -- blocking proponents advocate a blocking
regime that will potentially wreck the key aspect of the Net -- open
websites themselves -- that have been the one most dependable aspect of
open information on the Net since the dawn of the first websites.
And claims that some new revenue mechanism will come along to save small
sites sound to my ears like suggesting you'll come up with a cure for
the patient after they're dead -- so "nothing to worry about, right?" --
wrong!
Apple's new iOS 9 ad blocking push threatens to be the inflection point
that transforms ad blocking from a relatively niche application class to
much more of a default situation.
And let's be clear about this. While Apple's actions have been widely
characterized as an assault against Google, they can also be viewed as
even more of an assault on the entire Internet and the ability to access
information openly without sites having to pay Apple for the privilege
of reaching users.
Already, "Wired" has published an article that explicitly can only be
viewed today if you have an iPhone running iOS 9!
Which brings us to the second category of relevant email I've been
receiving lately -- messages from the ad blocking proponents
themselves -- many of whom insist that they are technically competent
and only would block "bad" ads -- not ads that they personally found
to be acceptable and pure of heart.
I don't believe most of them, because in so many cases there's an
implicit (or even explicit!) subtext that they feel somehow "privileged"
and above the fray, deserving of getting everything they want for free.
And yes, many of these ad block proponents are launching into
"information wants to be free" tirades that cover reading websites while
blocking ads, stealing music and movies, and all the rest.
These ad blocking groupies also tend to make propagandist, false
statements about the tracking and ad targeting models associated with ad
networks, failing to note that the reputable networks maintain user
anonymity in their systems, don't sell user data to third parties, and
are vastly more protective of user data than your friendly bank or
credit card company who often happily sell fully-identified -- not
anonymous! -- data to third parties in enormous quantities.
But let's leave these "technically competent" ad blocker fans aside for
the moment.
Because as ad blocking rapidly goes mainstream and even installed by
default, the majority of users are never going to change the ad blocker
settings to let "good" ads through.
What's more, you can be sure that the most popular ad blockers will be
the ones that attempt to block ALL ads, just as a cable TV channel with
commercials would quickly be abandoned for a channel with the same
programming without commercials.
Already we've seen the author of a blocking app that had over several
days become the most popular application in the Apple App Store actually
and admirably withdraw it, expressing what we could call "developer's
remorse" over the collateral damage his app could do. But plenty of
blocking apps written by far less ethical authors were ready and waiting
to take up the slack.
For sites without other income possibilities, there are a number of ways
they can try fight back, all of them unfortunate.
They can try block users who are using ad blockers. Some sites are
already doing this (including some major sites on some materials). They
could dramatically slow down page speeds to users with blockers.
They could start running sleazy paid "native advertising" -- fake
articles that are actually paid placements and would be unblockable by
conventional ad blockers, causing users to effectively trade ads that
they knew were ads for ads that they probably won't realize are ads at
all.
My guess though is that associated pleas to users to turn off ad
blockers will meet with deaf ears. Most people won't bother, but will
still express endless indignation as their personally favorite small
sites gradually wink out of existence, along with most of the Web's
diversity.
I don't have a magic wand solution to any of this, but I will openly
admit that the pervasive hypocrisy I hear from some of the most vocal
proponents of ad blocking strike me as deeply selfish and ugly.
Yesterday I created a new Google+ community to discuss these issues, and
hopefully to perhaps perceive the start of a path toward workable and
practical solutions. It's at:
https://plus.google.com/communities/101308208323757940544
and you're most welcome to join the discussion there.
In the meantime, please keep in mind that the ads you block may very
well be paying one way or another for the content that you and many
other people most care about.
Remember, we still don't know how to put Humpty Dumpty back
together again.
--Lauren--
I have consulted to Google, but I am not currently doing so.
All opinions expressed here are mine alone.
- - -
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
