Sure, block Firefox. Guess what I predict will eventually happen? Adblock Plus will offer to install the User Agent Switcher plugin (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/59) after it configures itself.

Blocking ads is completely ethical (IMHO). The advertising-based business model is not a contract to which the end user has agreed. People have always had the freedom to turn off the TV or radio during commercial breaks. Automating the process (a la TiVo) at the user's request does not somehow infringe upon some given right on the part of the advertiser to show the user its ads.

Just my two cents.

Edit: If you're going to downvote me, at least explain why. Kthx.

I admit that I block ads. Long time ago, I started using ad blocking soft to get rid of ads for two main reasons: many were obtrusive, misleading (remember those alert box ads?!), and annoying (I hate those flashing alerts) and also because they were way too heavy and were slowing down my connection. I don't use Windows but if I were a windows user, I'd also worry about spyware that always tends to sneak in through ads. Also, since many ads these days use Flash & Flash just sucks on a Mac (high CPU usage), I block them for that as well.

Now the ethical question... is blocking ads ethical? Who knows... I tend to think that it is. I also tend to donate money/buy from sites that I use often and that offer subscription.

More on ethics here: http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php?title=adblock_rev...

http://adblockplus.org/blog/ethics-of-blocking-ads-part-3

I don't understand this common notion that if you don't like the way someone runs their business, you get to change their business model for them. Here's a quote from a pro-blocking blog post that nickb linked to in another comment:

"Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if a webmaster runs a site that's popular enough that the costs become at all significant, the onus is on him (or her) to find ways to cash in on that popularity to keep the site going. The visitors have no duty at all, and they certainly aren't obliged to go out of their way to make money for somebody else."

My response is that they did come up with a way to monetize their content (ads), but you don't like it. Too bad. Don't go to the site if you don't like the way they've chosen to make money. This goes along the same lines that if music is too expensive, or has DRM, that you therefore get to download it for free via filesharing, bittorrent, etc.... You don't. You're only ethical option is to not buy the content. That's the only ethical way you send a message (in this trivial context, obviously if were talking about human rights, etc..., the ethics of protest methodologies become more complicated). If I think something in a brick and mortar store is too expensive, would anyone think it was ok for me to just steal it? I don't think so.

A lot of the complaints about bad advertising practices, obtrusive adds, DRM, overpriced content are in fact valid complaints. But, you don't get to overrule the content provider's methods just because you feel like it.

So what is next, it becomes compulsory to actually buy the stuff that is advertised, or else it is stealing? What is the point of pushing ads at people who don't want to see them?

The people who go the advertising route know beforehand that not everybody is going to react to the ads and buy something. You are not stealing anything by ignoring the ads.

By all means ignore the ads. Using software to physically (so to speak) remove the ads is a much different thing then ignoring them. Advertisers know that a large percentage of viewers are in fact going to ignore them, and that's built into the system.

"What is the point of pushing ads at people who don't want to see them?"

I don't know, what's the point of charging people money for things when they'd really prefer them to be free? This isn't about what you want. This is about people supplying services and/or content, and trying to monetize them in some manner. Again, if you don't like the way they are monetizing these things, don't use them.

By serving up some HTML, you're giving away content - you might have some rules about redistribution, of course, but esentially, you're giving some HTML and/or images to someone's browser to render as they see fit. If they choose to ignore or excise some of it, that's their business. For instance, screen readers for blind people ignore images.

I sympathize with the advertiser's point of view, because I have several sites myself that get a little bit of money from adsense. However, I'm enough of a believer in freedom to think that if people want to block ads more than they want free content, well, that's what the market will give them in some way or another.

You can't accept this practice as reasonable unless you accept that publishers can also block, or attempt to block, users who block ads.

If you ask me, both are fair game.

Yeah, I agree. It's sort of an arms race - publishers might also try sneakier ways of slipping ads in. I have a feeling that 99% of users aren't going to get that excited about it unless the ads get overbearingly intrusive.

What is the big difference between ignoring them and not displaying them? I really don't get it, unless you count on the subtle effect on the subconsciousness if you only ignore them, but not display them. And it is an entirely different question from asking money for things that people would rather have for free.

Just because you put up some content doesn't mean you get to control the brains of your clients.

That's not at all what he said. I think his point was reasonable and fair.

I'm surprised more companies don't already use a CNAME to serve external ads. Then again, ad networks are loath to have clients touch their source in any way, so it would have to come from their side, and they don't care about that kind of stuff.

Interesting to see this publicized by the NYT. Maybe they're showing off how independent their editorial is from their business side.

I use flashblock ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433 ) rather than adblock. I find this gets rid of 99% of annoying ads. I don't really mind text ads or static pictures, but the flashing ones, the ones that automatically start playing audio or video when the page loads, or the ones that pop over the text and follow you down the page, those I can't stand.

If you don't want your ads blocked, don't make ads that annoy users. An average user's natural state is to do nothing. If they've been moved from that state to seek out, download, install, configure an extra piece of software, then it's because the advertiser failed. Isn't the job of an advertiser to produce content that entices somebody to buy something? If the ad doesn't do that, if it actually repels the person from looking at it, then that's a crappy ad. The advertisers can't then turn around and blame the user because their ads are so horrendously bad that people have to block them to use a website, they need to make better ads. Seriously, what other content provider blames its audience when its content is rejected?

Also, wtf is this sentence: "Given the decentralized nature of the Internet, the user's experience has to come first -- for now." For now? Basically, "As soon as we figure out a way to commandeer your computer and force it to show you ads, we'll do that." And they want to talk about ethics? Get real.

I'd vote with the 'not unethical' folks. If it turns into that big a problem, content producers will either swing back to charging for content, or find some other way to make money. Any sort of "remedy" is more likely to cause more problems than it solves. How many people are really going to install that kind of thing anyway? The people who do are most likely those who are able to block ads anyway - for example, on most of my own sites, the more geeky ones are the ones with the worst click through rates.

How does adblock work at a technical level?

I would think that if it ever took off, the ad networks would just find workarounds. For example, they already seem to use interstitials and in-page css popups to get around pop-up blockers.

In fact, maybe a great startup could be to create technologies that let ad networks get around ad block software.

That startup: http://adpinion.com

If they can get around adblockers, then that's definitely their killer feature, and they need to advertise that on the front page. I had no idea, and was considering trying their service.

*

Anyway, people need to quit talking "ethics". Who cares? As the title of the nytimes article suggests, the question is one of money.

9/10ths of the computer programmers I know are using ad blockers, and I suspect this is the norm. But how many of them now (and in the future) will depend upon web advertisements for their salaries?

The early adopters in this case are adopting a technology that could steal their bread and butter. It's best to quietly bury the whole notion, before the general public adopts it.

They don't get around adblockers by hacking their way around them. They solve the problem by not showing people ads that annoy them.

For now, they get around a default install of AdBlock Plus through obscurity. They didn't make the blacklist yet.

They've made mine.

Sorry, but ads are annoying, period. I don't want to spend time training a Bayesian filter when I already have a filter that works perfectly. I wish the Adpinion folks success, but I will not be contributing to it.

PS: "Hello, Chair, inc."? There's got to be a story behind that.

I think if the ads come from the same server as the web site, AdBlocker is screwed? So I guess that is what is going to happen - which is good, because it reduces the amount of tracking the advertising companies can do on the user.