Chat

Ad and tracker blocking should be seen by the industry as votes against how they're doing things. Your customer is taking that much time to de-shittify your product and you should see that as your sign that you've fallen into enshittification.

Then call me a heist master. I use uBO, pi-hole and unbound. I will not feel guilty about it in the least.

I would rather people just enjoy what I make and spread the word. The extra exposure and support get you further as a "content creator" than the small amounts of ad revenue.

Unless you've got a huge audience, but even at that point, the highest paid creators on youtube are still making bank even with ad blockers, so... I don't really understand the argument. If you're a small creator, you're not really making enough to support yourself, and it seems like the smart move is to not rely on ad revenue at all.

Are there many people actually saying it's theft? I guess maybe I'm in a bubble but I've never met anyone who thinks using an adblocker is stealing

This comes up over and over again. In my opinion it doesn’t even come down to your standing etc - I’m streaming data over HTTP, for the most part, and only I get to choose how that’s rendered. It just so happens that my renderer discards outbound requests to certain domains and drops some HTML/JS components that look bloated and or unnecessary.

Piracy? Theft? What a joke. My attention and complacency was never a component they should have relied on in the first place. This is a technical issue for me, not a moral one.

Adblocking is piracy, yet AMP, ChatGPT/AI overviews/etc, archival, and so on are perfectly okay, right? (Archival stands out here as being not a shitty thing to do but is still rehosting without serving paying ads)

It's only stealing when it inconveniences these creators. They seem perfectly content with what Google's doing, though.

Flipping it around, if the creators want more money, they need to solve that problem themselves. Charge money for some (or all) content if you need it. Sell merch. Find creative ways to showcase sponsored products that actually serve as valuable content. Being lazy and turning on ads or showing the same sponsor segment you've used dozens of times already isn't going to do anything but annoy people.

So, here's the thing about ad blocking. I pay for my computer/phone. I pay for my Internet (unless I'm using public WiFi, but the hardware is still true). As long as the people I'm blocking are not paying for any part of my hardware or access, I'm not stealing from them.

Content creators make deals with advertisers to sponsor their products in exchange for ad placement on or around their product (which is mostly just their message). That's entirely between them and the advertiser. It's got nothing to do with me. Unless the advertisers want to pay me... I can block them. If they don't like me blocking them, "fuck you, pay me." Because they are willing to pay to get their ads out there. I'm just saying, give me my cut. Otherwise, I'm blocking what I can.

But what about the content creator? Well, the Internet is a kind of democracy of information. We all get a voice. I'm using my voice to post this. OP used theirs to post the topic to start with. The other commenters used theirs to post theirs. Three people posted before me. I chose not to read those replies so as to post mine untainted by influence. None of us are reaching more than a couple dozen people at best. You wanna reach hundreds or thousands of people? That's cool, but if you want to make money off of it? That's cool too. As you should. I'm going to block those ads, but I'm not stealing from that content creator. I'm paying them in attention. They're getting to spread their message further and wider. Not all of us can spread our message that far. In fact, most of us can't. So for those who can... that's part of the cost. Speech is technically free, but if you want to reach thousands of people, it might cost you something. And if they're still making money on ads, they're still coming out ahead. Even if they make nothing on ads, they still get their voice further than us. So they're still ahead.

That does sound a lot like "paid in exposure", which is a poisonous phrase among content creators. The phrase means that they should be happy with people just seeing/hearing their work and that they should work for free. And that does suck. But no one is obligated to buy art. If a musician wants to make money but they don't want to stream their song for pennies, they can choose to not stream it and only sell it (e.g. on Bandcamp). But if there's no way to hear it (beyond a short sample), they're limiting customers. Consumers are not obligated to (pay to) consume, nor should they be.

I had this argument with a journalist once, and IIRC from him was the first time I heard the phrase "fuck you, pay me." It was a good conversation, though neither of us changed our minds. His point was that he deserved to be paid for his article, and the article isn't paywalled, anyone could read it, but he chose ads to monetise it with ads. And I not only blocked those ads, but I admitted to it (I think the article may have been about ad blocking which is what got me to comment, I wasn't being a dick for the hell of it). And his point was that by reading the article, I agreed to view the ads as sort of an unspoken rule on his website. My point was, "you pay for your hosting and I'll pay for my access." I couldn't fully discount his argument, nor could he discount mine. I think we both walked away feeling that the other was a cheapskate. I respected him for keeping it civil, and I'd like to think he felt the same; he could have stopped replying or straight up blocked me, but never did.

So there's no right answer. At least, until ad blocking (or not) harms someone. So one day back when I still used Android phones as daily drivers, I flashed some custom firmware, and before setting up AdAway (system level ad blocker, it fixes the HOSTS file every OS uses, to block ads, and it's very good at what it does), I browsed to an article on a somewhat popular blog. Now keep in mind, I had just erased everything on the phone and reinstalled Android. So when I got a popup saying illegal pornography had been detected on my computer and I had to pay so much in Bitcoin to unlock it, I knew it was a scam. I didn't really think the custom firmware had CSAM hiding on it. No, what had happened was, the blog site contracted a shady advertising company which licensed its ad space out to ransomware installers, and I triggered ransomware on my unprotected machine. I laughed, wiped the firmware, reinstalled, installed AdAway... then blasted the guy online. We talked, he didn't know his site was serving ransomware, and he dealt with it. I stopped dragging his site's name through the mud. Haven't named them since. I still tell the story because it's educational and helpful, and it's true. And it makes a greater point here. Had I paid the ransom, the site owner would not have reimbursed me. Dealing with malicious software served to my machine via an ad on his site was 100% my responsibility to deal with. The way I chose to deal with that is my business, but I'll tell you what it was/is. Hyper vigilant ad blocking. As long as ransomware exists as a problem and ads are serving it, and the sites profiting from you looking at those ads are not going to pay the ransom for you, you are not morally obligated to lower your device's security so they can profit. Because for all you know, the ransom is getting split between the scammer and the site operator. That's probably not (ever) true, but for all you know, it is. And they're not giving you any of it. So this goes back to the earlier example of how their business is between them, and yours is your own.

Ad blocking is kind of stealing, but it's more importantly protecting you from costly ransomware removal.

FWIW: I've been using an iPhone for the last ~10 years. Ad blocking is trickier on an iPhone due to how iOS is locked down. Then again, rooting Android phones isn't as easy anymore, either (though there are ways). If you're not running Android with root, your options are basically identical between the platforms. On Android, your best bet is Firefox with uBlock Origin. Set Firefox as your default browser. For apps that can be browsed in Firefox, uninstall those apps, like YouTube and IMDb. Browse to them in Firefox, go to share, and find the option to save the shortcut to the home screen. It's the same in Safari on iOS, only, no uBlock Origin. I recommend an app called Wipr 2. It's $5 (or at least that's what it was when I paid), it's by one developer, and she's on the Fediverse (last I looked, Mastodon). She seems like a cool person. So yes, it's the price of a cup of coffee, but it's going to an individual who values that money just as much as you do, not a faceless corp that doesn't need it at all. If an app insists on blasting you with ads, either don't use it, or replace it with a web app. (I'm not sure on Android, if web apps have to go through Chrome, thus bypassing Firefox and uBlock Origin. If that's the case, just bookmark it and use it in the browser.)

If their business model requires them to annoy the shit out of strangers, it shouldn't exist.

How does adblocking affect content creators? Are they paid differently?

Also, I am not going to be forced to watch anything, fuck that. There is literally more youtube video out there than I can possibly watch in a lifetime. I can't be expected to watch all of it, so I only watch the parts I want. It's not stealing, YouTube is offering the same media to me, I just don't particularly like the sponsored portions and ads, the same way I ignore 99% of the other content on the website. It's a personal preference, not a crime.

If you don't buy the stuff from the sponsored segments, you're basically a filthy pirate /s