Do you feel differently because you work for an org that makes money from selling ads? Not trying to be obnoxious but wouldn't it be simple for us to understand a pro-advertising position from such a person as no more complex as 'this is how I make my living'?

How much of our society's brainpower should be allocated to gaming the internet for ad-clicks? That would be the real debate. Many brilliant technologists are being hijacked by the major ad-media corporations for what I think we can all agree is a trivial (if not pointless) task. This is what we should be debating.

>How much of our society's brainpower should be allocated to gaming the internet for ad-clicks? That would be the real debate. Many brilliant technologists are being hijacked by the major ad-media corporations for what I think we can all agree is a trivial (if not pointless) task.

I 100% agree: Quantcast processes 40 petabytes of data a month for the sole purpose of showing you some ads (which probably aren't actually any good).

I consider this a tremendous waste of resources (human, technological, energy) and I wonder what we might have achieved if that time and energy had been put towards something constructive for humanity.

I can't take your ad-hominem attack on good faith.

That may be an ad-hominem attack, but it's a justified one for once. Affiliations are a very relevant part to a moral discussion, so much that it has become commonplace for people to disclose their affiliations when they're engaging in moral discussions. Something that I haven't you seen doing yet, by the way.

No, it's not. My argument is simple: if you're going to install an ad-blocker, then go one step further and install a content-blocker instead for any websites that serve the ads you're blocking.

I don't want people to uninstall ad-blockers. I want them to install content-blockers.

So, if my motivation were more money, then please... tell me how less money would fit into my worldview?

How is what you are arguing different from, say, a coal miner in Appalachia arguing against subsidies for solar power? At this point their argument for coal is more existential than greedy. Wouldn't their argument be biased in an understandable way? Why should we not take that into account?

I'm not trying to bust your chops but I think your arguments have a lot of jargon and unnecessarily complex twists for what is essentially a simple position: you shouldn't access internet content without paying the price of advertising. Many disagree with that position for reasons that evoke the academic and open nature of the web.

We can do whatever we want to our machines to access content how we'd like. If it's not profitable to your corporation any longer than stop producing the content. The people will adapt the internet and create content in other ways. Very probably better ways - think Wikipedia, for example.

My argument is that you shouldn't access other people's content without respecting their wishes. Simple as that.

Yes, you can do whatever you want to your property. But you can't do whatever you want to other people's property unless they explicitly consent. (That's sort of what laws are there for...) And these people aren't explicitly consenting.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Where is the bias that you're seeing? When I'm saying let the ad industry die if it need die, I fail to see this implicit bias you're speaking of.

So, which argument are you trying to make? Respect the content creator's wishes or let the ad industry die? Would it make sense to you that those are largely exclusive positions?

If you work for a company that profits from an advertising platform and you argue that the logical extension of an ad blocker is a content blocker all you are doing is strongly asserting the intellectual property rights of your employer.

What you imply when you make that argument is that users must acquiesce to your TOS as this hypothetical content blocker is, on its face, absurd.

If you wanted to clarify your position further, perhaps you could state to this community whether or not you would support the extension of the DMCA to ad-blockers? Should it be illegal to use one? This would go a long way towards clarifying your positions which, up until now, are somewhat confusing - i.e., it's much simpler for us to conclude that you argue for advertising networks simply because you work for one.

Thus the use of the term 'largely'.

If web sites started serving an HTTP header saying "browsers with ad blockers are not welcome to view this content", I would allow my browser to honor that request. That's more convenient than solving the AI problem of identifying and filtering out all the garbage content that exists for the sole purpose of drawing eyeballs to ads. Just tell me up front that it's garbage.

I submit that the most valuable thing being sold here is my eyeballs. And the content provider is auctioning them off to the highest bidder via the ad networks.

So, if the content providers and ad networks want to work that way, they need to respect my choice to be more selective in how my eyeballs are being sold.

If they don't want to do that, then they can choose to go out of business.

>And I understand your viewpoint, I hate what some ads have become, and yet I still don't use an ad-blocker because of my own personal values.

Aren't you concerned about ads influencing your decisions?

Aren't we all trying to influence others' decisions every day?

Can't speak for other people, but I'd like to think I don't. I try to let them make a better decision by sharing relevant information, when I have some. My goal is to let them achieve their goal.

Yes, and people in the advertising business like to think of themselves as just "sharing relevant information" with you.

"Pepsodent Tooth Powder ... Pepsodent Contains Irium"

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/thorium-toothpaste-also...

I know, but that's not what I meant. The idea is that if you give useful information to people, they will then do the same for you later. Of course you need to have a good crap filter or it doesn't work.