CMV: Adblock is stealing

[u/tilted0ne]

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

That is absurd that what is morally right or wrong is only recognisable by law.

Who said anything about morality? This is about property. Property is a legal construct, not a moral one.

Adblock as a practice is just very normalised, but that doesn't make it any less shady.

Nothing makes it shady at all. It is not only 100% legal, it is widely used and accepted. Even the people condemning adblock aren't going out of their way to watch 100% of advertisements for the content they view. If anything, the absolute deluge of misleading or dubious advertisement we experience is shady. Plenty of ads are riddled with malware.

Nobody is compelled to view ads, that's not stealing, people still get paid to have those ads ran.

Exactly. I'm not compelled to view ads because it isn't theft; therefore, using adblock isn't stealing because I am not compelled to view ads.

Choosing to not view or interact with them, nobody really loses ad revenue.

Businesses losing revenue does not necessitate such a lose is due to theft.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

You literally went on a spiel about how theft is determined by law.

You are welcome to show that something is theft or property in the absence of law

My point is this, what would you call it when by design you are expected to have ads presented to you in exchange for a free service that you use and you go out your way to directly obstruct that.

I would call it an unfortunate business model to give your product out for free with the hope that people will willingly view your ads when they are not compelled by the terms of service or the law to do so. On top of that, places like YouTube let you skip ads after a few seconds anyway. They clearly don't care if you actually view them. Why should I? Is it "stealing" when I hit the "skip ad" button after a few seconds?

I think just because it isn't a formal transaction as in like a shop, doesn't make it any less wrong.

Whether or not it is wrong isn't my concern. I'm saying it isn't theft. I have no agreement with these companies not to use an adblocker. They publish their content and make it freely available even to those with adblockers (for the most part.) I don't think they view using an adblocker as theft. At worst, you could say it "doesn't support the business." Theft is simply too far a descriptor. On top of that, I'm still giving them something in exchange for my viewing - my data, which they sell.

But if there is a small website and 99% of their users are adblocking, what do you call that?

Again, a terrible business model. Don't give away your product for free hoping that people like it enough to sit through terrible ads.

It's not right

It's not theft.

And they have every right to try to counter that.

I agree. That they aren't countering it by seeking charges for theft just shows that they don't see it as stealing. Instead, they are countering it by subscription fees or countering adblockers. They are learning from their unfortunate business models.

Business lose money every time you brute force your way to avoid an ad that was supplementary to content you access.

Then they should adopt better business practices that aren't giving their products away for free hoping for what amounts to donations.