Ever been on one of those sites that won’t let you use it because you have an ad blocker? I’ve been seeing that a lot recently, and I don’t like it. Not only am I tired of being sold things which are to put it mildly ridiculous targeting 24/7. There are other good reasons for blocking ads.
Ad blockers as security
Ad blocking is a type of security. I’ve had problems with nasty Chrome browser locks, hacking, and similar online entertainment. I’ve had quite enough of my share of psychos online, too, including a truly weird hacking bot.
Online ads are by definition potential security threats. No, your dear little ad may not be what you think it is, and may contain malware or code you don’t know is there. Consider the possibilities of using ads as malware vectors. It’s quite easy to repurpose unprotected online codes. Plenty of options, aren’t there?
So if I want to block ads, there’s always at least one very good reason for that.
Ad blockers as common sense
I do a lot of SEO work. A real lot. Like millions of words of content. I do know my stuff.
Some of the things are:
Wall to wall ads on a website are major turnoffs. Even if they look nice, who the hell wants to look at nothing but ads online? Ad blocking is just a way of filtering out the useless stuff you won’t look at anyway.
Most ads aren’t well targeted. I remember listening to Sabaton on YouTube and the first thing I saw was an ad for insurance. Insurance and heavy metal? Don’t think it works. Ad blocking in that case is common sense. Why would a rock video be an instant cue to buy something, anyway?
Repeat ads, saturation ads etc. are counterproductive. They get blocked out mentally, so why not by an ad blocker?
I have people trying to sell me cars around the clock. There could be nobody on Earth less interested in buying a car. Same applies to online ads.
The right to block online ads
If you think of online ads as a form of interference with your right to communicate and manage your information, it’s another matter.:
Online ads can be fake news, disinformation, etc. (Duh. Interfering with your qualify of information doesn’t exactly help your right to communication.)
Online ads can be offensive, in any number of ways, from banality to ridiculous dating sites, etc. This includes news media, which have a solid block of refusal to accept ad blocking. Says more about their revenue than any practical understanding of what people need to see, particularly now, with fake everything apparently compulsory.
Online ads aren’t like shop fittings. Even Google realized a long time ago that giving people the chance to manage ads was just common sense. They’re info-spam, 99% of the time.
What exactly is wrong with the basic idea of blocking ads? Visual spam is visual spam.
Do you really want to be looking at ads in which you have no interest 24/7? These things won’t sell you anything, anyway. You’re much more likely to pay attention to ads which are within your range of interest.
Objecting to ad blockers is like objecting to personal hygiene. Modern media is saturated with advertising to the point of absurdity, anyway, particularly news sites. You can have embedded ads which are more like part of the site, anyway. The New York Times, for example, has no problem with ad blockers. Why would MSN, CNN and others have a problem?
