Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A defense of ad blocking and consumer inattention

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ad blockers are a category of computer software program, typically run as web browser extensions, that allow users to selectively eliminate advertisements from the webpages they visit. Many people have alleged that using an ad blocker is morally problematic because it is bad for content providers and consumers, and it is morally akin to theft. We disagree. In this paper, we defend an independent argument for the conclusion that using an ad blocker is morally permissible. In doing so, we respond to the criticisms that ad blocking is bad for content providers and consumers, that it is morally akin to theft, and that it violates a contract between consumers and web publishers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Yglesias, “The ad blocking controversy, explained” Vox, September 18, 2015, accessed November 13th, 2015, http://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9351759/ad-blocking-controversy; Johnson, “Welcome to the Block Party”, The Awl, September 14, 2015, accessed November 13, 2015, http://www.theawl.com/2015/09/welcome-to-the-block-party; Arment, “The ethics of modern ad blocking”, August 11, 2015, accessed November 13, 2015, https://marco.org/2015/08/11/ad-blocking-ethics; Ingram, “Publishers only have themselves to blame for the ad-blocking apocalypse” Fortune, August 13, 2015, accessed November 13, 2015. http://fortune.com/2015/08/13/publishers-only-have-themselves-to-blame-for-the-ad-blocking-apocalypse/; Gassee, “What the Ad Blocker Debate Reveals” Monday Note, August 3, 2015, accessed November 13, 2015, http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/08/03/what-the-ad-blocker-debate-reveals/; Patel, “Welcome to hell: Apple vs Google vs Facebook and the slow death of the web” The Verge, September 17, 2015, accessed November 13, 2015, http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/17/9338963/welcome-to-hell-apple-vs-google-vs-facebook-and-the-slow-death-of-the-web.

  2. See Crisp (1987), Lippke (1989), Biegler and Vargas (2013); for a dissenting opinion, see Arrington (1982) and Bishop (2000).

  3. Lippke (1989) agrees with Crisp that ads undermine autonomy. But for Lippke, autonomy is a socially-bound notion: to have autonomy an individual must have the capacity to critically scrutinize his or her own society. Lippke argues that persuasive ads undermine autonomy in this sense because ads are more-or-less univocal in communicating a single value system. Which means they effectively suppress competing viewpoints—viewpoints from which one might critically scrutinize one’s own society. Having never been exposed to alternative values, an individual’s ability to critically evaluate her own society (read: her autonomy) is stunted. Because ads contribute to this morally objectionable state, ads are morally objectionable.

  4. We assume that the hair product market does not currently include any intrinsically attractive-making products. And it doesn’t matter whether most people believe that a particular product is attractive-making because one cannot tell by visual inspection which hair products someone uses.

  5. Most media content, we assume, is not a Giffen good (i.e. a good which consumers consume less of as the price decreases.)

  6. To support our claim that, in general, ad avoidance behaviors are morally permissible, we wish to note that there is typically a presumption that an act or behavior is morally permissible until it is proven to be impermissible or morally wrong by further moral argument. Thus, the burden of proof seems to be on those who deny that ad avoidance behaviors are morally permissible: they must supply adequate moral argument to show that ad avoidance is in fact impermissible. In “Objections”, we have done their job for them by considering a wide range of objections against ad blocking and ad avoidance in general.

  7. Is ad blocking too easy? One might worry that the low cost of blocking ads undermines the analogy with other kinds of ad avoidance. There are three responses to this worry. First, ad blockers aren’t completely cost-free. Like most software, they require regular updates and maintenance. Second, it’s not clear why the permissibility of ad avoidance would hinge on how easy it is. Consider, as an analogy, using an expired coupon. Does the case for this act’s permissibility depend on whether you had to physically cut-out the coupon or (merely) called it up on your phone? Surely not. Third, we can simply examine other cases of ad avoidance, where costs are more on a par with those of ad blocking, to see if the cost-reduction impacts our moral judgments. For instance, consider a pair of Google glasses that could automatically go opaque when a billboard is present in one’s visual field. Or suppose one had a dashboard device that auto-mutes the little TVs that play commercials while you fill your gas tank. Cost-wise, these cases seem analogous to ad blocking, but we judge them essentially just-as-permissible as the “higher cost” cases offered earlier. This suggests that the ease of ad blocking doesn’t undermine the original moral analogy.

  8. One might resist this assessment of the situation if one thinks (a) that advertisers or content producers can be fairly said to desire that their ads be viewed, (b) that a consumer who channel surfs thereby frustrates this desire, and (c) that this sort of desire frustration legitimately makes the frustrated party (the advertiser or content producer) worse off. Such a person would presumably reject the present objection out of hand because she would not agree that channel surfing is harmless. (And, hence, wouldn’t accept harmlessness as an explanation for the permissibility of channel surfing.)

  9. Johnston. “Welcome to the Block Party.” The Awl, September 14, 2015, Accessed November 13, 2015, http://www.theawl.com/2015/09/welcome-to-the-block-party.

  10. Newman, Levy, and Nielsen. “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2015: Tracking the Future of News.” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Accessed December 13, 2015, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Reuters%20Institute%20Digital%20News%20Report%202015_Full%20Report.pdf.

  11. “Google Losing Billions in Adblocking Devil’s Deal | Inside PageFair.” Page Fair, June 8, 2015, accessed December 13, 2015, https://blog.pagefair.com/2015/google-losing-billions-adblock-devils-deal/.

  12. “The 2015 Ad Blocking Report.” Inside PageFair, accessed February 8, 2016. https://blog.pagefair.com/2015/ad-blocking-report/.

  13. An alternative (and weaker) formulation of the Monetary Argument can get off the ground by simply pointing out that bad things would happen if literally all web users used ad blockers. This, one might propose, is sufficient for concluding that utilizing an ad blocker is a prima facie wrong. We call this a ‘weaker’ formulation of the Monetary Argument because these sorts of What if everyone did it? thought-experiments do not seem to constitute a reliable test for permissibility. After all, things would go badly if everyone tried to drive their cars at 4 a.m. every Tuesday or if everyone had 6 kids! But we do not thereby infer that these activities are impermissible.

  14. Which is not to endorse native ads. There are good moral reasons to regret a move to deceptive-by-design ads that masquerade as content. Here we only endorse the conservative claim that, in light of the use of ad blockers, web publishers may adopt alternative advertisement schemes that obviate and circumvent ad blocking software.Hof, “Medium’s Evan Williams To Publishers: Your Website Is Toast.” Forbes, September 9, 2015, accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2015/09/09/mediums-evan-williams-to-publishers-your-website-is-toast/#7e40f82b3830.

  15. This is not only possible, but precedented. For a number of years the web was awash in obtrusive “pop-up ads” that would appear unsolicited on the user’s screen, occluding her view of the site she was visiting and often blaring obnoxious audio clips. Consumers found these ads rather frustrating, and web browsers soon began to include pop-up-blocking among their default capabilities, effectively eliminating pop-up ads from the well-trodden parts of the web. This forced advertisers and content providers to devise new (and less upsetting) ad formats.

  16. Alternatively, one might respond to this version of the Monetary Argument by saying less ad-supported content wouldn’t be a bad thing. Less ad-supported content may even be a welcome result, since ad-supported content is worse than reader-supported content. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this point.

  17. On February 16, 2016, the magazine Wired started doing exactly this. Users who try to access Wired content through the Wired website are now automatically redirected to a splash page with a message that says, in effect, if you want access to our content, either turn off your ad blocker or pay $1 per week. In this case, Wired is following both of our suggested strategies for obligating consumers to view ads: they are explicitly telling the consumer that they must turn off their ad blocker, and they are also making it impossible to view content without also viewing ads (or paying money). See Sterling. “WIRED and Ad Blockers.” WIRED, February 16, 2016. Accessed February 16 2016, http://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2016/02/wired-and-ad-blockers/.

  18. The “cost” here is one that is paid in the currency of attention. Under the ad-subsidized content model, content is offered to consumers in exchange for attention-to-ads. Thus, when a consumers uses an ad blocker, she fails to pay the requisite attention-to-ads and that cost must then be shouldered by other, non-ad blocking consumers.

  19. Smith. “Why We Sign Up For Gym Memberships But Never Go To The Gym.” NPR.org. January 15, 2016, accessed February 27, 2016. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/12/30/373996649/why-we-sign-up-for-gym-memberships-but-don-t-go-to-the-gym.

  20. Needleman. “Mobile-Game Makers Try to Catch More ‘Whales’ Who Pay for Free Games.” Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2015, sec. Tech. Accessed February 27th, 2016 http://www.wsj.com/articles/mobile-game-makers-try-to-catch-more-whales-who-pay-for-free-games-1431306115.

  21. See Primack. “Dear Apple, I may rob your store”, Fortune, September 8 2015, accessed November 13, 2015, http://fortune.com/2015/09/18/dear-apple-i-may-rob-your-store/; Piltch, “Why Using an Ad Blocker is stealing” Tom’s Guide, May 22, 2015, Accessed November 13th 2015, http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ad-blocking-is-stealing,news-20962.html; Schofield, “Ad Blocking is theft, so block Firefox instead” August 19, 2007, Accessed November 13, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2007/aug/19/adblockingis.

  22. Such pay schemes have become increasingly popular in the last decade. The ur-example seems to be the decision by the band Radiohead to release one of their albums for download, letting each consumer set their own price. Since then, all manner of media products have been sold this way. There have been pay-what-you-want schemes for books and audiobooks, songs and albums, video games and sundry computer software, comics, and movies.

  23. We require that the individual succeed at waiving their right because there may be cases in which an individual A tries and fails to give another individual B permission to act and where this failure blocks the granting of permission to B. One might think, for instance, that a person can never successfully waive her own right to life. If so, then a person B would not be permitted to kill another person A even if A has tried to give B permission to do so. This would be because A has failed in her attempt at waiving her right.

  24. On February 16, 2016, the magazine Wired started doing exactly this. Users who try to access Wired content through the Wired website are now automatically redirected to a splash page with a message that says, in effect, if you want access to our content, either turn off your ad blocker or pay $1 per week. In this case, Wired is following both of our suggested strategies for obligating consumers to view ads: they are explicitly telling the consumer that they must turn off their ad blocker, and they are also making it impossible to view content without also viewing ads (or paying money). See Sterling. “WIRED and Ad Blockers.” WIRED, February 16, 2016. Accessed February 16 2016, http://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2016/02/wired-and-ad-blockers/.

  25. Consider, for example, the practice of tipping at a restaurant. It seems plausible that failing to tip is morally permissible, but it seems equally plausible that not tipping is morally criticizable. And, one might think, the criticizability question is the more interesting and important one when deciding whether to tip.

  26. This strategy was employed recently by German publisher Axel Springer to considerable success: the company reports that more than two-thirds of users disabled their ad blocking software. See: Perez. “Axel Springer Goes After iOS 9 Ad Blockers In New Legal Battle.” TechCrunch, November 23, 2015,accessed February 27, 2016 http://social.techcrunch.com/2015/11/23/axel-springer-goes-after-ios-9-ad-blockers-in-new-legal-battle/.

  27. Unsurprisingly, developers are also building anti-anti-ad blockers. An extension named ‘Anti-Adblock Killer’ was recently launched for exactly this purpose. See: Brad Jones. “Anti-Adblock Killer Heralds next Stage in Ad Blocking Arms Race.” Digital Trends, February 12, 2016, accessed February 16, 2016 http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/anti-adblock-killer-heralds-next-stage-in-ad-blocking-arms-race/.

  28. One might worry: aren’t all arms-races objectionable? If so, don’t we have reasons to nip this one in the bud? We think not. To cite one example: Burns (2006) reports that 3-blade safety razors were once considered a joke, a comic extravagance, lampooned on Saturday Night Live in the mid-70’s. Today, of course, 3-blade razors not only exist but have been eclipsed by 4- and 5-blade razors—the result of a competitive escalation among razor companies in the last couple decades. This seems to be a case of a market arms-race with no serious moral implications for the parties involved.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA

    Alexander Zambrano & Caleb Pickard

Authors
  1. Alexander Zambrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caleb Pickard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Zambrano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zambrano, A., Pickard, C. A defense of ad blocking and consumer inattention. Ethics Inf Technol 20, 143–155 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9454-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9454-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation