There is an application that can be downloaded onto almost any computer or mobile device that has an Internet connection. As the name suggests, it blocks many advertisements. This at first consideration seems a wonderful innovation but the use of such a defensive shield raises many ethical questions.
AdBlock and other systems of a similar usage are designed to block or remove advertisements from many websites, ranging from Facebook, YouTube, blogs, news sites and even some email services. They are generally easy to download and apply; they are very often a free service surviving on donations.
This aspect of their financing draws our attention very much to their actual use. We as an Internet using public are it seems, quite content to use a free service but will we display the same willingness to help support it? Probably not and this means that those behind this service, receive a ‘moral’ reward but nothing tangible.
The use of AdBlock and other systems raises these same questions with regards the targeted sites. By removing the advertisements from them, the sites accessed become totally free to us the user. We do not even pay with our time, time spent to read or listen to an advertisement.
Many of the sites that we would use advertisement removers such as AdBlock on may rely of advertising revenue to finance their own existence. By denying them this revenue and using the service freely, are we committing theft?
Is it ethical to use any of these services, AdBlock and those it may target; so freely? Is there an obligation or duty, to at least pay our way in some manner? Of course the other side of the argument is that advertising is itself manipulative, intrusive and forced upon the user without consent.
How manipulative and influential advertising is, remains a subjective matter. Can someone be persuaded to purchase items or to support a cause that they either have no use for or interest in? I think that unlikely. Although I recognise that advertisements may have influence, advertising would be unable to convince a vegetarian to eat meat or someone afraid of flying to holiday far away, without some outside factor also playing a part. There would have to be a spark of interest. Advertising may raise awareness but can it really change a mind?
Few of us would argue however, that advertising can be intrusive. Its very nature and existence relies upon the ability to persuade. Whether we regard this persuasion as a form of coercion is a matter of perspective. Can advertising be seen as a form of pressure? To work effectively an advertisement must be seen. If you do not notice it, it has failed. Today we are so used to advertising all around us that we do ignore much of it. We have become somewhat desensitised.
Consent is a rather different matter. Our agreement to the use of many websites, means that we ‘consent’ to advertising but is that really true? Have we really agreed or is this agreement forced upon us in the small print of the service agreement? If we were asked openly, would we agree to advertisements?
The reason people use service like adBlock and I use one myself, is not the intrinsic nature of advertising attempting to attract our attention. It is the intrusive nature, sheer number of advertisements and that we do not consent to either. Perhaps because of the desensitisation, advertisers have lost their sense of subtlety, choosing rather to bombard us with their wares. In Internet parlance, this is called spamming.
This is the reason people use AdBlock and other services, even if it may conflict with our personal sense of ethics. It is the intrusive nature, the weight of advertising seen and I suggest the lack of informed consent.
AdBlock
Daniel Bran Griffith - The Chattering Magpie 
6 thoughts on “IN PRAISE OF AD-BLOCK”