[SUBMITTED] Time to Block Ad Blocking?

[Ainin]

Description: Fed up with banner ads extoling miracle dietary supplements from doctors of dubious existence, @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ are increasingly turning to the popular "AdStop" extension to block these obtrusive displays. Seeing their revenues drop, advertising-dependent websites are coming up with creative solutions. After the @@CAPITAL@@ Times recently placed its website behind a monthly membership fee, publishers, advertisers and consumers alike demand the government take action to protect their rights and poor financial habits.

Validity: Valid for nations where the Internet is not banned (269.4)

[option] "Quality journalism doesn't grow on trees," declares @@CAPITAL@@ Times owner Hubert Humduck as he reads his paper's latest report on the top 10 hottest women of @@NAME@@. "If consumers don't pay for our excellent articles, then how will we keep the lights on? The government should defend our right to make our readers pay up by any means necessary."
[effect] the line between news portal and ransomware is increasingly blurred

[option] "If consumers aren't paying up, it's because they see no intrinsic value in the content offered to them," says blogger @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ while illegally streaming his favourite album. "We'll pay up when we judge the content worth paying for. You shouldn't let lazy, backwards publishers restrict the people's free access to information for their own selfish goals, like 'profitability' or 'avoiding bankruptcy'."
[effect] you can't go two minutes on the @@DENONYM@@ internet without a request for a small donation of 5.99

[option] While pondering over the previous speakers' arguments, you see a flashing banner ad on your screen. "Advertisers hate him! BuzzOff founder @@RANDOMNAME@@ makes MILLIONS through innovative content publishing trick. His secret? Use revenue from popular entertainment content to fund serious reporting."
[effect] fearless investigative journalists spend their days compiling photo galleries of kittens

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Hello! Nice to see antiquity nations joining us here: don't think I've seen you drafting here before, though my computer tells me you did so three years back...

Anyway, thought I'd comment as I was struck by the quality of this draft, and thought we'd found a new player with writing talent. Instead, looks like we got an old player with writing talent.

Basically, I really like it. Unlike this forum post, its straight to the point and only as long as it needs to be. It's got humour, it's got a new topic, it's got solid writing and proper formatting.

Good one.

[Noahs Second Country]

Oh... I read this and thought "wow, I haven't seen this author before. Let me check the spoiler thread to see issue authorship"

Anyway, I like the premise. I was thinking about putting a draft out on this topic.

[Helaw]

I agree with CWA's assessment here. That said, there is one part that I have a particular gripe with.

[effect] there is a constitutional right to block ads

I believe that this effect line could be a lot more interesting; the first could be too, but it is already of reasonable quality. I'd say that the third effect line is a great example of what the other two should resemble.

[Ainin]

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys!

[effect] there is a constitutional right to block ads

I believe that this effect line could be a lot more interesting; the first could be too, but it is already of reasonable quality. I'd say that the third effect line is a great example of what the other two should resemble.

You're absolutely right, I don't like it either. I only tacked it on as an afterthought because I couldn't think of anything else to put there. I tried to play with the two meaning of "free press", but couldn't come up with anything good. I kinda like the first one though :p

[Trotterdam]

So, umm, this issue actually had very little to do with ads or adblocking.

The options are all about discussing the pros and cons of a different business model (pay-to-view), and while "ads weren't paying anymore" is somewhat offered as the reason why a new business model was necessary, none of the options (either for or against) actually address ads directly. It's basically "allow switching to a non-ad-reliant business model" versus "don't allow it and just let them go bankrupt", but either way ads stay blocked.

[Australian rePublic]

Excellent issue. One small criticism, option 1 uses an entertainment article, and option 3 is all about entertainment articles

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Excellent issue. One small criticism, option 1 uses an entertainment article, and option 3 is all about entertainment articles

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For effect2, maybe something like:

[effect]many nation simulation webgames have announced that they'll now be funded by micropayments

[Ainin]

So, umm, this issue actually had very little to do with ads or adblocking.

The options are all about discussing the pros and cons of a different business model (pay-to-view), and while "ads weren't paying anymore" is somewhat offered as the reason why a new business model was necessary, none of the options (either for or against) actually address ads directly. It's basically "allow switching to a non-ad-reliant business model" versus "don't allow it and just let them go bankrupt", but either way ads stay blocked.

You're right that none of the options directly ban ad blocking, but that's because it's not a practical solution (how would it even be enforced?), nor has it seriously been suggested by anyone in the debate on ad blocking. It's also not very interesting writing material, which is why I instead focused the issue on a common response to ad blocking: the erection of paywalls.

I can see how the title might imply otherwise though, I'll try to think of something more relevant tomorrow.

For effect2, maybe something like:

[effect]many nation simulation webgames have announced that they'll now be funded by micropayments

I like it, but I feel like its relation with the option (which bans publishers from erecting paywalls) is a bit tangential.

Maybe one of these?
[effect] you can't go two minutes on the @@DENONYM@@ internet without a request for a small donation of 5.99
[effect] every day is fundraiser day on @@NAME@@'s websites
[effect] the nation's welfare rolls swell with armies of unemployed journalists

[Trotterdam]

You're right that none of the options directly ban ad blocking, but that's because it's not a practical solution (how would it even be enforced?),

In real life, some websites have started using tricks to detect when users are using adblockers, and refusing to display the website for those users.

Which has led to adblocker software being upgraded to fool those sites, causing an escalating war.

In turn, at least one browser has been upgraded to recognize a certain adblocker plugin the browser's maker really doesn't like as malware, and refuse to run it, even if the user tries to install it.

While it wouldn't be possible for the government to entirely put an end to this - there will always be some people who don't follow the law - an official endorsement of either position, with threats of legal penalties for its more flagrant opponents, would probably calm things down somewhat.

which is why I instead focused the issue on a common response to ad blocking: the erection of paywalls.

And is that something you can practically ban? There have always been sites that require payment to access some or all of their features. It's vexing when a site that was formerly free-to-view switches to requiring payment, but legally it's hard to argue that's any worse than a site always having been that way to begin with, or a publisher just not feeling like putting its information on the web at all.

Best you could do is abolish copyright laws so people who have a copy of the information (possibly by paying for it) can freely distribute it to other people if they want to, but that wouldn't stop the original publisher from still being able to charge for direct access to its website.

I can see how the title might imply otherwise though, I'll try to think of something more relevant tomorrow.

Fair enough.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So, umm, this issue actually had very little to do with ads or adblocking.

The options are all about discussing the pros and cons of a different business model (pay-to-view), and while "ads weren't paying anymore" is somewhat offered as the reason why a new business model was necessary, none of the options (either for or against) actually address ads directly. It's basically "allow switching to a non-ad-reliant business model" versus "don't allow it and just let them go bankrupt", but either way ads stay blocked.

You're right that none of the options directly ban ad blocking, but that's because it's not a practical solution (how would it even be enforced?), nor has it seriously been suggested by anyone in the debate on ad blocking. It's also not very interesting writing material, which is why I instead focused the issue on a common response to ad blocking: the erection of paywalls.

I can see how the title might imply otherwise though, I'll try to think of something more relevant tomorrow.

For effect2, maybe something like:

[effect]many nation simulation webgames have announced that they'll now be funded by micropayments

I like it, but I feel like its relation with the option (which bans publishers from erecting paywalls) is a bit tangential.

Maybe one of these?
[effect] you can't go two minutes on the @@DENONYM@@ internet without a request for a small donation of 5.99
[effect] every day is fundraiser day on @@NAME@@'s websites
[effect] the nation's welfare rolls swell with armies of unemployed journalists

For sure, all three of those are good. Editors often change effect lines, but any of the above would likely be strong enough to survive intact. I like the first one the best.

[Outer Sparta]

I like this issue. It covers the realm of "free" web services, so Facebook, YouTube, and Google often rely on advertisements to make money and to get your sensitive information. Personally, I'd add another option that covers that, but you don't have to add it if you don't want to.

[Minoa]

Hola,

One of the reasons people use AdBlock Plus today is due to file-encrypting ransomware, such as Maktub and Petya. You are invited to use one of my past quotes in the forums and I recommend that the person saying it has Minoa as her first name:

You can fall victim to ransomware, just by being served/shown adverts.

For the solution, you could force regulations on ad networks. It just happens that I was reflecting on my quote, and I was wondering whether the ad networks could really win this whack-a-mole battle other than having to pre-approve every advert.

-- Minoa

[Ainin]

I like this issue. It covers the realm of "free" web services, so Facebook, YouTube, and Google often rely on advertisements to make money and to get your sensitive information. Personally, I'd add another option that covers that, but you don't have to add it if you don't want to.

The problem though is that the premise of the issue involves such business models not working anymore as a result of the rise of AdBlock. I'm not sure that such an option would make sense given the premise.