When I was a kid, my dad used to rip the advertisements out of magazines as soon as they came in the mail. That's a practice I've carried on, despite getting far few magazines these days... My family also used to mute the advertisements on TV, though I don't think any of us still watch it.
So when I see people claiming that adblockers are immoral, it always gives me a good chuckle. Is ripping the ads out of a magazine immoral too? Is the mute button on my remote a ethnical crime against poor hapless television companies?
> Is the mute button on my remote a ethnical crime against poor hapless television companies?
Which reminds me, TV/cable/et al. related services already cost money, yet they still serve advertisements. Isn't this a form of double-dipping? Shouldn't they be paying (or giving a discount) to watch advertisements?
The cost of broadcast and cable networks already includes a discount that takes the advertising into account. Ad-free networks (HBO, Showtime, etc.) otherwise known as "pay television" are $15/mo each, since all revenue must come directly from subscribers.
Pay TV came to Australia in the 90s with the promise "No ads - your payment covers it". Then the ads came between shows. Then the ads came within shows, just like free-to-air TV. So... what were we paying for again?
Not really, back when I received the paper copy of the Economist it took me about a minute after receiving it on a Saturday morning to flip through and rip-out the double-sided ad pages. Also gave me an idea of the main stories in the issue.
Put a 30cm ruler on the page near the binding, grab top, pull. Well worth it for making the magazine thinner, easier to fold into my back pocket, and more readable on the bus. Just turn the page and continue reading, no interruptions.
One time there I remove so many pages ( 20? a lot anyway ) that I actually spent money on postage and sent them back to the Editor with the suggestion that he spend his time reading them for me and provide a summary.
Did you remove less than 50% of the paper? I guess the equivalent to online publishers' attempts to prevent ad-blocking would be simply to stop printing adverts on both sides of a page. Presumably, publishers had no incentive to do that because, as far as they were concerned, they still got paid for the adverts. And the number of people ripping ads out of magazines must be a tiny percentage, of course.
This I did as well when The Economist arrived. They make it easy since half of the ads are printed full-page on both sides. Took like 30 seconds to do and did make reading much more enjoyable. Now (wow, has been years now) I use the digital edition on iPad and listen to it more than I read it, but when reading I do look at the ads as there are fewer and of high quality in the app edition.
So when I see people claiming that adblockers are immoral, it always gives me a good chuckle. Is ripping the ads out of a magazine immoral too? Is the mute button on my remote a ethnical crime against poor hapless television companies?