Last edited by @suen 2026-01-22T00:40:20Z
4 Likes
The Moral Question of Ad-Blocking
22 Aug 2018
SHARE
A large proportion of websites and web content providers that do not charge a subscription fee or sell their content directly rely on advertising. Yet an increasingly large proportion of internet users are employing filtering software which is now able to block nearly all ad formats. Thus those using this software can access free content while blocking all advertising.
Consider the situation for online newspapers that do not put up a paywall, and therefore rely on advertising to pay journalists. Many online publishers claim that ad blocking is a problem. There seems to be a tension between people’s desire not to view advertising, and their desire to access free content on the internet. What are the ethical dimensions of this tension? Are viewers under an obligation to allow advertising through on websites they access for free – if that advertising is what pays for the website?
People use ad blockers for a number of reasons: they find ads annoying, invasive, and distracting; ads can use large amounts of data, especially video files; and they can slow down page loading time. People are also increasingly worried about misuse of personal information. In the transition from print to digital media ads have become more invasive. The prevalence of ad blocking appears to be a response to this. It has especially increased with targeted advertising, suggesting people don’t like being followed around by ads.
Some statistical research suggests that numbers of people using ad-blockers in 2016 was edging up to one third of internet users in the USA. Rates are comparable for the UK and Australia. These numbers will likely have increased in 2018. It is claimed that ad blocking has a measurable economic impact that can be quantified as “lost revenue”. The economic impact of ad blocking was estimated to be 40 billion US dollars worldwide in 2016. (Again, this estimate will have increased.)
It might be objected that this is a spurious claim. One report on ad-blocking statistics states:
Potential digital advertising revenue was calculated by dividing the reported revenue for 2014… by the ad blocking rate in a particular country. Blocked advertising revenue was estimated as the difference between potential and reported revenue. (P15)
But how do we know that this is in any way representative? How do we know that the people who have blocked the ads would be buying the products if they were looking at the ads? It is likely that some ad blocker users already hold negative perceptions of advertising, and would boycott products or brands whose ads they deem intrusive or offensive. In such cases, an attempt to curb ad blocking may not make commercial sense.
Yet more online publishers are attempting to remedy ad blocking by requesting that users disable the software, or sometimes by making content unavailable to those using it. Given that a large proportion of online publishers rely on advertising as a major source of revenue, is ad blocking ‘cheating’ somehow, by accessing content that is free on the proviso that ads are reaching viewers?
It could be argued that ad blocking manifests as a form of the free-rider problem because if advertising pays for free content, then those who are viewing ads are supporting the content for those who ad-block.
The free rider problem is usually thought of in terms of collective or group contributions towards a particular outcome. Each individual in a group can benefit if all members of a group contribute. The idea is that there will be a net-effect based on the small contributions of individuals; contributions that on their own would be too small to make a significant difference but which have a cumulative effect. However there may be a small number of individuals within the group who do not make a contribution (small enough that the net effect is hardly impacted) and yet who benefit from the contribution of others. They are called free riders.
The ethical point is the free rider gets a benefit without shouldering a cost. It is hard to argue that that is fair. Most people don’t enjoy ads, but if everyone blocks all ads, then many websites would have to look for other means of income, which would be bad for everyone because it would likely mean charging for content, resulting in everyone having to pay.
It is, in a sense, a separate question whether ad blocking in itself is a moral issue. Surely people who use ad blockers are exercising a ‘right’ to be free from annoying interference. But, it could be objected, no such right really exists; if you don’t want to pay for the websites you’re viewing or the search engines you’re using, then you will have to put up with the ads that fund them.
Yet it is hard to see how a claim that blocking ads is in itself immoral could really stand up. A person viewing a website is under no obligation to view ads, just as someone reading a print newspaper is under no obligation to read the advertising. An advertising contract is between the website and the advertiser. In fact, if it is understood beforehand (as it ought to be) that ads will not reach the whole of a ‘target consumer audience’ then that’s the risk the advertiser takes, and it is simply factored in a cost of doing business.
On the other hand, if the alternative is subscription, then those using ad blockers and getting the benefit of free content are relying on others not to ad-block. So even if you don’t think it is unethical in itself to ad-block, it is probably the case that those who use blockers free-ride on those who do not. And this, in itself, could constitute an ethical issue.
However, the advertising industry is certainly not morally neutral. Tim Wu, in his 2016 book The Attention Merchants, writes about advertising as the “industrialisation of human attention capture,” characterising an industry that was originally founded on pedalling falsehoods and exploiting forms of persuasion and deception for commercial gain. It is well known that advertisers use cutting edge psychological research to manipulate consumers, take advantage of people’s vulnerabilities (such as body-image), and attempt to create new desires for new consumer goods.
In view of this, it is hard to defend the position that anyone is under an obligation to view advertising material. It seems fair, then, that as advertisers find more aggressive ways of saturating people’s internet experiences with advertising, people concurrently find more effective ways of blocking them. If that doesn’t quite deal with the way in which use of ad-blockers impacts publishers whose content is free, perhaps there is a balance to be struck in which some onus falls on online publishers to refuse advertisers’ most invasive and irritating content. Perhaps users might also need to consider being more open to paying for some content to cut out the need for ad revenue.
Dr Desmonda Lawrence received her PhD in philosophy from The University of Melbourne in 2017, with a dissertation on the ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry. She currently works as a freelance researcher and writer, as well as a sessional tutor in philosophy and ethics. She is a member of the Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy where she teaches short courses. Her research and teaching specialties include moral philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of literature, criticism and poetics.
這篇 《The Moral Question of Ad-Blocking》 （Prindle Institute, 2018）在做的事很清楚：把「用戶討厭廣告」與「網站靠廣告活命」之間的矛盾，拆成幾個可以講倫理的問題 ，而不是停留在情緒立場。
文章在說什麼（核心脈絡）
作者先指出：大量網站不收訂閱費、也不賣內容，主要收入來源就是廣告；但同時越來越多用戶使用 adblock，幾乎能擋掉所有廣告，於是形成矛盾：用戶免費享受內容，卻切斷了內容的主要支付管道。
為什麼人們用 Adblock？（作者承認：理由很多，而且不只是「貪」）
文中列了幾個常見原因：
- 廣告很煩、干擾閱讀、侵入感強
- 流量消耗（特別是影片廣告）、拖慢載入速度
- 對個資被濫用的擔憂
- 尤其是「定向廣告」普及後，那種被一路追蹤的感覺讓人反感
作者也提到一些統計：例如在美國 2016 年用 adblock 的比例接近三分之一，並有人估算 adblock 帶來可觀的全球廣告收入損失。
道德爭點 1：Adblock 是不是「作弊」？
文章提出一個直覺式指控：
如果網站的默契是「你免費看內容，但我靠你看到廣告來維持」，那你擋廣告是不是等於破壞交換條件？
但作者馬上補一刀：這個「損失」的估算方式也可能很粗糙，因為擋廣告的人不一定會因為看到了廣告就去買東西，甚至可能更討厭、更抵制。
道德爭點 2：這是不是典型的 “Free-rider（搭便車）問題”？
作者認為：在很多情況下 adblock 更像是搭便車：
- 如果廣告收入支持網站運行
- 那「不擋廣告的人」實際上在替整個群體付成本
- 「擋廣告的人」則在享受好處卻不承擔成本這在公平性上很難辯護。
作者也點出「如果人人都擋」，結果可能是更多網站走向付費牆，最後變成大家都得付錢。
道德爭點 3：用 Adblock 本身到底算不算“不道德”？
作者的態度很關鍵：
她覺得很難說 adblock 本身就是不道德的行為 ，理由是：
- 你訪問網站時，並沒有跟廣告商形成道德契約
- 就像讀報紙的人也沒有義務「閱讀報紙上的廣告」
- 廣告合約是「網站」和「廣告商」之間的事
- 廣告本來就不可能觸達 100% 目標受眾，這是商業風險的一部分
但作者又回到前面那句：即使 adblock 本身不算罪，它仍可能造成搭便車的倫理問題。
最後的反轉：廣告業本身也不“道德中立”
這篇文章最有力的一段，是作者直接說：
- 廣告業不是天真可愛的資助者
- 它會利用心理學、操控注意力、利用人的脆弱（例如身體焦慮）
- 而且在數位時代變得更具侵入性
因此她認為：很難說任何人“有義務”去看廣告。廣告越兇、越監控化，用戶越想要更強的屏蔽手段，某種程度上是“對稱反應”。
作者給出的「折衷答案」
她最後沒有站隊，而是提出兩個「比較成熟」的出路：
- 出版方也有責任：盡量拒絕最侵入、最惹人厭的廣告形式
- 用戶也可能得讓步：對某些高品質內容更願意付費，降低對廣告的依賴
如果你要用一句話概括作者立場，大概是：
Adblock 不一定是“罪”，但它常常是“搭便車”；而廣告越惡劣，用戶越不可能被道德綁架去看它。
你要是想把這篇文章直接嵌進你們那輪討論（Brave/漢典/維基那條線），我也可以幫你把它改寫成一個更尖銳的中文辯題版本，讓對話能繼續往下打。
1 Like
好，我把 Adblock 這條線的核心觀點（到底在吵什麼）以及每個主張背後最常用的 依據/證據類型，濃縮成一份「可拿去做研討」的骨架。
1) 反對 Adblock 的核心主張：你在「搭便車」，破壞內容供給
核心觀點
- 多數網站的交換模式是「你免費看內容，我用廣告變現 」
- 你使用 Adblock 等於 享受內容卻切斷收入 → 形成不公平的搭便車（free-rider）問題
- 若人人都擋廣告，網站就只剩 付費牆、會員或倒閉，最終所有人都變差
主張依據（證據）
- 倫理學框架：搭便車的不公平性 （公共品成本由他人承擔）Prindle 文章直接把它當作核心倫理指控：free-rider “gets benefit without shouldering cost”。
- 經濟實證：Adblock 上升 → 流量與內容投資下降 Shiller 等（2018）研究發現：站點訪客 adblock 比例每上升 1 個百分點，長期流量下降，內容供給也會變少，支持“傷害內容投資”的機制論。
2) 支持 Adblock 的核心主張：這是「自我防衛」，不是偷
核心觀點
- 你沒有道德義務去看廣告；你只是選擇 不接收某種內容/追蹤
- 廣告（尤其是定向廣告）往往帶來 隱私侵犯、干擾、甚至安全風險
- 所以 Adblock 是對廣告產業過度侵入的回應：我保護我的注意力與資料
主張依據（證據）
- 契約/權利論證：用戶與廣告商沒有“必須觀看”的道德合約 Prindle 文中就用「讀報紙不等於要讀廣告」的直覺類比，說明“沒義務觀看”。
- 行為實證：擋掉（情境/搜尋）廣告，不一定傷害消費者結果 USENIX Security 2020 的實驗研究：阻擋 contextual ads 對購買價格、搜尋時間、滿意度沒有顯著差異，至少在該設定下不能說“擋廣告必然造成效率損失”。
- 更廣泛的哲學基礎：free-riding 是否必然不道德，要看情境 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 專門討論「何時搭便車才算錯」，這能用來反擊“一律不道德”的簡化判決。
3) 折衷派的核心主張：Adblock 不必然錯，但「廣告業也該被約束」
核心觀點
- 直接說 Adblock “不道德”太粗暴，因為廣告本身也可能是 操控、侵入、欺騙
- 但完全無限制的 Adblock 也可能把內容供給端逼死
- 更合理的討論方式是：（1）限制廣告侵入性/追蹤性 （2）建立替代收入（訂閱、捐款、付費 API） （3）用戶對特定站點做白名單或支持性付費
主張依據（證據）
- 倫理論證：問題不是“擋不擋”，而是“廣告是否正當” Prindle 文中明確承認廣告可能利用人的心理弱點、增加侵入性，因此“很難說人有義務看”。
- 實證 + 機制：網站收入依賴廣告，但廣告越惹人恨，用戶越會逃 這一派通常把 adblock 視為市場回饋：廣告品質越差 → 使用者越想封鎖 → 生態惡化。
4) 法律/政策派的核心主張：Adblock 是「用戶自主」還是「侵權干預」？
核心觀點
- 出版商（如 Axel Springer）嘗試用 版權/競爭法 角度主張：Adblock 改變網站呈現、破壞商業模式，甚至可能構成侵權
- 反方則主張：使用 Adblock 是用戶自主選擇 ，工具提供者只是提供工具
主張依據（證據）
- 2025 年德國聯邦法院（BGH）相關爭議仍在延伸，案件被發回更低級法院繼續審理，焦點之一就是“瀏覽器過濾是否可能被視作干預‘程式/呈現’而觸及版權”。
- 也有法律評論指出：工具方（eyeo）只提供工具，真正做決定的是使用者本身。
這場爭論的「最大分歧點」其實只有一句話
“網站內容是公共品，還是交易品？”
- 你把它看作公共品 → 你更容易接受 adblock 是搭便車（不公平）
- 你把它看作交易品 → 那你更傾向認為：交易條件由我（用戶）決定，我可以拒收廣告
而你前面那段「爽了用戶，漢典怎麼辦」其實就是把公共品困境直接戳出來了：
公地內容靠道德撐不久，最後總得有制度性的付費或分攤方式。
如果你想把這套整理成一張「研討用辯論框架圖」（立場—依據—反駁點—可驗證指標），我也可以直接給你一份可貼到論壇的模板。
2 Likes
我们没有义务看广告，内容创作者也没有义务把内容放在网上让我们看。
还是维基百科的例子。为什么维基媒体还活着？有在交易中让交易条件对对方有利的人去捐钱。捐助者不一定生产内容，但他们保证有一个能让内容生产的平台。
捐助需要真金白银，看广告虽然也需要电费，但成本不是一个量级。
忍受不了侵入式广告，在广告过滤器的保护下点入，在清爽中浏览，你暗暗自喜，觉得自己掌握了浏览器。
网站和无量广告商也暗暗自喜。
一次次从搜索结果中点入网站，SEO排名屹立不倒，无数人在搜索结果第一位看到了网站。这也是我为什么反对CSDN Greener之类。
况且，汉典的广告真的侵入到不可接受吗？
在搜索结果中，每次都请选择zh.minecraft.wiki的链接，不要点击Fandom的链接。这样，搜索引擎就会了解哪个网站在用户眼里更优秀。
—— Minecraft Wiki ，采用 CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
浏览器厂商通过接口给我们改变浏览体验的机会，我们应该慎重考虑如何使用，为何使用。
1 Like
如果网站没人看广告倒闭了，网站所有者自己不会感到被亏欠吗？末日审判那一天凡是有人不愿意原谅你的，你都必须背负他的一部分罪。
1 Like