"Ad blocking" is a kind of software, usually in the form of a browser plug-in, but now it is more of a mobile application. They prevent advertisements from appearing when you browse the web or App.
Most people using Chrome or Firefox browsers have AdBlocker turned on by default. While many websites have come up with ways to get around that, AdBlocker and similar extensions are effectively reducing the reach of advertisers, especially on 3-party websites. However, is this behavior ethical?
According to the latest report from PageFair, the well-known adblocking plugin Adblock has a huge impact on website traffic and revenue. PageFair's report stated that Adblock has hidden costs. It not only reduces the revenue of small and medium-sized websites, but it also reduces traffic. For every 1% increase in the total website traffic filtered by Adblock, the website traffic of small and medium-sized websites drops by 0.67%. Filtering ads by Adblock usually results in a temporary increase in traffic on the site. This short-term effect is because Adblock users can enjoy the site without advertising. In the past three years, the traffic level of most websites with high Adblock filtering rate has been significantly lower than other websites. Thanks to Adblock, the traffic of the 2,574 websites in the study dropped by an average of 8% in 35 months.
Those who oppose ad blocking usually focus on its potential threat to the Internet economy. Advertising is the mainstream business model on the Internet. Therefore, if everyone uses ad-blocking software, will the Internet lose its appeal and crash? If you can't see the advertisement, then, isn't the service you are using now a truly free product? When using ad blocking software, have you violated your agreement with the network service provider? Is ad blocking an "obvious robbery" as described by AdAge?
In response to these doubts, proponents of ad-blocking often point out that most ads are "annoying" and blocking can make them better. In addition, users who block advertisements would never buy the goods in the advertisements. Many users also object to advertisers tracking their browsing data and online behavior. Some people block ads because they want pages to load faster or reduce overall data usage.
It is reported that AdBlocker now not only intercepts advertisements but also charges these advertisers, it has become a guard for Internet portals. It has made strict criteria for these advertisements, and only allows acceptable advertisements to enter. Let advertisers purchase the permission to display "acceptable" ads so that even users who have installed ad-blocking can see these ads.
Whether ad blocking software is infringing or not, there is no sound answer yet. This debate is still ongoing. At the same time as consumers of advertisements and websites, we can think about the meaning of pop-up advertisements: you can use the browser for free, you can retrieve any information you want to find, and you can see the latest and most popular high-quality videos for free. Some people get used to using news for free but ignore the production of these websites, and maintenance also requires a lot of energy and financial resources. If these sites charge you, how much do you have to pay? If fees are charged, does it violate the original intention of the "Internet" for interconnection? If the advertising business of technology companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, Tencent, and Alibaba is banned, and investment in cutting-edge technology research and development such as artificial intelligence, will there be enough financial resources and motivation for innovation?
In the long run, ad blocking may have a potential benefit for advertisers and publishers: in the end, it may eliminate the biggest waste of the advertising industry. If ad-blocking becomes more widespread, it will force advertisers to introduce more concise and less intrusive ads, and the way they handle information about us will be much more transparent than in the past, otherwise, they will face the danger of being blocked forever.