# Lawfulness of Advertisement Blockers



## Jake (Jul 12, 2014)

I use several browser extensions to help keep my privacy and security on-line, including blocking scripts unless I explicitly allow them on all websites (NoScript), forcing secure transmission when possible (HTTPS everywhere), and various extensions to block most tracking cookies and so forth. I also use secure password management and I've been moving away from the search engines that track you. 

On top of all of this, I also use an advertisement blocker and have for many years. I can think of lots of good reasons to do so, such as avoiding inappropriate advertisements, not being tracked on-line, avoiding viruses from stray clicks and false download links, and so on. However, someone recently called me out on this being inconsistent with the duties required in the 8th commandment, as summarized in the larger catechism: to"endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own."

Do you think that it is lawful to use an ad blocker with this in mind? Should I also avoid blocking scripts and other measures for my privacy and security to not stop these revenue streams of on-line resources I use?


----------



## jambo (Jul 12, 2014)

When the catechism was written, I don't think they had internet advertising in mind. Advertisers use gimmicks to entice you to break the 10th commandment. They want to make you covet their product making you think your life or situation would be so much better or easier if you had their product. If the appearance of scantily clad woman helps their cause then they will have no hesitation in using such images to entice you. You do not need to respond to adverts in order to promote the well being of greedy corporations or whatever.

I would use whatever privacy settings you have and continue to use ad-blocking software without any qualms.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 12, 2014)

Advertisers know that many people use ad blockers. Ad prices are calculated based either on that knowledge or on actual clicks an ad receives, so you aren't cheating advertisers out of anything by blocking their ads. And I don't take the eighth commandment to mean we have to expose ourselves to any ad an advertiser wants us to see, any more than I take it to mean that I have to go and work for his company for free.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 12, 2014)

It's like being able to put on a mute switch for advertisements on television. Advertisers do not expect viewers not to be able to do that. It's something like they have a contractual right to speak but not a contractual right to be heard.

I can't see any affirmative duty or negative command that would apply here.

Are you thinking of one in particular?


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2014)

The logical extension of this argument would be to say that someone could not use caller id or an answering device to screen out unwanted sales calls. Post your friend's number, and we can sign him (or her) up for all kinds of telephone offers during the dinner hours. (Surely he is not such a great sinner by his standards that he would put himself on the do-not-call list.) And I'm sure he'd never be caught taking a bathroom break or a refrigerator run during a tv show advertisement.


----------



## Jake (Jul 13, 2014)

I'm not sure if these analogies perfectly coincide. When a webmaster serves up a page, he serves up both the content and the advertising. The advertising often pays for the site and helps it to exist. What I was concerned about it is how this relates to "endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own." It feels different when it is large corporation, but there are a lot of free sites and web applications that I use that receive their funding wholly from advertising. I'm just wondering if systematically blocking their display before it ever gets to me is lawful. Obviously, I've often thought not, and these comments help to affirm that, but I can see where he was coming from.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 13, 2014)

> Exodus 20:15
> 
> Thou shalt not steal.





> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 141. What are the duties required in the eighth commandment?
> 
> A. The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man;[801] rendering to everyone his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof;[802] giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others;[803] moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods;[804] a provident care and study to get,[805] keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition;[806] a lawful calling,[807] and diligence in it;[808] frugality;[809] avoiding unnecessary lawsuits,[810]. and suretiship, or other like engagements;[811] *and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.*[812]



The only thing to add to what has already been said is that that reading would require that you actually buy the advertisers product or service. Without that, you are not furthering his wealth.

If you are required to buy everything that is advertised, how does that align with stewardship, God's call and plan for your life.

Now, if you _wish_ to look at advertising in order to consider buying, that's different.

But we are talking about a commandment here.

I don't see the two lining up in any consistent way.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 13, 2014)

It it would be possible to require someone who would view a website to view an advertiser's promotion as a cost of doing that. Something like being required to sit through a time share presentation before getting a free overnight stay at the resort.

But for that to work on the free association basis of a website, there would have to be an express understanding between the viewer and the advertiser to have Ninth, or Eight commandment import for there, even arguably, for such an obligation to exist.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 13, 2014)

This is a funny question in light of the fact that I just downloaded Ad Blocker Pro just the other day and MAN am I glad I have it! I just feel like an idiot for not realizing this this kind of software was out there sooner! 

I'll just say, if using ad blockers is wrong, I don't want to be right.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 14, 2014)

It's a thoughtful question in light of the Westminster Larger Catechism summary of the doctrine of Scripture- thinking in a biblically incisive manner.


----------



## kodos (Jul 14, 2014)

Just to be clear - I don't think that Jake is concerned about the _advertisers_, but rather for the _proprietor of the website_ that you visit - because they feed their families, their cost of hosting their site, and support the content that they serve via those ads. Interestingly enough, I was thinking about this myself the other day as I have AdBlocker installed in Chrome.

I am not yet moved to think this simply an 8th Commandment issue however, because intertwined with it are issues surrounding the other commandments based on temptations and lusts that might be served to you. For my children, this is simple. Ad-blockers all the way for them.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Jul 14, 2014)

I'd thought about the issue before, but not on those grounds. My pastor told me that we're obligated to keep rules as well as laws, and using ad-blockers may go against the rules of some sites. However, with some of the ads out there today, it's best to have one. My mother got an ad for a condom company turn up on her Facebook news feed once.


----------



## Jake (Jul 14, 2014)

kodos said:


> Just to be clear - I don't think that Jake is concerned about the _advertisers_, but rather for the _proprietor of the website_ that you visit - because they feed their families, their cost of hosting their site, and support the content that they serve via those ads. Interestingly enough, I was thinking about this myself the other day as I have AdBlocker installed in Chrome.
> 
> I am not yet moved to think this simply an 8th Commandment issue however, because intertwined with it are issues surrounding the other commandments based on temptations and lusts that might be served to you. For my children, this is simple. Ad-blockers all the way for them.



Thanks, Rom. That was indeed what I was thinking, and perhaps that is why there was some confusion in this thread!

Regarding your second point, perhaps a solution could be to disable the Adblocker on sites that you trust to have non-explicit ads and so forth. Even so, I'm not sure that would work, first because of privacy issues that are also part of it for me, and secondly because if a third party provider determines the ads, you cannot always trust them. For example, Google might throw in a bad ad even on a reformed theology site.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 14, 2014)

I don't have a problem with ad blockers but I do appreciate the heart of the question. As some have wisely noted, hosting a site is not free. Someone has to pay the bills. One of the things that's sad about open source or community stuff is how much people expect for free these days. One of the challenges of supporting this site over the years has been the cost of hosting it. We have so much traffic that a pretty powerful hosting platform is necessary to deal with peak traffic.

I've had a few features that had to be discontinued over the years. Why? Because certain addons were discontinued by coders who made some pretty cool addons because nobody would support their work. People just expect that things on the internet will be free.

I personally hate having content strewn all over a site when I'm trying to read it so I don't put a lot in the user's way here. That said, I think about 1% of the membership of this board actually contributes anything on a regular basis so I can see why others put ads and things on it. If the regular users won't contribute, at least they'll get clicks from non-members and revenue that way. A site with heavy traffic requires hundreds to thousands of month to operate - that's assuming that the admin time is donated. If you actually had to pay someone to admin a site it'd be much more.


----------



## Edward (Jul 14, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> That said, I think about 1% of the membership of this board actually contributes anything on a regular basis so I can see why others put ads and things on it. If the regular users won't contribute, at least they'll get clicks from non-members and revenue that way.



I don't do PayPal, and there doesn't seem to be an alternative (not even an address where a check could be mailed.) I understand that multiple channels multiply the hassles, but perhaps an alternate path might increase the flow.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 14, 2014)

Edward said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > That said, I think about 1% of the membership of this board actually contributes anything on a regular basis so I can see why others put ads and things on it. If the regular users won't contribute, at least they'll get clicks from non-members and revenue that way.
> ...



Thanks for the suggestion. I added the ability to email the administrator if a person is interested in getting mailing information.

I didn't intend to turn this into a plea for money but I appreciate the interest.


----------

