# Ad Blocking

Sometimes I will be on a random website when all of a sudden a gut wrenching ad about animal cruelty pops up. I can't get away from it eiher, there is no x and I can's scroll away without it following me. However, after I apply an ad blocker, all those sad distracting ads, simply disappear. Here is an example--
Before adblocker:

After adblocker:

See the difference? I believe that users have the right to be able to block ads that they do not want to see. Sometimes these ads can be simply a nuisance, an unpleasant reminder, or an indication that there are companies on the internet that have way more informations about the user than a user may want them to have. In class we have discussed the use of 3rd party cookies, the use of these indicates how our information gets passed around the internet and it explains how we end up seeing such targetted ads. In "Targeting advertising considered harmful" by Don Marti, he illustrates the idea that people would rather have less specific and less targeted ads because the opposite makes it feel almost creepy. He also describes the steps that browsers are taking to prevent 3rd party cookies from being shared to advertisers.

Another important reason I think it is okay for users to be able to block ads is for the sake of their own saftey. Perhaps a child or an elderley person is using the browsing devices that they come across an ad that seems harmless but they click on it and accidentally download something less that okay. In "Google ad for GIMP.org served info-stealing malware via lookalike site" by Ax Sharma an instance is written about where if you searched for a graphics editior, another adwould come up, looking seemingly trustworthy. But when clicked it would download malware that would be able to gain access to information the user did not consent to sharing. If an ad blocker can prevent situations like this, I am all for it.

Okay, so we are able to get rid of ads using ad blockers, then what is going to be paying for the content that we are consuming? Marti also describes how the users are more likely to trust and ad if it is not obviously targeted to them. This seems like somewhat of a solution to me, ads that are not targeted directly at the user and do not appear to follow them around the web autmatically seem more trustworthy than the other option. In "Advertisers Are Paying Off Ad Blockers to Show 200 Million Users 'Acceptable Ads'" by Sven Taylor, he discusses the idea that some ad blockers are accepting payment in order to let certain "acceptable" ads through. These ad blockers detail that they are removing any annoying, insensitve, and creepy ads from their users browsing experience, but that they are allowing ads that don't violate certain guidlines through. I think that as long as the ad blocker is being transparent as to why they are letting certain ads through, then it is an acceptble compromise that allows companies to be paid for the content users are consuming, but also allowing the users to have an unhindered browsing experience.