[niravshah]

I strongly agree that adtech has overstepped bounds in a number of ways, but articles like this seem more interested in claiming the moral high ground for ad blockers, equating them with consumer activism. However, ad blockers are clearly not a boycott - websites are still being "dealt with" (i.e. content is being consumed) to use the definition language, they are just not being paid.

Disclaimer/Context: I was the Product Manager for Ad Products at Vox Media for 2+ years

[jalfresi]

If you put something out there for consumption on a public forum in a medium that allows me to determine how I consume it, then you are a fool if you believe you have any say in how I do consume it. You don't have any control in this matter and you have tied yourself to a business model that requires you to be able to dictate the terms of consumption.

I pay for my expensive bandwidth. If you attempt to pollute the bandwidth I pay for do not be surprised if I cut out the crap you try to force feed me.

If you can't support your business that's your problem. After all, the down side from all these businesses folding is that we go back to a web when such parasitic practacies didn't exist, well that sound like a deal to me!

[electricblue]

I don't know what you get for calling it a boycott or not (can I pay with my moral high ground?), it is clearly a mass rejection of targeted advertising in all its forms and that seems to be the important part.

[linker3000]

If I take a free newspaper and don't bother to read the ads, the publisher has still been paid for the ad spots, so why should it be different for a Web site publisher? The advertiser should pay a negotiated, fixed amount and the consideration that site visitors may or may not use an adblocker to skip the ad should not enter the equation.

In a similar vein, if I take a free newspaper, no-one follows me round and refuses to let me turn the page unless I confirm that I have looked at all the ads on the current one.

[sophacles]

Define boycott gets:

noun 1. a punitive ban that forbids relations with certain groups, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.

In the sense of "cooperation with a policy", this certainly is in fact a boycott. Also, a bit of a stretch, but blocking adds is forbidding relation with a certain group (advertisers).

Further, a boycott may or may not include suppliers (or any other group associated with target). For instance when some restaurant chain is being boycotted, you don't often hear "also don't buy $X apples, they sell things to the evil chain".

The point being - it is consumer activism, people are saying "I like your site, but I won't be involved in the unreadable mess that it becomes with ads popping up everywhere." That's a pretty strong message, and far more pointed than just avoiding a site. In the later case, the message is unclear... is the problem the site content itself? Is it the ads? Is it something else like the layout?

[monochromatic]

I actually think ad blockers have the moral high(er) ground, but it is weird to call it a boycott.

[hrvbr]

It's the boycott of a business model, more than of the companies who use it.