Content Blocking

You rarely get to watch as a new ethical paradigm is conceived around you. And it sucks to be on the wrong side of history. Especially when history in this case is the present.

It all started when Apple introduced content-blocking to iOS. This sparked a conversation that brought to light some big topics. One that publishers rely too much on ads and clicks for their revenue. But also the topic of privacy. Tracking is a big part of what Google and Facebook are doing through ad scripts and social buttons - malware that publishers are serving their readership.

I always thought that native advertising is the key. But not without oversight or we risk fake news to become the norm online.

Another point of view might be value. Ads don't bring value to the customer. Content-blocking actually does. Value that can easily be translated in money as NY Times once proved.

Seeing where the publishing business is today should be a clear sign of how capable of embracing progress traditional media is. I just hope sanity guides the market because we need newspapers and professional news outlets.

But publishers aren't the only ones that stand to lose from the surging popularity of content-blockers. Nonprofits that rely on ads to publicize their causes are also worried the software could weaken their fund raising and outreach drives. Even UNICEF is actively against ad-blocking.

The result is people of good taste who have been using ad-blockers for decades are now being systematically demonized by the press.

November 2015,
Veselin Petkov