The service prohibits users from using adblockers and/or similar tools, so users are forced to be subject to targeted advertising and any attempt to limit tracking through advertisements may result in penalties from the service. This limits the user’s choice concerning their privacy and/or how they wish to use the service.
DDG Checkbox
Reasoning
Forcing users to stop using adblockers is a valid concern for the user’s privacy, and a huge intrusion on user choice.
The “Blocker”“Bad” () rating is proposed because this is not a common thing to encounter when reviewing policies, and it is a grave limitation on how users can remain private.
Examples
Recently I came accross these quotes on different services:
[…] and your agreement to display this Website whole and intact as presented by this Website’s host, complete with any advertising, to not interfere with the display of any advertising, and to not use ad blocking software of any kind. This limited license is further conditioned upon your agreement not to use any information obtained from or through this Website to block or interfere with the display of any advertising on this Website, or for the purpose of implementing, modifying, or updating any software or filter lists that block or interfere with the display of any advertising on this Website. Interference with the display of any advertising on this Website, use of ad blocking software to block or disable any advertising while viewing this Website, or use of information obtained from or through this Website to update any ad blocking software or filter lists, is prohibited, violates the conditions of your limited license to view this Website and Works and constitutes copyright infringement.
[…] and your agreement to display this Website whole and intact as presented by this Website’s host, complete with any advertising, to not interfere with the display of any advertising, and to not use ad blocking software of any kind. This limited license is further conditioned upon your agreement not to use any information obtained from or through this Website to block or interfere with the display of any advertising on this Website, or for the purpose of implementing, modifying, or updating any software or filter lists that block or interfere with the display of any advertising on this Website. Interference with the display of any advertising on this Website, use of ad blocking software to block or disable any advertising while viewing this Website, or use of information obtained from or through this Website to update any ad blocking software or filter lists, is prohibited, violates the conditions of your limited license to view this Website and Works and constitutes copyright infringement.
I’m willing to bet that those are not the only examples, but they are the most fresh in my mind.
While I see your point on tracking and I do use uBO, the deal users have with these websites is that users can use their (quite expensive to operate) service for free and in exchange users watch the ads.
So this case could be described as “this service expects you to pay the agreed upon price for receiving its product.”
Both offer paid subscriptions that remove all ads and at least for YouTube you can also just disable personalised advertising. Which is disabled automatically if Google thinks you are below 18.
I don’t have a problem with people using ad blockers, however I dont think making it a blocker makes sense. And privacy wise, both privacy badger and duckduckgo block tracking without blocking first party served ads.
Not all services that serve ads necessarily have “premium memberships” as their busiess model. For instance, there are some that only sell merch, or specific services that are “one-purchase-only”. and such payments are not limiting tracking whatsoever.
There are others that don’t ask users for payment at all, and others might only rely on donations, but still serve ads. The list goes on and on, and on…
Personally I can only feel CONTEMPT for the DDG extension, and for DDG as a whole.
Let’s not forget the elephant in the room with regards to DDG —and this is my own, personal opinion— “SHADY”, or “DODGY” practices with respect to their ties with Microsoft. We can disagree on how relevant this may be, of course.
From my point of view, the Startpage extension has been far more competent in blocking trackers, compared to the DDG one.
Regarding your argument for Privacy Badger / DDG over uBO (and similar ad-blockers):
Imagine a scenario in which said alternatives are discontinued, or didn’t exist altogether, but uBO did, for instance — I think we can agree that these “ad-blocker” tools should remain a choice for the user, as it should be their freedom to enhance their digital privacy.
Wouldn’t service providers consider these “alternative” to be excluded aswell? — Privacy Badger, for instance, can block the target component, effectively functioning as an ad-blocker.
(This my opinion as I use these “alternative” tools WITH ad-blockers aswell, to maximize blocking of trackers) — Depending on specific conditions, some of these proposed tools tend to have a much more limited ability to limit tracking in general, not to mention tools like DDG are not very transparent as to what’s getting blocked.
Last, but not least: uBO and other ad-blockers (NoScript, uMatrix, etc.) don’t only focus on advertisements, necessarily. In the case of uBO, it also blocks suspicious domains, tracking technologies, CSP injection attacks, and auto-rejects optional cookies, among other things. The effectiveness of these functionalities can vary, sure, but it’s hard to deny their utility outside the scope of advertisements alone.
Downgrading the proposed rating is worth discussing, yes. That being said…
I’m concerned about the users’ legitimate choice to limit online tracking. Specifically about how a service provider can interfere —more often than not, in this case— for their business interests, whether these are legitimate or not.
Yes, service providers have bills to pay. Nevertheless, I (and many, MANY other users concerned with privacy) consider that forcing this on users is EXCESSIVE at best, ANTI-CONSUMER at worst.
Just because it’s legal for them to do so does not mean it is right, necessarily.
In recent times, some popular services —including Microsoft, EA, and other ones I don’t remember right now— have shown targeted ads even to paid users. With how things are nowadays, paying for a service is less and less a viable “promise”.
@shadowwwind I hope I communicated my reasoning in a clear manner.
If any of my opinions are based on bad sources, please let me know!
rating, though tempting, is not as fitting as