4 ms·

I think the difficulty comes in when the two parties (us vs the site owners) come into the situation with different views about what the website IS. You're vie

I think the difficulty comes in when the two parties (us vs the site owners) come into the situation with different views about what the website IS. You're viewing it, quite correctly, as a technical request that's made and some data that's passed back that you can use at your discretion. They're viewing it as you entering a digital storefront where they need to take every opportunity to convert you into a customer. In your mind, you're staying right where you are and the data you're getting back is just that: yours. In their mind, you're entering into their space and so they have certain expectations of you and your experience. You telling them what kind of advertising they are allowed to have is, in their minds, tantamount to walking in to one of their stores and telling them to change the displays they have out. Not saying that it justifies any claims about what should be legal, illegal, etc. but it does make sense why each party would have the opinions they do.

Drakim 11y ago
If so, I'm gonna start charging them for my CPU usage. If what's going on in my computer, using my electricity, isn't under my ownership, I'll be darned if I'm gonna pay for it's execution.
- sbarre 11y ago
  The problem with this approach is it's only arguable because your computer gives you more control over how you use the content you are requesting from them. When you watch TV, you are requesting the broadcast from your provider, and that comes with embedded ads that you have no way of removing (ignoring TIVO and all that). You don't charge back the electricity used by your TV to your provider, right? When you access someone's website, you are requesting that they send you the data. They are not forcing it on you, so they have some say as to how they package up the data you ask for. You are of course able to refuse to request more, or using your computer you can modify and dissect it (like using ad blockers) but that's a different issue. Anyways.. all I'm saying is that expecting 100% control over how someone else's data is delivered to your computer is a position just as bad as the advertisers who say you should not be able to block their ads. The right solution is somewhere in the middle.
  - Drakim 11y ago
    If I taped the content on my old VHS, and then fast forwarded past the ads, and they argued that I shouldn't be allowed to do this, then sure, I would argue they should pay for my electricity for showing that ad, since apparently they are the ones who are in charge of how my VHS should be used. I'd say the argument I'm making isn't something new that just appeared with computers. To drag this point out, imagine if in addition to the video ad, the website included one of those fancy bitcoin miners that is written in JavaScript. Should it be illegal for me to prevent it from running while I read their article? If it MUST run, then surely it's fair that they foot the extra electricity I end up using? There is no rational world where they control the usage and I foot the bill. That sort of system would require slavery to be logically consistent.
    - sbarre 11y ago
      I see this is a lost cause on you. You're not willing to see (willfully or obliviously) that the content provider gets a say in all this as well, since they foot the bill for producing the content you are consuming. Yet you are somehow surprised or insulted when they argue you should not have a say (which is your exact argument but in reverse), and that you should be 100% in control of how you consume their content, regardless of whether or not it contradicts the business model they've chosen to implement. The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        >The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered. Now they have 0 consumers as ad-blocking numbers increase. They lose revenue and go out of business due to a bad business model. The correct approach would be for them to find a sustainable business model. Your "correct approach" puts them out of business.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        But your approach makes the ads worthless (because nobody views them), and they still go out of business. Of course, you don't claim that your approach keeps them in business...
bunderbunder 11y ago
On a subset of the devices I use, I pay by the byte for my Internet service. In that case, blasting me with a bunch of video content that's much larger than the article I intended to read. Advertisers do not respect this, even though it has an impact on my finances. I reserve the right to choose whether I consent to paying for something, and I don't consent to the terms they're trying to offer me. If they were to give me some opportunity to make a decision about this, in the same way that a real storefront does implicitly by me being able to look into the store before choosing to enter, that would be one thing. But such a mechanism does not exist, so as far as I'm concerned the analogy is invalid.
- phantarch 11y ago
  Valid point, I hadn't considered that the amount of data they're trying to send you may end up costing you more money than you were willing to allot to their site. However, I don't think that makes the entirety of the analogy invalid. They still think about their website differently than you, regardless of how you're being charged to view it. It could also be argued that once you're in a store, there is a very real disrespect of your personal finances placed on you by the burden of advertising and product placement. An abuse of consumer psychology in a physical space is just as bad as an abuse of your phone data. Both cost you time and money. While it still stands that you couldn't have seen the video advertising coming ahead of time, you also can't see the psychological tricks that get you to purchase more coming ahead of time either. In both cases I think it's up to us to not get fooled again.
  - bunderbunder 11y ago
    Another spot where the analogy breaks down is that I don't think of a non-ecommerce website as a kind of store. I think of it as being more equivalent to a magazine or newspaper. And in those cases advertising is certainly present, but the overall experience is much less overtly invasive to me, the consumer. I also suspect that non-ecommerce website publishers really would rather think about their websites as being akin to magazines. They aren't really in control of what gets put on their page through the ad networks in the same way that print publishers are, and I can't imagine many editors are terribly thrilled about the things that ad networks place alongside the content they produce. I really kind off feel bad for them; they're caught up in a pretty terrible Faustian bargain.

Drakim 11y ago

If so, I'm gonna start charging them for my CPU usage. If what's going on in my computer, using my electricity, isn't under my ownership, I'll be darned if I'm gonna pay for it's execution.

sbarre 11y ago
The problem with this approach is it's only arguable because your computer gives you more control over how you use the content you are requesting from them. When you watch TV, you are requesting the broadcast from your provider, and that comes with embedded ads that you have no way of removing (ignoring TIVO and all that). You don't charge back the electricity used by your TV to your provider, right? When you access someone's website, you are requesting that they send you the data. They are not forcing it on you, so they have some say as to how they package up the data you ask for. You are of course able to refuse to request more, or using your computer you can modify and dissect it (like using ad blockers) but that's a different issue. Anyways.. all I'm saying is that expecting 100% control over how someone else's data is delivered to your computer is a position just as bad as the advertisers who say you should not be able to block their ads. The right solution is somewhere in the middle.
- Drakim 11y ago
  If I taped the content on my old VHS, and then fast forwarded past the ads, and they argued that I shouldn't be allowed to do this, then sure, I would argue they should pay for my electricity for showing that ad, since apparently they are the ones who are in charge of how my VHS should be used. I'd say the argument I'm making isn't something new that just appeared with computers. To drag this point out, imagine if in addition to the video ad, the website included one of those fancy bitcoin miners that is written in JavaScript. Should it be illegal for me to prevent it from running while I read their article? If it MUST run, then surely it's fair that they foot the extra electricity I end up using? There is no rational world where they control the usage and I foot the bill. That sort of system would require slavery to be logically consistent.
  - sbarre 11y ago
    I see this is a lost cause on you. You're not willing to see (willfully or obliviously) that the content provider gets a say in all this as well, since they foot the bill for producing the content you are consuming. Yet you are somehow surprised or insulted when they argue you should not have a say (which is your exact argument but in reverse), and that you should be 100% in control of how you consume their content, regardless of whether or not it contradicts the business model they've chosen to implement. The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      >The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered. Now they have 0 consumers as ad-blocking numbers increase. They lose revenue and go out of business due to a bad business model. The correct approach would be for them to find a sustainable business model. Your "correct approach" puts them out of business.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        But your approach makes the ads worthless (because nobody views them), and they still go out of business. Of course, you don't claim that your approach keeps them in business...

bunderbunder 11y ago

On a subset of the devices I use, I pay by the byte for my Internet service. In that case, blasting me with a bunch of video content that's much larger than the article I intended to read. Advertisers do not respect this, even though it has an impact on my finances. I reserve the right to choose whether I consent to paying for something, and I don't consent to the terms they're trying to offer me. If they were to give me some opportunity to make a decision about this, in the same way that a real storefront does implicitly by me being able to look into the store before choosing to enter, that would be one thing. But such a mechanism does not exist, so as far as I'm concerned the analogy is invalid.

phantarch 11y ago
Valid point, I hadn't considered that the amount of data they're trying to send you may end up costing you more money than you were willing to allot to their site. However, I don't think that makes the entirety of the analogy invalid. They still think about their website differently than you, regardless of how you're being charged to view it. It could also be argued that once you're in a store, there is a very real disrespect of your personal finances placed on you by the burden of advertising and product placement. An abuse of consumer psychology in a physical space is just as bad as an abuse of your phone data. Both cost you time and money. While it still stands that you couldn't have seen the video advertising coming ahead of time, you also can't see the psychological tricks that get you to purchase more coming ahead of time either. In both cases I think it's up to us to not get fooled again.
- bunderbunder 11y ago
  Another spot where the analogy breaks down is that I don't think of a non-ecommerce website as a kind of store. I think of it as being more equivalent to a magazine or newspaper. And in those cases advertising is certainly present, but the overall experience is much less overtly invasive to me, the consumer. I also suspect that non-ecommerce website publishers really would rather think about their websites as being akin to magazines. They aren't really in control of what gets put on their page through the ad networks in the same way that print publishers are, and I can't imagine many editors are terribly thrilled about the things that ad networks place alongside the content they produce. I really kind off feel bad for them; they're caught up in a pretty terrible Faustian bargain.