6 ms·

Hello again, Nadya. It seems we are making a habit of disagreeing with each other. ;-) Though I do entirely agree with the first sentence of your comment. It's

by bryans 11y ago

Hello again, Nadya. It seems we are making a habit of disagreeing with each other. ;-) Though I do entirely agree with the first sentence of your comment. It's the same reason why piracy isn't the dire issue the various media industries make it out to be. The vast majority of people who pirate content, were never going to pay for that content to begin with. So they're not actually losing those sales, because there was never a potential for a sale. I make no claims about this being moral behavior or otherwise, I'm just acknowledging that this is reality. For the rest of your comment, however, I don't think the driveway analogy holds up. It may be your browser, but it is their content being served via their infrastructure. It costs them real money to create and host this content. Ignoring for a moment that some ads are obnoxious, do you genuinely believe that content creators should lose money for the "privilege" of having you consume their content? Because that seems rather silly to me. The simple fact is that when you use an ad blocker, you are not just preventing a website from making money off obnoxious ads. You are actually costing the content creator money. Out of their own pocket. The same content creator whom you probably believe deserves money for providing you with that information or entertainment. How can you possibly reconcile these conflicting facts? Pretending to be making a statement by boycotting all advertisement in an attempt to force the ad industry to change its ways, is no different from the extreme minority of pirates who insist that they are morally justified to never pay for anything, just because they don't like how the music industry operates. Regardless of whether any given industry conducts their business ethically, having a differing moral opinion does not automatically entitle you to everything for free. Or in the cast of ad blockers, entitling you to content at the quantifiable expense of its creator.

Nadya 11y ago
No - we seem to be at a misunderstanding here. I believe content creators should not deliver their content to me at all if they feel that delivering content to me at a loss is not worth it. I have no privilege to receive their content and they are under no obligation to provide me with it. The fact that they continue to deliver content to me at a loss shows that they value their Google Ranking and the possibility of me sharing the article to outweigh the cost of providing me with the content. They are making a cost-benefit analysis and deciding to show me the content anyways. The benefits of showing me the content, even at a loss, are superior to not showing me the content at all. If they have an issue with that - they can bring it up with Google. It isn't my problem that they care about their Google ranking. It's their problem with Google.
- bryans 11y ago
  I'm sorry, but it appears you are completely ignorant of the technological complexities involved in denying a user content based on whether or not you are blocking ads from a third party provider. It has nothing to do with search engine rankings or the trivial potential of "free promotion" by sharing the content. It has nothing to do with Google at all, in fact. I'm not sure where you're even coming from with that argument.
  - HappyTypist 11y ago
    I think the previous poster might be referring to the fact that if you click on a result in a Google SERP (search engine results page), and then hit back and click on another result (e.g. due to the site not allowing you to view the content), in aggregate that site gets a severe ranking penalty. Given the prevalence of adblock users, a site that implements this (which is not hard at all -- just check if `<div id='ad' style='height:1px'></div>` has a height of 1 or 0) will quickly drop off Google.
    - bryans 11y ago
      My point was that this has nothing to do with the morality of ads being delivered or blocked.
nfoz 11y ago
> It may be your browser, but it is their content being served via their infrastructure. It costs them real money to create and host this content. Then they shouldn't send me that content if they don't want me to do whatever I want with it. Because that's my goddamn right. Frankly, if ad revenue is the way they're funding the development of their content, then I want them to stop. Just stop. Find another way to fund it, or don't send it to my computer in the first place.
- bryans 11y ago
  I own a physical store. It has a door. You walk through it. You then decide you don't like some aspect of my store. That doesn't entitle you to walk out with merchandise, declaring "well, you shouldn't have opened your door in the first place." It is not your "goddamn right" to dictate how a business generates revenue, nor does it make any sense whatsoever to insist that the burden of denying content is the creator's. Your argument can easily be turned around on you. If you're not willing to pay for the content (via allowing ads, in this case), then you shouldn't be demanding the content in the first place.
  - nfoz 11y ago
    I'm not "demanding" the content. You're choosing to send it to me. I'm not walking into your store, I'm surfing the web, you're throwing your "goods" (if you see them that way) into my home. My computer. Under my control. My computer will block ads if I want, mostly I don't even know if sites have ads or not. Not my problem. I'm happy to pay for goods. I'm not happy to see ads -- I never want to see them, they are a menace. I pay for tons of ad-free content.
    - bryans 11y ago
      Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment. You don't see the "content" of the store until you walk through the door. Deciding afterwards that you don't agree with how the website is monetized but then consume the content anyway, is the same as deciding you don't like how the physical establishment operates, but you feel entitled to take something anyway. There is no logical difference, and you are using a completely false justification.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Are content consumers obligated to buy a certain amount of advertised goods per year in order to continue to have access to the content? No, of course not. Are people who read magazines obligated to spend as much time looking at ads as the content? Are people who watch over the air TV obligated to stay in the room while ads come on instead of making a snack or going to the bathroom? Of. Course. Not. There's something very puritanical about the idea that there is and should be a contract between content makers and content consumers whereby people "pay" for their content through suffering through ads. Would we see things any different if every site supported themselves through obnoxious spam email campaigns? Content creators have no right to my eyeballs or my attention, they cannot simply sell it away to advertisers as a way to make money. I appreciate that advertising has often been the easiest source of revenue for content sites, but it's a broken system and I never bought anything from ads anyway. I'm not going to suffer just so you can keep a broken system propped up for longer. I pay for content. I support people on patreon, I support kickstarters, I buy merch, I buy books, movies, albums, yadda yadda yadda. I've probably spent mid five figures on content in my lifetime. No, I'm not going to feel even a little bad by blocking shitty ads. I'm sorry you've monetized making my content consuming experience shittier, find a better way.
- bryans 11y ago
  > Are people who read magazines obligated to spend as much time looking at ads as the content? Are people who watch over the air TV obligated to stay in the room while ads come on instead of making a snack or going to the bathroom? You have no obligation to acknowledge the ad. Nobody ever said you did. You are not required to read or click on any advertisement, ever. But you have to allow that advertisement to be served, otherwise you are not paying for the content. And that is the price of the content: having the ads served. > Content creators have no right to my eyeballs or my attention, they cannot simply sell it away to advertisers as a way to make money. This is such an illogical statement, that I'm nearly speechless. Nobody has ever made the claim that they possess ownership of your attention. Again, you are under no obligation to view or interact with an ad. > ... I never bought anything from ads anyway. I'm not going to suffer just so you can keep a broken system propped up for longer. Really? Suffer? Is that the word you're going to use? Nobody is demanding you buy anything. I guess I'm sorry if you feel that ignoring ads is such a huge personal burden that it's having detrimental effects on your life. But that's a you problem. > No, I'm not going to feel even a little bad by blocking shitty ads. Ah, and here's the rub. You don't know if you're blocking shitty ads, because you're blocking all ads. You could be visiting a site which contains content that you appreciate, and only displays ads in a tasteful, non-shitty way. But you'll never know. And that's what makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

by bryans 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

No - we seem to be at a misunderstanding here. I believe content creators should not deliver their content to me at all if they feel that delivering content to me at a loss is not worth it. I have no privilege to receive their content and they are under no obligation to provide me with it. The fact that they continue to deliver content to me at a loss shows that they value their Google Ranking and the possibility of me sharing the article to outweigh the cost of providing me with the content. They are making a cost-benefit analysis and deciding to show me the content anyways. The benefits of showing me the content, even at a loss, are superior to not showing me the content at all. If they have an issue with that - they can bring it up with Google. It isn't my problem that they care about their Google ranking. It's their problem with Google.

bryans 11y ago
I'm sorry, but it appears you are completely ignorant of the technological complexities involved in denying a user content based on whether or not you are blocking ads from a third party provider. It has nothing to do with search engine rankings or the trivial potential of "free promotion" by sharing the content. It has nothing to do with Google at all, in fact. I'm not sure where you're even coming from with that argument.
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  I think the previous poster might be referring to the fact that if you click on a result in a Google SERP (search engine results page), and then hit back and click on another result (e.g. due to the site not allowing you to view the content), in aggregate that site gets a severe ranking penalty. Given the prevalence of adblock users, a site that implements this (which is not hard at all -- just check if `<div id='ad' style='height:1px'></div>` has a height of 1 or 0) will quickly drop off Google.
  - bryans 11y ago
    My point was that this has nothing to do with the morality of ads being delivered or blocked.

nfoz 11y ago

> It may be your browser, but it is their content being served via their infrastructure. It costs them real money to create and host this content. Then they shouldn't send me that content if they don't want me to do whatever I want with it. Because that's my goddamn right. Frankly, if ad revenue is the way they're funding the development of their content, then I want them to stop. Just stop. Find another way to fund it, or don't send it to my computer in the first place.

bryans 11y ago
I own a physical store. It has a door. You walk through it. You then decide you don't like some aspect of my store. That doesn't entitle you to walk out with merchandise, declaring "well, you shouldn't have opened your door in the first place." It is not your "goddamn right" to dictate how a business generates revenue, nor does it make any sense whatsoever to insist that the burden of denying content is the creator's. Your argument can easily be turned around on you. If you're not willing to pay for the content (via allowing ads, in this case), then you shouldn't be demanding the content in the first place.
- nfoz 11y ago
  I'm not "demanding" the content. You're choosing to send it to me. I'm not walking into your store, I'm surfing the web, you're throwing your "goods" (if you see them that way) into my home. My computer. Under my control. My computer will block ads if I want, mostly I don't even know if sites have ads or not. Not my problem. I'm happy to pay for goods. I'm not happy to see ads -- I never want to see them, they are a menace. I pay for tons of ad-free content.
  - bryans 11y ago
    Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment. You don't see the "content" of the store until you walk through the door. Deciding afterwards that you don't agree with how the website is monetized but then consume the content anyway, is the same as deciding you don't like how the physical establishment operates, but you feel entitled to take something anyway. There is no logical difference, and you are using a completely false justification.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Are content consumers obligated to buy a certain amount of advertised goods per year in order to continue to have access to the content? No, of course not. Are people who read magazines obligated to spend as much time looking at ads as the content? Are people who watch over the air TV obligated to stay in the room while ads come on instead of making a snack or going to the bathroom? Of. Course. Not. There's something very puritanical about the idea that there is and should be a contract between content makers and content consumers whereby people "pay" for their content through suffering through ads. Would we see things any different if every site supported themselves through obnoxious spam email campaigns? Content creators have no right to my eyeballs or my attention, they cannot simply sell it away to advertisers as a way to make money. I appreciate that advertising has often been the easiest source of revenue for content sites, but it's a broken system and I never bought anything from ads anyway. I'm not going to suffer just so you can keep a broken system propped up for longer. I pay for content. I support people on patreon, I support kickstarters, I buy merch, I buy books, movies, albums, yadda yadda yadda. I've probably spent mid five figures on content in my lifetime. No, I'm not going to feel even a little bad by blocking shitty ads. I'm sorry you've monetized making my content consuming experience shittier, find a better way.

bryans 11y ago
> Are people who read magazines obligated to spend as much time looking at ads as the content? Are people who watch over the air TV obligated to stay in the room while ads come on instead of making a snack or going to the bathroom? You have no obligation to acknowledge the ad. Nobody ever said you did. You are not required to read or click on any advertisement, ever. But you have to allow that advertisement to be served, otherwise you are not paying for the content. And that is the price of the content: having the ads served. > Content creators have no right to my eyeballs or my attention, they cannot simply sell it away to advertisers as a way to make money. This is such an illogical statement, that I'm nearly speechless. Nobody has ever made the claim that they possess ownership of your attention. Again, you are under no obligation to view or interact with an ad. > ... I never bought anything from ads anyway. I'm not going to suffer just so you can keep a broken system propped up for longer. Really? Suffer? Is that the word you're going to use? Nobody is demanding you buy anything. I guess I'm sorry if you feel that ignoring ads is such a huge personal burden that it's having detrimental effects on your life. But that's a you problem. > No, I'm not going to feel even a little bad by blocking shitty ads. Ah, and here's the rub. You don't know if you're blocking shitty ads, because you're blocking all ads. You could be visiting a site which contains content that you appreciate, and only displays ads in a tasteful, non-shitty way. But you'll never know. And that's what makes you part of the problem, not the solution.