3 ms·
> 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 roo
by 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.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago"Have to"? That's a strong phrase. I don't have to do anything. I can filter the content delivered to me however I want. There's no EULA, no TOU, that lays down a quid pro quo of content for ads. "Nobody has ever made the claim that they posses ownership of your attention." I think you misunderstand the entire advertising business then. It is the selling of "impressions" of some slice of "attention", else it would have no value. If I am under no obligation to view an ad then I am under no obligation to have an ad made viewable to me, period. As for the term "suffering", way to derail an argument with semantics. That term was chosen because it fits in with the typical puritanical worldview of having to "earn" anything good by paying for it with toil. There's no value to me being even the slightest bit inconvenienced by an ad, zero. It's just an artifact of a broken accounting system and I refuse to let it rule over me like some bizarre kafkaesque daydream. I support content creators. I pay for content. I do my part. I spent 20 years looking at ads on the web. I'm done.
- dingaling 11y ago> But you have to allow that advertisement to be served, otherwise you are not paying for the content. When is this contractual obligation established? The first HTTP request goes to the host's server before I am even aware of whether they wish to send ads or not. At that point neither party has agreed to any obligation.