10 ms·

Now and forever, I reserve the right to read documents that I'm interested in, without any ads visible. If the web economy cannot exist without this, th

Now and forever, I reserve the right to read documents that I'm interested in, without any ads visible. If the web economy cannot exist without this, then I want to find another way. Out of curiosity - and as a software engineer who makes his living partially from the intellectual property he creates - why do you feel entitled to arbitrary content on your terms? Do we all have a moral right to unencumbered and payment-less access to the new Britney Spears album? Wouldn't it make more sense to only consume media that's legitimately available in a way that you find acceptable? That's one way to steer content creators towards that world, right?

Retra 11y ago
Because content requires attention, and the right to distribute your attention as desired coupled with the right to carefully investigate publicly available information imply it. We are entitled to our culture. And we are entitled to our attempts to control our thoughts and attentions. It may not be compatible with our current economic system, but that system isn't a law of nature that can't be contradicted. Just because people make money producing culture doesn't mean they can lord over it and dictate how it is consumed and used with absolute authority. >Wouldn't it make more sense to only consume media that's legitimately available in a way that you find acceptable? That's one way to steer content creators towards that world, right? No, that's just voting on the issue. If a great majority disagrees with you, you won't get what you want. You could argue then that we have a responsibility to convince that majority, but that's pushing a responsibility onto someone who's already taken it. In other words, by reserving this right, OP is taking a stand in a socially visible way with the intent of convincing more people to follow suit. That action will steer the world in that direction if it succeeds. So they are already doing what you're asking them to do. --- EDIT --- Here's a better way of thinking about it: You "earn a living" producing content. So you say "because other people want to see my content, I have a right to my lifestyle (of getting paid.)" And I say "because other people want my attention, I have a right to my lifestyle (of choosing exactly what to see.)" And if you weren't being paid to take a side, or indoctrinated into a certain bias there, I don't see how you can reason that one is somehow more just than the other. Especially since the rewards are pretty much commensurate with the value produced.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- WalterGR 11y ago
  (For people following this thread, the above response isn't from the person I originally replied to.) You "earn a living" producing content. So you say "because other people want to see my content, I have a right to my lifestyle (of getting paid.)" Except I don't. I don't feel entitled to get paid in some arbitrary way that's convenient for me. I'm happy that I can produce software and content and be paid for it - but I don't feel that I have a right to that by virtue of being born. It just so happens that the IP laws in my country of residence allow me to do so. Which perhaps is why I'm a bit puzzled as to why people would feel entitled to what I - and others - produce and make available under certain terms that they might not be happy with, simply because they were born and want the content. I just don't get the sense of entitlement. But I acknowledge that this isn't something we're going to resolve in the HN comments section. EDIT: Followup questions: It seems like preventing someone from accessing something that they have a right to is immoral. Consider that I have a website with content that I've created. If I work to hide that content from visitors who have an ad-blocker enabled, am I behaving in an immoral way? If that site had its content behind a paywall and I actively disable accounts when I detect that they're being shared, am I behaving in an immoral way? If the site has its content behind a paywall and I actively serve DMCA requests when I find that content published elsewhere without my consent, am I behaving in an immoral way? If people are entitled to "culture", as you state, if the content from that site were instead a physical book, and I owned a book store that sold copies of the book, and I called the police when people were shoplifting the book, would I be behaving in an immoral way? What if that was the only book that I carried at the store and I locked the door to the store at night. Is that immoral? Is it not immoral for me to publish it in book form to begin with? If you're entitled to culture, shouldn't culture-creators make the culture available in the easiest form for you to get at it? Making the culture available as a physical object - with all that entails - probably isn't the easiest way for you to get access to it.
  - Retra 11y ago
    If you don't "feel entitled to get paid," then what do you really have to complain about when someone wants it for free? And don't you think it's a little unfair that you'd attribute to others a "sense of entitlement" and to you a "virtue of good fortune" for participating in comparable behavior? I recommend you stop using the phrase "sense of entitlement" to describe how other people come to conclusions about what they would like the world to be. Because unless you are doing the exact same thing, you have no grounds to object. (I.e., it is your "sense of entitlement" that causes you to want things to work the way you want them to.) >It seems like preventing someone from accessing something that they have a right to is immoral. No, it doesn't "seem" like it. That's what it means to have a right. Everything else you're asking is a matter of social bargaining. You are entitled to payment for your work. Others are entitled to culture and attention management. You give some of yours, others give some of theirs. And everybody argues that they are giving more than the other, so as to get the best deal they can get for what they offer. At the end of the day, what is right is what benefits our collective ability to make decisions in the long run. And people are pretty fed up with ads that do nothing but offend their peace of mind. It doesn't benefit them, it only benefits those who sell the ads. Which means those who give their attention are not bargaining well enough to get what they want. Hence this whole discussion.
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
Those are his terms of service and by responding to his web browser's request, web servers are implicitly agreeing to it.
jordanpg 11y ago
I'm not making an ethical claim here. I'm simply saying that I'm not interested in there being ads in my field of view, ever. This is my own personal point of view. I consider them to be toxic, sort of like secondhand smoke. I don't feel entitled, I just really hate ads. Make me pay some other way.

Retra 11y ago

Because content requires attention, and the right to distribute your attention as desired coupled with the right to carefully investigate publicly available information imply it. We are entitled to our culture. And we are entitled to our attempts to control our thoughts and attentions. It may not be compatible with our current economic system, but that system isn't a law of nature that can't be contradicted. Just because people make money producing culture doesn't mean they can lord over it and dictate how it is consumed and used with absolute authority. >Wouldn't it make more sense to only consume media that's legitimately available in a way that you find acceptable? That's one way to steer content creators towards that world, right? No, that's just voting on the issue. If a great majority disagrees with you, you won't get what you want. You could argue then that we have a responsibility to convince that majority, but that's pushing a responsibility onto someone who's already taken it. In other words, by reserving this right, OP is taking a stand in a socially visible way with the intent of convincing more people to follow suit. That action will steer the world in that direction if it succeeds. So they are already doing what you're asking them to do. --- EDIT --- Here's a better way of thinking about it: You "earn a living" producing content. So you say "because other people want to see my content, I have a right to my lifestyle (of getting paid.)" And I say "because other people want my attention, I have a right to my lifestyle (of choosing exactly what to see.)" And if you weren't being paid to take a side, or indoctrinated into a certain bias there, I don't see how you can reason that one is somehow more just than the other. Especially since the rewards are pretty much commensurate with the value produced.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
WalterGR 11y ago
(For people following this thread, the above response isn't from the person I originally replied to.) You "earn a living" producing content. So you say "because other people want to see my content, I have a right to my lifestyle (of getting paid.)" Except I don't. I don't feel entitled to get paid in some arbitrary way that's convenient for me. I'm happy that I can produce software and content and be paid for it - but I don't feel that I have a right to that by virtue of being born. It just so happens that the IP laws in my country of residence allow me to do so. Which perhaps is why I'm a bit puzzled as to why people would feel entitled to what I - and others - produce and make available under certain terms that they might not be happy with, simply because they were born and want the content. I just don't get the sense of entitlement. But I acknowledge that this isn't something we're going to resolve in the HN comments section. EDIT: Followup questions: It seems like preventing someone from accessing something that they have a right to is immoral. Consider that I have a website with content that I've created. If I work to hide that content from visitors who have an ad-blocker enabled, am I behaving in an immoral way? If that site had its content behind a paywall and I actively disable accounts when I detect that they're being shared, am I behaving in an immoral way? If the site has its content behind a paywall and I actively serve DMCA requests when I find that content published elsewhere without my consent, am I behaving in an immoral way? If people are entitled to "culture", as you state, if the content from that site were instead a physical book, and I owned a book store that sold copies of the book, and I called the police when people were shoplifting the book, would I be behaving in an immoral way? What if that was the only book that I carried at the store and I locked the door to the store at night. Is that immoral? Is it not immoral for me to publish it in book form to begin with? If you're entitled to culture, shouldn't culture-creators make the culture available in the easiest form for you to get at it? Making the culture available as a physical object - with all that entails - probably isn't the easiest way for you to get access to it.
- Retra 11y ago
  If you don't "feel entitled to get paid," then what do you really have to complain about when someone wants it for free? And don't you think it's a little unfair that you'd attribute to others a "sense of entitlement" and to you a "virtue of good fortune" for participating in comparable behavior? I recommend you stop using the phrase "sense of entitlement" to describe how other people come to conclusions about what they would like the world to be. Because unless you are doing the exact same thing, you have no grounds to object. (I.e., it is your "sense of entitlement" that causes you to want things to work the way you want them to.) >It seems like preventing someone from accessing something that they have a right to is immoral. No, it doesn't "seem" like it. That's what it means to have a right. Everything else you're asking is a matter of social bargaining. You are entitled to payment for your work. Others are entitled to culture and attention management. You give some of yours, others give some of theirs. And everybody argues that they are giving more than the other, so as to get the best deal they can get for what they offer. At the end of the day, what is right is what benefits our collective ability to make decisions in the long run. And people are pretty fed up with ads that do nothing but offend their peace of mind. It doesn't benefit them, it only benefits those who sell the ads. Which means those who give their attention are not bargaining well enough to get what they want. Hence this whole discussion.

WorldWideWayne 11y ago

Those are his terms of service and by responding to his web browser's request, web servers are implicitly agreeing to it.

jordanpg 11y ago

I'm not making an ethical claim here. I'm simply saying that I'm not interested in there being ads in my field of view, ever. This is my own personal point of view. I consider them to be toxic, sort of like secondhand smoke. I don't feel entitled, I just really hate ads. Make me pay some other way.