4 ms·

Well, "free" means there is no consideration on the part of the party receiving what would be deemed as a gift. Looking at ads and having your data sold is not

Well, "free" means there is no consideration on the part of the party receiving what would be deemed as a gift. Looking at ads and having your data sold is not free by any means.

austenallred 11y ago
It doesn't mean that at all. Free (gratis), by definition, means you don't have to pay for anything. You don't spend dollars. Watching TV is free. Using Google and Facebook are free. You download free apps from the app store. And those all have ads. If you want to repurpose the word to mean "free with no ads" you can do that, but you can't expect others to hold to that definition.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  So you think the Free Software Foundation should really be called the Ad-Supported Software Foundation? "Free" and "ad-supported" mean completely different things, and always have done.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    > "Free" and "ad-supported" mean completely different things, and always have done. "Free" in the context Amazon is using it (what Richard Stallman would refer to as Gratis) means that I do not have to pay money for something. That is a literal economic/dictionary definition. Therefore, ad-supported in this context is a subset of "Free," as is any other form of non-monetary subsidization. So long as the end user is not paying, it is free. The Free Software Foundation is free, but not ad-supported (though it strives to be free both in the sense "libre" (open/available) and "gratis" (not costing dollars).
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      No, "ad supported" is not a subset of free. If you show ads you're costing your users brain cycles and creating distraction and friction. The cost isn't monetary, but it's still a real indirect cost. If it wasn't a real cost, ad-blockers would hardly be as popular as they are - and the ad industry wouldn't be quite so worried about them. IMO the idea that anyone can believe the two models are identical from the user's point of view is not encouraging.
  - personjerry 11y ago
    You're confusing something entirely different here. "Free" in "Free Software Foundation" is free as in freedom to use for any purpose[0][1], rather than free price. You should not use this example to argue whether "free price" implies "ad-free". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  At the very least, I have to pay for it with my time, which is unrecoverable. If I can skip or otherwise ignore an ad, that is one thing, but forced interstitials is even more nebulous than a banner ad. It's not free if I have to spend time servicing your revenue stream, unless you reimburse me at my market rate for my time that you spent/wasted.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    That gets into a very hairy definition of "free." How much did Hacker News pay you for the time you spent commenting? Probably not market rate. Yet we'd still probably say that Hacker News is free.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      I've never seen an interstitial on HN. Have you?
      - austenallred 11y ago
        So, it's free unless there's an interstitial ad? That seems like an awfully random place to draw the line.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        It's free if I suffer no cost. Do you bait and then throw up some monstrosity of an ad in a forced attempt to brainwash me? Or, maybe you don't bait and just force me to watch the ad. Either way, I suffer some cost, in the very least in having to detect the attempt and retreat from your page. To act like that is not a real cost is...baffling.
        austenallred 11y ago
        It's not that that's not a real cost. Is that you don't include intangible things such as time and emotions when determining if something is free, by any expected usage of the word.

Well, "free" means there is no consideration on the part of the party receiving what would be deemed as a gift. Looking at ads and having your data sold is not free by any means.

austenallred 11y ago

It doesn't mean that at all. Free (gratis), by definition, means you don't have to pay for anything. You don't spend dollars. Watching TV is free. Using Google and Facebook are free. You download free apps from the app store. And those all have ads. If you want to repurpose the word to mean "free with no ads" you can do that, but you can't expect others to hold to that definition.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
So you think the Free Software Foundation should really be called the Ad-Supported Software Foundation? "Free" and "ad-supported" mean completely different things, and always have done.
- austenallred 11y ago
  > "Free" and "ad-supported" mean completely different things, and always have done. "Free" in the context Amazon is using it (what Richard Stallman would refer to as Gratis) means that I do not have to pay money for something. That is a literal economic/dictionary definition. Therefore, ad-supported in this context is a subset of "Free," as is any other form of non-monetary subsidization. So long as the end user is not paying, it is free. The Free Software Foundation is free, but not ad-supported (though it strives to be free both in the sense "libre" (open/available) and "gratis" (not costing dollars).
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    No, "ad supported" is not a subset of free. If you show ads you're costing your users brain cycles and creating distraction and friction. The cost isn't monetary, but it's still a real indirect cost. If it wasn't a real cost, ad-blockers would hardly be as popular as they are - and the ad industry wouldn't be quite so worried about them. IMO the idea that anyone can believe the two models are identical from the user's point of view is not encouraging.
- personjerry 11y ago
  You're confusing something entirely different here. "Free" in "Free Software Foundation" is free as in freedom to use for any purpose[0][1], rather than free price. You should not use this example to argue whether "free price" implies "ad-free". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
jsprogrammer 11y ago
At the very least, I have to pay for it with my time, which is unrecoverable. If I can skip or otherwise ignore an ad, that is one thing, but forced interstitials is even more nebulous than a banner ad. It's not free if I have to spend time servicing your revenue stream, unless you reimburse me at my market rate for my time that you spent/wasted.
- austenallred 11y ago
  That gets into a very hairy definition of "free." How much did Hacker News pay you for the time you spent commenting? Probably not market rate. Yet we'd still probably say that Hacker News is free.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I've never seen an interstitial on HN. Have you?
    - austenallred 11y ago
      So, it's free unless there's an interstitial ad? That seems like an awfully random place to draw the line.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        It's free if I suffer no cost. Do you bait and then throw up some monstrosity of an ad in a forced attempt to brainwash me? Or, maybe you don't bait and just force me to watch the ad. Either way, I suffer some cost, in the very least in having to detect the attempt and retreat from your page. To act like that is not a real cost is...baffling.
        austenallred 11y ago
        It's not that that's not a real cost. Is that you don't include intangible things such as time and emotions when determining if something is free, by any expected usage of the word.