4 ms·

Nope, you'll just not go into the store. Let's not go through this again, it's been demonstrated over and over that the analogy you are making is flawed.

• s73v3r 11y ago
  I don't see any flaw in the analogy.
  • mikeash 11y ago
    Not looking at an advertisement is not the same as stealing.
    • s73v3r 11y ago
      Except having the ads there is the cost for the content you're looking at.
      • mikeash 11y ago
        When you buy stuff in a store, the items remain the property of the store until you pay. If you take them without paying then you're stealing. This is firmly enshrined in both morality and law. When you view something with ads, they send you the stuff first, on the hope or assumption that you will later view the ads. No property changes hands at any time.
        • s73v3r 11y ago
          I'm hearing a bunch of excuses which are used to rationalize your bad behavior, but nothing based in reality.
          • mikeash 11y ago
            How odd, because I'm not even defending the practice here, just pointing out that it's not at all the same as stealing.
            • s73v3r 11y ago
              That's defending the practice.
              • mikeash 11y ago
                No, it really isn't. This may surprise you, but it's possible to point out flaws in an argument without making any statement about the merits of the conclusion.
• Killswitch 11y ago
  So you have a service you're offering, I sign up and pay your small fee, and then share my login details with thousands of others, making you lose money. In the same sense as all the arguments against ads. You're not stealing anything. No you're not. But you're wasting resources that the owner has to pay for.
  • vitd 11y ago
    At that point, you have agreed to a contract - the terms of service you have to click through to get an account. The terms of service say that you agree not to do that. When you simply read a public web page you are not agreeing to anything.