3 ms·

I think you are stretching the definition of the word free. Me looking at something is not a form of payment. The payment is coming from the advertiser. The ad

I think you are stretching the definition of the word free. Me looking at something is not a form of payment. The payment is coming from the advertiser. The advertiser is paying the content producer, THAT is the business transaction. Whether I choose to view the ad and make those advertisements have value is not my concern. Those ads are the REAL value and worthy of my payment. Otherwise viewing the NYT is like watching sunsets, the only way to monetiZe that is by slapping a billboard in front of me, at which point, i go elsewhere

manigandham 11y ago
Your attention (via looking or interacting) is the form of payment. This attention is given to the advertisers who pay the publishers who produce the content. If you went elsewhere, there's no issue. But when you breakdown the billboard and still see the sunset (assuming the sunset is copyrighted and original content) then you're changing the value exchange unfairly.
- supercanuck 11y ago
  You can't feed a family on people viewing stuff. Money needs to change hands. The billboard operator charges the advertiser. There is no obligation on the part of the viewer to look at anything. Under your definition, getting up to go to the bathroom during commericials or making a conscious effort to look away from ads is ...immoral? Illegal? Fraud? There is no contract no quid pro quo. The content providers are selling real estate. Thats it.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    You can because this is how many publishing companies are run today. The obligation is to accept the ads with the content. It's actually in the terms and service of many sites and doesn't require a signature. This is completely legal and binding, just not easily enforceable. Sure there might be natural losses due to leaving or not looking at the screen but adblockers are all about your intent to completely remove the ads from the content before you even seen it. That's the issue.
    - supercanuck 11y ago
      I have a hard time believing those terms of conditions meets the inquiry notice requirements and would stand up in court against anonymous internet users. I view a website and someone says I owe them my first born, does not make it so.
      - manigandham 11y ago
        It wouldnt for many sites but it just wasn't a problem before because the value exchange held. Privacy laws and adblocking are causing these to become more visible with explicit Accept buttons however there's still the obstacle of proving identity online. Anyways, this is something that paywalls solve entirely so it's a great model, but nobody wants to pay.

manigandham 11y ago

Your attention (via looking or interacting) is the form of payment. This attention is given to the advertisers who pay the publishers who produce the content. If you went elsewhere, there's no issue. But when you breakdown the billboard and still see the sunset (assuming the sunset is copyrighted and original content) then you're changing the value exchange unfairly.

supercanuck 11y ago
You can't feed a family on people viewing stuff. Money needs to change hands. The billboard operator charges the advertiser. There is no obligation on the part of the viewer to look at anything. Under your definition, getting up to go to the bathroom during commericials or making a conscious effort to look away from ads is ...immoral? Illegal? Fraud? There is no contract no quid pro quo. The content providers are selling real estate. Thats it.
- manigandham 11y ago
  You can because this is how many publishing companies are run today. The obligation is to accept the ads with the content. It's actually in the terms and service of many sites and doesn't require a signature. This is completely legal and binding, just not easily enforceable. Sure there might be natural losses due to leaving or not looking at the screen but adblockers are all about your intent to completely remove the ads from the content before you even seen it. That's the issue.
  - supercanuck 11y ago
    I have a hard time believing those terms of conditions meets the inquiry notice requirements and would stand up in court against anonymous internet users. I view a website and someone says I owe them my first born, does not make it so.
    - manigandham 11y ago
      It wouldnt for many sites but it just wasn't a problem before because the value exchange held. Privacy laws and adblocking are causing these to become more visible with explicit Accept buttons however there's still the obstacle of proving identity online. Anyways, this is something that paywalls solve entirely so it's a great model, but nobody wants to pay.