3 ms·

I quite liked some aspects of the article but a lot of it is ridiculous and a lot of it is biased bitterness as this guy ran a company that suffered when Google

I quite liked some aspects of the article but a lot of it is ridiculous and a lot of it is biased bitterness as this guy ran a company that suffered when Google changed its search algorithm (which he took as an attack without providing anything to back up that claim.) Anyway one particular aspect I thought was pretty silly: > IS IT MORAL FOR APPLE TO BLOCK ADS? > It’s your device, so you can do whatever you want with it. When you download something onto your device, it is now yours to remix and play with in any way you want – provided you don’t republish it and make money from it. That's like saying it's moral to download the free trial of adobe, and then modify it so it doesn't shut off access to the software after 30 days or call home or require payment, because hey it's your device and you can do whatever. It's ridiculous reasoning. Obviously the whole morality of adblocking isn't black and white, but at the end of the day, when a content-creator makes something and is willing to share it with you for free on a single condition which is that you keep the ads intact, you're either supposed to accept that, or reject the content. Taking the free content and rejecting the condition of the ads isn't simply completely fine because it happens to have landed on a device you own. There are plenty of well known arguments for and against that are reasonable, this isn't one of them. If you actually already paid for the content (like in the NYT example he follows up the above quote) then sure, you can do whatever, that's the principle behind gamers wanting a right to mod their games for personal.

derefr 11y ago
If you get a newspaper delivered to your door, you're free to pay someone to cut all the advertisements out of it before giving it to you. Yes, even if it's one of those free local 90%-ads-by-volume dealies. The manner in which you consume the content is yours to decide. > willing to share it with you for free on a single condition which is that you keep the ads intact It's very easy to detect ad-blocker usage (ad-blockers do nothing to mask their presence) and prevent the ad-blocking users from getting your content. No content provider does this. They instead choose to serve you the content anyway. There is no "condition" attached; they are choosing to hand you the newspaper, knowing you're holding the scissors. If 1. content providers started refusing to serve content to ad-blocker users, and then 2. ad-blockers made themselves undetectable to skirt this, then yes, you could say the users were doing something "mean." Probably mean to about the same level as using Google to skirt the NYT paywall.
- nacs 11y ago
  > No content provider does this I've seen quite a few that detect Adblock and ask you to turn it off (the OK ones) and the ones that prevent content being viewed (the not-so-nice ones). In fact, the removal of these nag messages from Adblock-detectors has it's own list: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilters.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilter...
jasonmcalacanis 11y ago
Ummm... In my example you have bought the newspaper and remixed it. In your example you have bought 1 month of software and stolen the other months. I would not feel it is ethical to do this, as the software was sold with the intention of 30 days. Just like the newspaper was sold with the intention of 1 day.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > Yes, even if it's one of those free local 90%-ads-by-volume dealies.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  Have it your way. In that case you're giving an example of buying a newspaper, which is now yours and you choose to modify it any way you want, to show ad blockers are morally justified, despite the fact the vast majority of ad-blocked ads (probably easily 99%+) are on content that you didn't buy and received on the expectation (whether this condition is explicitly stated in the TOS or implied, it's expected) that ads aren't removed which you ignore, thereby taking content for free and making sure the content creator isn't rewarded. It's a silly comparison to when you actually buy a newspaper, pay for it, reward a content creator and then decide to modify it any way you want. You're comparing one situation where you reward a content creator to one where you don't, and then say they're moral equivalents, it's ridiculous. You're clearly aware of the discrepancy in publishers getting rewarded as you later talk about how Google will be crushed and publishers will switch to charging money. What would be desirable is really hard to say... I guess perhaps it's to have an ad-driven web with pay-2-block everywhere. I use an ad blocker currently (which I don't think is morally justified but do anyway out of convenience and egotism), but I'd be happy to pay content creators to simply block ads, without immediately having to tie into their ecosystem, register for their website, start a relationship with every little website I happen upon, fill in payment details and subscribe for an entire year or pay a ridiculous 1-day or 1-article premium etc. While at the same time for many years, mostly during my childhood, I've been served hundreds of thousands of ads for which I never could've paid, either due to lack of money or lack of payment options. I love the notion anyone can jump on the web and access the world's information, whether you're a poor kid in the US or Nigeria or Vietnam, or an 80 year old who just wants to visit the nyt to read the news without having to set up an account. These people are still valuable, perhaps less so, but that value is found on a dynamic market of advertisers rather than expressed in a subscription pricing scheme that makes no sense for them.
youngtaff 11y ago
Perhaps the real questions is: Is it moral for Apple to enable people to block ads on the web but not block ads in Apps such as Apple News?

derefr 11y ago

If you get a newspaper delivered to your door, you're free to pay someone to cut all the advertisements out of it before giving it to you. Yes, even if it's one of those free local 90%-ads-by-volume dealies. The manner in which you consume the content is yours to decide. > willing to share it with you for free on a single condition which is that you keep the ads intact It's very easy to detect ad-blocker usage (ad-blockers do nothing to mask their presence) and prevent the ad-blocking users from getting your content. No content provider does this. They instead choose to serve you the content anyway. There is no "condition" attached; they are choosing to hand you the newspaper, knowing you're holding the scissors. If 1. content providers started refusing to serve content to ad-blocker users, and then 2. ad-blockers made themselves undetectable to skirt this, then yes, you could say the users were doing something "mean." Probably mean to about the same level as using Google to skirt the NYT paywall.

nacs 11y ago
> No content provider does this I've seen quite a few that detect Adblock and ask you to turn it off (the OK ones) and the ones that prevent content being viewed (the not-so-nice ones). In fact, the removal of these nag messages from Adblock-detectors has it's own list: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilters.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilter...

jasonmcalacanis 11y ago

Ummm... In my example you have bought the newspaper and remixed it. In your example you have bought 1 month of software and stolen the other months. I would not feel it is ethical to do this, as the software was sold with the intention of 30 days. Just like the newspaper was sold with the intention of 1 day.

monochromatic 11y ago
> Yes, even if it's one of those free local 90%-ads-by-volume dealies.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
Have it your way. In that case you're giving an example of buying a newspaper, which is now yours and you choose to modify it any way you want, to show ad blockers are morally justified, despite the fact the vast majority of ad-blocked ads (probably easily 99%+) are on content that you didn't buy and received on the expectation (whether this condition is explicitly stated in the TOS or implied, it's expected) that ads aren't removed which you ignore, thereby taking content for free and making sure the content creator isn't rewarded. It's a silly comparison to when you actually buy a newspaper, pay for it, reward a content creator and then decide to modify it any way you want. You're comparing one situation where you reward a content creator to one where you don't, and then say they're moral equivalents, it's ridiculous. You're clearly aware of the discrepancy in publishers getting rewarded as you later talk about how Google will be crushed and publishers will switch to charging money. What would be desirable is really hard to say... I guess perhaps it's to have an ad-driven web with pay-2-block everywhere. I use an ad blocker currently (which I don't think is morally justified but do anyway out of convenience and egotism), but I'd be happy to pay content creators to simply block ads, without immediately having to tie into their ecosystem, register for their website, start a relationship with every little website I happen upon, fill in payment details and subscribe for an entire year or pay a ridiculous 1-day or 1-article premium etc. While at the same time for many years, mostly during my childhood, I've been served hundreds of thousands of ads for which I never could've paid, either due to lack of money or lack of payment options. I love the notion anyone can jump on the web and access the world's information, whether you're a poor kid in the US or Nigeria or Vietnam, or an 80 year old who just wants to visit the nyt to read the news without having to set up an account. These people are still valuable, perhaps less so, but that value is found on a dynamic market of advertisers rather than expressed in a subscription pricing scheme that makes no sense for them.

youngtaff 11y ago

Perhaps the real questions is: Is it moral for Apple to enable people to block ads on the web but not block ads in Apps such as Apple News?