5 ms·

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 no

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.

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.