4 ms·

This is completely ignoring the fact that ads are how the content you enjoy gets paid for, and part of the social contract is that, since people won't pay, that

by s73v3r 11y ago

This is completely ignoring the fact that ads are how the content you enjoy gets paid for, and part of the social contract is that, since people won't pay, that the content will be paid for by ad views.

simoncion 11y ago
This discussion never ends in changed minds. Best to abort it before you waste too much time. Remember that there is a camp who thinks that they can do what they wish with the data sent to their computer -including refusing to process said data-, and there is a camp who feels that one has a moral imperative to process all data sent by a website to one's computer. These camps rarely see eye-to-eye.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from. There's a very reliable method of ensuring that one who labors and posts to The Internet gets paid: refuse to deliver the fruits of the labor to others prior to payment. If camp #2 actually thought as you claim they do, they would advise all Internet-publishing laborers to eliminate the ad-blocking worry -and keep the dishonest among us honest- by putting their creations behind a paywall.
manicdee 11y ago
If you want me to not block ads from your site, don't have ads that obscure content, deliver malware, or abuse my browser to make life difficult for me ("no do not close this browser window! Come back!"). If your ad network delivers autoplay video with sound, it gets blocked. If your ad network delivers annoying animated graphics, it gets blocked. If your ad network delivers malware, it gets blocked. If your ad network is The Deck, you are fine. Part of the social contract is that your ad network shows me ads, not distractions and malware.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  And if you don't want ads, then pay for the content.
  - manicdee 11y ago
    There is a balance where the ads your site displays are not nuisances, and I do not block them, and you get paid more than I am prepared to fork over for each read.
Retra 11y ago
There is no social contract here. If you have a website and you want to get paid for it, fine. But you don't get to do that without the risk of obsolescence just because, historically, it has worked in the past. Walmart can't order 20 million giant CRT Tv's and demand that customers are obligated to buy them just because they would have 10 years ago. There is no social contract requiring me to see ads I don't want to see. Contracts don't exist if nobody enforces them. PS: Most of the content I enjoy is not ad supported. And ads aren't the only way to spread money around while creating value in an industry.

by s73v3r 11y ago

simoncion 11y ago

This discussion never ends in changed minds. Best to abort it before you waste too much time. Remember that there is a camp who thinks that they can do what they wish with the data sent to their computer -including refusing to process said data-, and there is a camp who feels that one has a moral imperative to process all data sent by a website to one's computer. These camps rarely see eye-to-eye.

s73v3r 11y ago
It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from. There's a very reliable method of ensuring that one who labors and posts to The Internet gets paid: refuse to deliver the fruits of the labor to others prior to payment. If camp #2 actually thought as you claim they do, they would advise all Internet-publishing laborers to eliminate the ad-blocking worry -and keep the dishonest among us honest- by putting their creations behind a paywall.

manicdee 11y ago

If you want me to not block ads from your site, don't have ads that obscure content, deliver malware, or abuse my browser to make life difficult for me ("no do not close this browser window! Come back!"). If your ad network delivers autoplay video with sound, it gets blocked. If your ad network delivers annoying animated graphics, it gets blocked. If your ad network delivers malware, it gets blocked. If your ad network is The Deck, you are fine. Part of the social contract is that your ad network shows me ads, not distractions and malware.

s73v3r 11y ago
And if you don't want ads, then pay for the content.
- manicdee 11y ago
  There is a balance where the ads your site displays are not nuisances, and I do not block them, and you get paid more than I am prepared to fork over for each read.

Retra 11y ago

There is no social contract here. If you have a website and you want to get paid for it, fine. But you don't get to do that without the risk of obsolescence just because, historically, it has worked in the past. Walmart can't order 20 million giant CRT Tv's and demand that customers are obligated to buy them just because they would have 10 years ago. There is no social contract requiring me to see ads I don't want to see. Contracts don't exist if nobody enforces them. PS: Most of the content I enjoy is not ad supported. And ads aren't the only way to spread money around while creating value in an industry.