5 ms·

>It isn't, unless you only visit a dozen sites and ignore links on them. Why do you feel entitled to use all the sites? They are not there to serve you out of

>It isn't, unless you only visit a dozen sites and ignore links on them. Why do you feel entitled to use all the sites? They are not there to serve you out of goodwill. They are making a profit. You use them, but deny their profit. >Installing an ad-blocker is much simpler. Simple doesn't mean right.

lmm 11y ago
>Why do you feel entitled to use all the sites? They are not there to serve you out of goodwill. They are making a profit. Most sites are doing it out of goodwill. There was a time when commercial organisations weren't allowed on the Internet at all. They're the interlopers here, they can play by the existing rules: if you put it on the Web, you expect your content to be accessed by a variety of people who will format it in their own ways.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  So it's not about "Hyperlinks don't come with a "this site is full of ads" marker". It's about you feeling entitled to other people's work for free, because... Oh yeah, because long time ago, the internet was not commercialized. Well, newsflash, it is now and those "rules" you talk about are no longer valid. The fact that you made up a reason for your actions only shows that deep down, you know what you're doing is not right. Your mind just makes up justifications for it.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    >The fact that you made up a reason for your actions only shows that deep down, you know what you're doing is not right. Your mind just makes up justifications for it. So it's absolutely impossible for anyone's morality to ever differ from yours, and if they claim it does, they're just lying to themselves?
    - TheLogothete 11y ago
      I don't make up justifications for my actions. He said he blocks ads because he doesn't know if a link will lead to a page littered with ads, but that's not the case at all. He uses services which he obviously knows rely on ads to keep running, yet breaks their business model You guys use a business and refuse to abide to its terms of service. In what school of thought that is acceptable? In my country, you buy bus passes on the bus stop and you perforate it yourself when you get on the bus to signal that you've paid for your ride. You want to tell me I can get a free ride on the bus because it is not my job to make the bus company profitable. Are you serious?
      - lmm 11y ago
        > I don't make up justifications for my actions. He said he blocks ads because he doesn't know if a link will lead to a page littered with ads, but that's not the case at all. It's absolutely the case. I held off installing an ad-blocker for a long time, longer than most of my friends. If ads had not become more intrusive I would not have started blocking them. Sure, I'm getting other benefits, but not knowing if a link will lead to a page littered with ads is absolutely the cause of my blocking them; if that wasn't the case I wouldn't do it. > In my country, you buy bus passes on the bus stop and you perforate it yourself when you get on the bus to signal that you've paid for your ride. You want to tell me I can get a free ride on the bus because it is not my job to make the bus company profitable. No - you should follow the custom, practice and culture of bus-catching.
  - lmm 11y ago
    > So it's not about "Hyperlinks don't come with a "this site is full of ads" marker". It's about you feeling entitled to other people's work for free, because... Oh yeah, because long time ago, the internet was not commercialized. It's the same thing. The reason that hyperlinks expect the site on the other end of the link to be freely available is because that's the custom and practice of the internet. > The fact that you made up a reason for your actions only shows that deep down, you know what you're doing is not right. So it's not about "it's simple to avoid advertising if you don't like it", now it's about "it's not right"? Who's making up their reasons now?
aninhumer 11y ago
>You use them, but deny their profit. It's not the consumer's job to make companies profitable. If their business model relies on people viewing ads when they don't have to, that's their problem.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  It's a consumer's obligation to follow the provider's ToS. If you don't agree to those ToS, don't use the service.
  - drdeca 11y ago
    I think that if a consumer is to be considered to be obligated to follow the ToS, they should be presented with the ToS /first/ , and also have it be of a length which is actually reasonable for a typical person to read. A person should generally not (there are exceptions in e.g. emergencies) be expected to agree to something without specifically choosing to agree to it, and knowing what they are "agreeing" to.
    - TheLogothete 11y ago
      I think it is perfectly plausible that everyone knows google, youtube, facebook, reddit, SO and other such sites rely on ads to operate. Yet people with adblock continuously use those services while blocking the business model which allows them to operate. It's not a case of loading a single page and not knowing what's there. You profit from those services every single day and knowingly harm their operations.
      - drdeca 11y ago
        Ok so again, I personally don't use adblock, so I do not, by using adblock, harm their operations. I don't know if you meant "you" as in me, or "you" as in the rhetorical "you", but I wanted to clarify that, in case you meant me in particular. Yes, it is true that one who frequently uses sites like google and youtube and such probably knows that those websites have ads, and rely on ad income to operate. This is separate from whether the person knows whether using an adblocker is forbidden by the ToS of the website. And I think this might be somewhere where you have changed what you are talking about when it is convenient to you? (which you have accused someone else of) In fact, from the ToS s that I have read, I don't think I have ever seen one that specifically forbids using an ad blocker while using the website! At least, as far as I can remember. Forbidding intentionally making false ad impressions, I have of course seen, but I do not remember any ToS forbidding using an ad blocker. So, case in point, I do not know that the google search ToS forbids using an ad blocker while visiting the site, and in fact it is my (weakly held) belief that it probably does not (but I could be wrong about that). I don't think one should be considered to have agreed to a ToS as a contract if it would be unreasonable to believe that the person truly did read and understand the ToS. If a person can reasonably be expected to know that what they did was against the ToS, despite it being unreasonable to believe that they read and understood all of the ToS, then that could make sense for them to be held to I suppose. But I don't think that the average person can be reasonably assumed to know that the ToS forbids using an ad blocker (and, in fact, I don't know that many ToS s do forbid using an ad blocker. I don't remember any of the one's I've looked at forbidding it after all). Unless one is specifically made aware of an agreement, I don't think they can be reasonably considered to have agreed to it. One cannot unknowingly agree. I run ads on my website, and I don't mind if users run an ad blocker while viewing it. (Though, I suppose its not much of a business, so that might make a difference there). So, to conclude: I don't think most ToS s have clauses which forbid the use of ad blocking on the site. I don't think one can reasonably expect a user to know that ad blocking is forbidden by the ToS unless they are specifically informed of it. I don't think users who have not knowingly entered into an agreement to not block ads on the site are obligated to not block ads on the site.

lmm 11y ago

>Why do you feel entitled to use all the sites? They are not there to serve you out of goodwill. They are making a profit. Most sites are doing it out of goodwill. There was a time when commercial organisations weren't allowed on the Internet at all. They're the interlopers here, they can play by the existing rules: if you put it on the Web, you expect your content to be accessed by a variety of people who will format it in their own ways.

TheLogothete 11y ago
So it's not about "Hyperlinks don't come with a "this site is full of ads" marker". It's about you feeling entitled to other people's work for free, because... Oh yeah, because long time ago, the internet was not commercialized. Well, newsflash, it is now and those "rules" you talk about are no longer valid. The fact that you made up a reason for your actions only shows that deep down, you know what you're doing is not right. Your mind just makes up justifications for it.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  >The fact that you made up a reason for your actions only shows that deep down, you know what you're doing is not right. Your mind just makes up justifications for it. So it's absolutely impossible for anyone's morality to ever differ from yours, and if they claim it does, they're just lying to themselves?
  - TheLogothete 11y ago
    I don't make up justifications for my actions. He said he blocks ads because he doesn't know if a link will lead to a page littered with ads, but that's not the case at all. He uses services which he obviously knows rely on ads to keep running, yet breaks their business model You guys use a business and refuse to abide to its terms of service. In what school of thought that is acceptable? In my country, you buy bus passes on the bus stop and you perforate it yourself when you get on the bus to signal that you've paid for your ride. You want to tell me I can get a free ride on the bus because it is not my job to make the bus company profitable. Are you serious?
    - lmm 11y ago
      > I don't make up justifications for my actions. He said he blocks ads because he doesn't know if a link will lead to a page littered with ads, but that's not the case at all. It's absolutely the case. I held off installing an ad-blocker for a long time, longer than most of my friends. If ads had not become more intrusive I would not have started blocking them. Sure, I'm getting other benefits, but not knowing if a link will lead to a page littered with ads is absolutely the cause of my blocking them; if that wasn't the case I wouldn't do it. > In my country, you buy bus passes on the bus stop and you perforate it yourself when you get on the bus to signal that you've paid for your ride. You want to tell me I can get a free ride on the bus because it is not my job to make the bus company profitable. No - you should follow the custom, practice and culture of bus-catching.
- lmm 11y ago
  > So it's not about "Hyperlinks don't come with a "this site is full of ads" marker". It's about you feeling entitled to other people's work for free, because... Oh yeah, because long time ago, the internet was not commercialized. It's the same thing. The reason that hyperlinks expect the site on the other end of the link to be freely available is because that's the custom and practice of the internet. > The fact that you made up a reason for your actions only shows that deep down, you know what you're doing is not right. So it's not about "it's simple to avoid advertising if you don't like it", now it's about "it's not right"? Who's making up their reasons now?

aninhumer 11y ago

>You use them, but deny their profit. It's not the consumer's job to make companies profitable. If their business model relies on people viewing ads when they don't have to, that's their problem.

TheLogothete 11y ago
It's a consumer's obligation to follow the provider's ToS. If you don't agree to those ToS, don't use the service.
- drdeca 11y ago
  I think that if a consumer is to be considered to be obligated to follow the ToS, they should be presented with the ToS /first/ , and also have it be of a length which is actually reasonable for a typical person to read. A person should generally not (there are exceptions in e.g. emergencies) be expected to agree to something without specifically choosing to agree to it, and knowing what they are "agreeing" to.
  - TheLogothete 11y ago
    I think it is perfectly plausible that everyone knows google, youtube, facebook, reddit, SO and other such sites rely on ads to operate. Yet people with adblock continuously use those services while blocking the business model which allows them to operate. It's not a case of loading a single page and not knowing what's there. You profit from those services every single day and knowingly harm their operations.
    - drdeca 11y ago
      Ok so again, I personally don't use adblock, so I do not, by using adblock, harm their operations. I don't know if you meant "you" as in me, or "you" as in the rhetorical "you", but I wanted to clarify that, in case you meant me in particular. Yes, it is true that one who frequently uses sites like google and youtube and such probably knows that those websites have ads, and rely on ad income to operate. This is separate from whether the person knows whether using an adblocker is forbidden by the ToS of the website. And I think this might be somewhere where you have changed what you are talking about when it is convenient to you? (which you have accused someone else of) In fact, from the ToS s that I have read, I don't think I have ever seen one that specifically forbids using an ad blocker while using the website! At least, as far as I can remember. Forbidding intentionally making false ad impressions, I have of course seen, but I do not remember any ToS forbidding using an ad blocker. So, case in point, I do not know that the google search ToS forbids using an ad blocker while visiting the site, and in fact it is my (weakly held) belief that it probably does not (but I could be wrong about that). I don't think one should be considered to have agreed to a ToS as a contract if it would be unreasonable to believe that the person truly did read and understand the ToS. If a person can reasonably be expected to know that what they did was against the ToS, despite it being unreasonable to believe that they read and understood all of the ToS, then that could make sense for them to be held to I suppose. But I don't think that the average person can be reasonably assumed to know that the ToS forbids using an ad blocker (and, in fact, I don't know that many ToS s do forbid using an ad blocker. I don't remember any of the one's I've looked at forbidding it after all). Unless one is specifically made aware of an agreement, I don't think they can be reasonably considered to have agreed to it. One cannot unknowingly agree. I run ads on my website, and I don't mind if users run an ad blocker while viewing it. (Though, I suppose its not much of a business, so that might make a difference there). So, to conclude: I don't think most ToS s have clauses which forbid the use of ad blocking on the site. I don't think one can reasonably expect a user to know that ad blocking is forbidden by the ToS unless they are specifically informed of it. I don't think users who have not knowingly entered into an agreement to not block ads on the site are obligated to not block ads on the site.