6 ms·

Because I wanted to see the content? Is that what you're really asking? Am I supposed to feel some kind of moral obligation to see the ads just because they wan

Because I wanted to see the content? Is that what you're really asking? Am I supposed to feel some kind of moral obligation to see the ads just because they want me to, even if my browser is perfectly capable of blocking them? Sorry, but it's _my_ computer. I control it. Publishers don't get to decide what it does or does not do. I do.

kodablah 11y ago
I think they mean: Why do you want to consume content from companies like that?
- ultramancool 11y ago
  The quality of their publishing practice doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the content.
manigandham 11y ago
Moral obligation is the reason to not take/copy other things. This is the same as music/movie piracy. Basically you're doing it because you dont have the legal/physical repercussions of taking other things in life.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  Not quite - with piracy you get a modified full copy of the content from a non-original source. This non-original source produces an unlicensed copy of the content. This is the illegal or "immoral" or what have you part of piracy. With ad blocking you go right to the original source, ask them for a copy of the content, they give it to you, then choose how you're going to render it. They gave you the content. They never made me accept a license agreement on it. I can choose to render it however I damn well please because that's up to my computer. Does IE produce an immoral rendering of the page because it doesn't support a CSS feature they use? What if I load the page in Lynx and don't see ads, is that immoral?
  - tripzilch 11y ago
    I kind of doubt it's even legally possible for a copyright license to only allow use if people also consume the ads linked with the content. Might depend on your country (or state). But it doesn't really seem like a legally enforceable condition to me. Not to mention all the practical snags of such a demand. For instance, these ads are generated real-time and are targeted towards the user. Would yielding to that be part of the same demand? If you block or shield against targeting, or even in a private tab, or clearing cookies on exit. You could make the same argument that, this too deprives publishers (part) of their income because tracking is less effective. What if the ads contain tooling for realtime monitoring how long you are "active" on the page, which parts your mouse hovers on, etc? Are we morally obliged that we run that code and (truthfully) submit that data as well? (Rhetorical question obviously)
  - manigandham 11y ago
    So if someone takes something without permission, it's ok to take it from them because they already did the original "taking"? Morality is tied to intention. If you can only access something with a screen reader and can't see ads, that's fine. If you're intentionally removing ads while full well knowing what they are for, that's immoral. Then again morality is subjective to the individual so perhaps this is better described as basic ethics.
TheLogothete 11y ago
The publisher told you that if you want to see the content, you have to see ads too. They are very explicit about it. You are not entitled to see the content. If it was just an adblock issue, I can see the logic of clicking on links and blocking the ads. I do not condone it, but I can see that some people might find it logical. BUT the publisher intercepted you and said "you cannot continue with adblock turned on". Why do you think you have the right to see that content without seeing the ads when the publisher explicitly said you can't do that? When he wastes your bandwidth with ads, he is the devil, but when you waste his bandwidth, it's perfectly OK? Technical ability has nothing to do with it. You have the technical ability to stab someone with a knife. You have the technical ability to download a book, copy it and then distribute it. Is that OK too? Just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  > When he wastes your bandwidth with ads, he is the devil, but when you waste his bandwidth, it's perfectly OK? Yes. He can try to stop me, just as I try to stop him. This is the game. It's an antagonistic relationship. There's nothing inherently "wrong" about either side - it just is how it is. > You are not entitled to see the content. If their server gives me HTML containing the content, it's up to _my_ computer what to render, therefore I am entitled to see or not see whatever is in that response. I am very entitled to use of my own computer. They do not get to decide what happens once their content is on my end. If I were sending malicious code to their server in order to remove the adds or similar, you'd have an argument but since it's happening entirely on my computer, you don't. The entitlement to how my computer renders it rests entirely on me.
  - TheLogothete 11y ago
    This is not ad blocking. They told you they don't want your visit and you still go ahead and consume the content. This is not a game. You just like to freeload and when somebody calls your bull, you throw a tantrum.
    - deleted 11y ago

kodablah 11y ago

I think they mean: Why do you want to consume content from companies like that?

ultramancool 11y ago
The quality of their publishing practice doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the content.

manigandham 11y ago

Moral obligation is the reason to not take/copy other things. This is the same as music/movie piracy. Basically you're doing it because you dont have the legal/physical repercussions of taking other things in life.

ultramancool 11y ago
Not quite - with piracy you get a modified full copy of the content from a non-original source. This non-original source produces an unlicensed copy of the content. This is the illegal or "immoral" or what have you part of piracy. With ad blocking you go right to the original source, ask them for a copy of the content, they give it to you, then choose how you're going to render it. They gave you the content. They never made me accept a license agreement on it. I can choose to render it however I damn well please because that's up to my computer. Does IE produce an immoral rendering of the page because it doesn't support a CSS feature they use? What if I load the page in Lynx and don't see ads, is that immoral?
- tripzilch 11y ago
  I kind of doubt it's even legally possible for a copyright license to only allow use if people also consume the ads linked with the content. Might depend on your country (or state). But it doesn't really seem like a legally enforceable condition to me. Not to mention all the practical snags of such a demand. For instance, these ads are generated real-time and are targeted towards the user. Would yielding to that be part of the same demand? If you block or shield against targeting, or even in a private tab, or clearing cookies on exit. You could make the same argument that, this too deprives publishers (part) of their income because tracking is less effective. What if the ads contain tooling for realtime monitoring how long you are "active" on the page, which parts your mouse hovers on, etc? Are we morally obliged that we run that code and (truthfully) submit that data as well? (Rhetorical question obviously)
- manigandham 11y ago
  So if someone takes something without permission, it's ok to take it from them because they already did the original "taking"? Morality is tied to intention. If you can only access something with a screen reader and can't see ads, that's fine. If you're intentionally removing ads while full well knowing what they are for, that's immoral. Then again morality is subjective to the individual so perhaps this is better described as basic ethics.

TheLogothete 11y ago

The publisher told you that if you want to see the content, you have to see ads too. They are very explicit about it. You are not entitled to see the content. If it was just an adblock issue, I can see the logic of clicking on links and blocking the ads. I do not condone it, but I can see that some people might find it logical. BUT the publisher intercepted you and said "you cannot continue with adblock turned on". Why do you think you have the right to see that content without seeing the ads when the publisher explicitly said you can't do that? When he wastes your bandwidth with ads, he is the devil, but when you waste his bandwidth, it's perfectly OK? Technical ability has nothing to do with it. You have the technical ability to stab someone with a knife. You have the technical ability to download a book, copy it and then distribute it. Is that OK too? Just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.

ultramancool 11y ago
> When he wastes your bandwidth with ads, he is the devil, but when you waste his bandwidth, it's perfectly OK? Yes. He can try to stop me, just as I try to stop him. This is the game. It's an antagonistic relationship. There's nothing inherently "wrong" about either side - it just is how it is. > You are not entitled to see the content. If their server gives me HTML containing the content, it's up to _my_ computer what to render, therefore I am entitled to see or not see whatever is in that response. I am very entitled to use of my own computer. They do not get to decide what happens once their content is on my end. If I were sending malicious code to their server in order to remove the adds or similar, you'd have an argument but since it's happening entirely on my computer, you don't. The entitlement to how my computer renders it rests entirely on me.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  This is not ad blocking. They told you they don't want your visit and you still go ahead and consume the content. This is not a game. You just like to freeload and when somebody calls your bull, you throw a tantrum.
  - deleted 11y ago