6 ms·

> my only issue is with people that think they are justified to consume the content no matter the desires of the producer Oh, I missed the bit where these peop

> my only issue is with people that think they are justified to consume the content no matter the desires of the producer Oh, I missed the bit where these people were hacking or forging credentials to get the content. > that once it's published it's fair game. Of course it is. Once you give me a newspaper I can cut out the articles I want - format shifting if you will. I simply can't duplicate them. HTML is intended to be interpreted and rendered to the client's specifications. Don't expect this to change, it was designed this way for a reason. If that's not what you want, distribute PNGs.

kbenson 11y ago
> Oh, I missed the bit where these people were hacking or forging credentials to get the content. That's okay, I seem to have missed that part where it's shown how that relates to my statement in any way. > Of course it is. Once you give me a newspaper I can cut out the articles I want - format shifting if you will. I simply can't duplicate them. That's after you've already gotten the material. You are addressing the method in which you consume, I am talking about your right (if not legally, morally) to consume. If you walk up to me and ask for my newspaper without offering compensation, and I say "sure, but you have to first look at this pamphlet I'll hand you with it", then I think in this example it is clear that throwing the pamphlet away prior to reading the paper is morally wrong. Where I think most people differ on this subject is how accurate that analogy is for consuming internet content. If you believe the implication is clear that in visiting a site and retrieving their content that they would like to grant permission to view it based on the either an implicit transaction or an explicit statement (such as here), then you probably fall on one side of this issue. If you believe that no such implicit understanding exists, or where made explicit it's invalid for some reason, you probably fall on the other side of this issue. For me, the arguments that fall along the lines of "once it's been sent I can do what I want" don't sit well because they feel anti-social in nature. We don't act that way with the people around us, why should be expect it to be entirely different just because we can't see their face? Unaccountability for poor behavior is a downside of anonymity, and something to to by mitigated, not accepted. > HTML is intended to be interpreted and rendered to the client's specifications. Don't expect this to change, it was designed this way for a reason. If that's not what you want, distribute PNGs. I don't think this really applies to my position in any way or the argument as I see it in any way.
- rwjwjuwjudf 11y ago
  > For me, the arguments that fall along the lines of "once it's been sent I can do what I want" don't sit well because they feel anti-social in nature. For me, guilt trips are anti-social in nature. And from a business perspective, they're a losing proposition, because over time people just stop feeling guilty.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    I'm not really sure how that applies. You'll have to define what you think is the guilt-trip, and how it's different than social pressure.that provides a positive effect. I see a loose social contract, but that's the same effect that prevents a lot of negative selfish behavior, so I see it as mostly positive. There are of course cases where you are pressured to conform for conformity's sake, and there is little or no benefit in much of that, but I don't think that applies here
    - rwjwjuwjudf 11y ago
      I think it's pretty simple, any time you're admonishing someone and telling them how they should behave, rather than how they have to behave, it's basically a guilt trip. It makes people feel guilt. This guilt is supposed to motivate actions you desire from the individual. It's fine if you have your morals, but your morals are not my morals. And it's a more effective argument to talk about yourself anyway: "I view ads because I believe it's a fair exchange for the publisher's content." So, while I'm kind of a hypocrite for saying you shouldn't guilt trip people, what I really mean is that I've found it's better to talk about my own morals than to tell people that I think they should have them.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        > any time you're admonishing someone and telling them how they should behave I tried very hard specifically to not do this. The only case where I put a specific label on someone else's behavior was in an example in which one party is not acting in good faith. Specifically, much of the comment was about the dichotomy of views, and whether you think that example even applies to the situation we are discussing. To be clear, I don't think someone who uses an ad-blocker is immoral unless they themselves believe what they are doing is wrong, because I don't believe it's possible to be be accidentally immoral (and if you believe what you are doing is fully justifiable, it's moral, regardless of whether it's seen as social acceptable or not). > It's fine if you have your morals, but your morals are not my morals. And it's a more effective argument to talk about yourself anyway: "I view ads because I believe it's a fair exchange for the publisher's content." That is exactly what I did. The portion of the comment where I actually examine a stance is prefixed with "For me", and is about my relation to that specific viewpoint, which itself isn't meant to be inclusive of the entire other side of the argument. I suspect you formed an initial impression of what I was trying to convey, and that colored your interpretation of my words. I urge you to go back and read my comment again, but keep in mind that my goal was firstly to provide what I thought was an accurate, non-accusatory assessment of the sides of the argument, and present them in a way where rational people could see the merits of each (and I may have fully failed in this), and then provide my own personal reasoning why one interpretation does not work for me. I guess that's why I was honestly confused when you started talking about a guilt trip, because that wasn't my intention at all (so I may have failed horribly in that respect).

kbenson 11y ago

> Oh, I missed the bit where these people were hacking or forging credentials to get the content. That's okay, I seem to have missed that part where it's shown how that relates to my statement in any way. > Of course it is. Once you give me a newspaper I can cut out the articles I want - format shifting if you will. I simply can't duplicate them. That's after you've already gotten the material. You are addressing the method in which you consume, I am talking about your right (if not legally, morally) to consume. If you walk up to me and ask for my newspaper without offering compensation, and I say "sure, but you have to first look at this pamphlet I'll hand you with it", then I think in this example it is clear that throwing the pamphlet away prior to reading the paper is morally wrong. Where I think most people differ on this subject is how accurate that analogy is for consuming internet content. If you believe the implication is clear that in visiting a site and retrieving their content that they would like to grant permission to view it based on the either an implicit transaction or an explicit statement (such as here), then you probably fall on one side of this issue. If you believe that no such implicit understanding exists, or where made explicit it's invalid for some reason, you probably fall on the other side of this issue. For me, the arguments that fall along the lines of "once it's been sent I can do what I want" don't sit well because they feel anti-social in nature. We don't act that way with the people around us, why should be expect it to be entirely different just because we can't see their face? Unaccountability for poor behavior is a downside of anonymity, and something to to by mitigated, not accepted. > HTML is intended to be interpreted and rendered to the client's specifications. Don't expect this to change, it was designed this way for a reason. If that's not what you want, distribute PNGs. I don't think this really applies to my position in any way or the argument as I see it in any way.

rwjwjuwjudf 11y ago
> For me, the arguments that fall along the lines of "once it's been sent I can do what I want" don't sit well because they feel anti-social in nature. For me, guilt trips are anti-social in nature. And from a business perspective, they're a losing proposition, because over time people just stop feeling guilty.
- kbenson 11y ago
  I'm not really sure how that applies. You'll have to define what you think is the guilt-trip, and how it's different than social pressure.that provides a positive effect. I see a loose social contract, but that's the same effect that prevents a lot of negative selfish behavior, so I see it as mostly positive. There are of course cases where you are pressured to conform for conformity's sake, and there is little or no benefit in much of that, but I don't think that applies here
  - rwjwjuwjudf 11y ago
    I think it's pretty simple, any time you're admonishing someone and telling them how they should behave, rather than how they have to behave, it's basically a guilt trip. It makes people feel guilt. This guilt is supposed to motivate actions you desire from the individual. It's fine if you have your morals, but your morals are not my morals. And it's a more effective argument to talk about yourself anyway: "I view ads because I believe it's a fair exchange for the publisher's content." So, while I'm kind of a hypocrite for saying you shouldn't guilt trip people, what I really mean is that I've found it's better to talk about my own morals than to tell people that I think they should have them.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      > any time you're admonishing someone and telling them how they should behave I tried very hard specifically to not do this. The only case where I put a specific label on someone else's behavior was in an example in which one party is not acting in good faith. Specifically, much of the comment was about the dichotomy of views, and whether you think that example even applies to the situation we are discussing. To be clear, I don't think someone who uses an ad-blocker is immoral unless they themselves believe what they are doing is wrong, because I don't believe it's possible to be be accidentally immoral (and if you believe what you are doing is fully justifiable, it's moral, regardless of whether it's seen as social acceptable or not). > It's fine if you have your morals, but your morals are not my morals. And it's a more effective argument to talk about yourself anyway: "I view ads because I believe it's a fair exchange for the publisher's content." That is exactly what I did. The portion of the comment where I actually examine a stance is prefixed with "For me", and is about my relation to that specific viewpoint, which itself isn't meant to be inclusive of the entire other side of the argument. I suspect you formed an initial impression of what I was trying to convey, and that colored your interpretation of my words. I urge you to go back and read my comment again, but keep in mind that my goal was firstly to provide what I thought was an accurate, non-accusatory assessment of the sides of the argument, and present them in a way where rational people could see the merits of each (and I may have fully failed in this), and then provide my own personal reasoning why one interpretation does not work for me. I guess that's why I was honestly confused when you started talking about a guilt trip, because that wasn't my intention at all (so I may have failed horribly in that respect).