4 ms·

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but what makes you different from someone that walks out of cabs without paying because "cab drivers are dangerous and it's

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but what makes you different from someone that walks out of cabs without paying because "cab drivers are dangerous and it's inconvenient to have to pay after i'm at my location"?

tremon 10y ago
Because you are hogging the cabbie's time and car. The potential income lost by having a cab drive you around for free is several orders of magnitude above the digital version. Now, comparing it to free-riding a subway/bus service on the other hand...
- Klathmon 10y ago
  Well, let's compare it, because that is a much better comparison! Every time i bring it up i get downvoted, but why is blocking ads but still consuming the content okay? I'm genuinely curious. To me it really feels like stealing. Like sneaking into a movie theater/concert/amusement park without paying, or like you said free-riding a subway/bus. And when looked at through that lens, many of the excuses people make seem comical. (Ads make pages slow, they are ugly to look at, I don't agree with the business model). To me those excuses sound like saying "I don't think the movie is worth it, so i'm just not going to pay" while walking into the theater, or walking into a concert without paying because "waiting in line to get a ticket takes too long, so i just won't". I'm hoping to have an actual conversation here and figure out why I feel so differently about this than many of the people on here do. What am I missing?
  - marcusarmstrong 10y ago
    It's a stream of bytes sent to my computer. I have the right to look at as many or as few of them as I wish.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      I understand that you have the capability of doing that, but why do you have the right to do that? Why is it that you morally think it's okay to just consume content others have created without paying?
      - coldpie 10y ago
        I think publishers broke the moral contract first by making the distribution of malware and supporting Internet scams their primary business model. Once they broke the moral contract, we responded by developing ad blockers to protect ourselves from their maliciousness. I think if publishers stopped distributing malware, misleading ads, and Internet scams, then there would be far less demand for ad blockers. They created the problem, it's up to them to fix it. Unlike a subway ride, it's impossible to tell whether a website has ads or not before you visit it. So I can't know whether I've violated the morals you're talking about until I already have done it. I think publishers are welcome to create adblock-blockers, and I don't have any interest in working around them. I suspect it's not a feasible business model, but that's their problem, not mine.
        Klathmon 10y ago
        > I think publishers are welcome to create adblock-blockers, and I don't have any interest in working around them. And i'm fine with that as well. If you want to block ads that's cool with me, but don't expect to get the content as well.
        type0 10y ago
        You see, there is a problem calling website pages "content", unless I know what that articles contains there is no way for me to know if it is of any value or not. Serving malicious ads and slowing down my internet speed just adds insult to the injury. I don't think it's okay to block adblockers, this is equivalent to discrimination IRL (e.g not letting someone into the restaurant because of their religion or skin color etc). If they want to get payed by the readers, there's always subscription model (lock it behind the paywall), don't discriminate me because of the software I'm using.
  - tremon 10y ago
    I'm not going to speak for anyone else on HN, but for me and most people around me, blocking ads while still consuming content is normal practice. Do you mute the TV, or leave the room during commercial breaks? Commercial TV is also funded by advertising, so if your position is that blocking ads is wrong, will you also argue that it is morally wrong to not watch TV commercials? For me, blocking ads is a form of civil disobedience: I disagree with the predatory tactics of the ad industry, so I feel morally obligated not to support them. Arguing your case like it is just "consumers vs poor publishers" is ignoring the negative effects that a third party has on both the publishers and the consumers, and dismissing those arguments as "comical" might be part of the reason why it's so alien to you. It's the same as the case against music piracy: those arguments are also framed as "consumers vs poor artists" while completely ignoring the effects of the copyright-holding businesses. Also, I don't think many people will tell you that they have a legal right to do so. The legal argument boils down to "there's no law against it", which is a different assertion than "there's an explicit law supporting me". Most people will instead tell you that they have a moral right to protect their computer or their life from the shady practices of advertisers. For a more extreme viewpoint (but still one I can get behind), I'll gladly refer you to http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-...
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      See, I don't think you are morally obligated to "view" any ads, just that you shouldn't block them. I don't generally mute the tv during ads, but i will fast forward sometimes if i'm watching a recording. And while I don't think anyone should feel obligated to view ads, blocking them deprives the content creators of income, which means a bigger push for other forms of income which I feel are pretty much universally worse (paywalled content, native advertising, in-form advertising which is non-targeted and quickly out of date, etc...). It's a bit of a fine line i guess. Blocking them outright is too far, but scrolling past them without looking is more than fine. It's kind of weird, and i'll be the first to admit that it might be hypocritical to say that, but it's what i feel. But as for a "solution" (but obviously not a perfect one), I've found Google Contributor to be a fantastic service. It's a system that basically lets you "bid" for advertising space the same way the ads do, and if you "win" the bid, you don't see an ad and a portion of your monthly fee goes to the site owner.
  - ManlyBread 10y ago
    >why is blocking ads but still consuming the content okay? The alternative is to turn off the adblocker and leave your computer vulnerable to malware. It's an "either me or them" scenario, except it's caused by the irresponsibility of the other side. Why take the risk for someone else's profit? There's nothing positive to gain from this and you can also add performance issues and actual problems with finding information or navigating the website. >many of the excuses people make seem comical. >Ads make pages slow I suppose it was a while since you had the pleasure to browse a modern website on an older device. >they are ugly to look at Why is this not a valid point in your opinion? I find it that ugly, cringeworthy ads make it harder to focus on the actual content of the website, especially if these are animated. >I don't agree with the business model And I have the very rare occasion to effectively demonstrate my disagreement in a way that affects the company, unlike TV or printed press where I can do nothing about the ads served.
    - GrinningFool 10y ago
      The difference from tv is that if you mute the ad, the provider still gets paid. What I don't see there is an explanation of why "I don't like the ads/privacy risks/other and therefore will not use this site" is not an option under consideration? As an ad block user I can't answer the question myself, but it's still a valid question.
elros 10y ago
I own the car.
lmm 10y ago
The custom and practice of the web has always been that publicly accessible pages are served without payment, and the user agent (maybe a browser, maybe a script, maybe a screenreader, maybe something else) is entitled to render a page in any way or none - users might have custom stylesheets, might or might not have support for certain elements or formats. When you put content on the web that's what you sign up for.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  > entitled I don't think this is the correct word (and it definitely enforces publishers negative preconceived notions), but they can't be relying on an untrusted party (browsers) to enforce their business model. As you put it, the nature of the internet is that user agents are able to render it however they wish.
ManlyBread 10y ago
Because in this case you're the cab driver and you get to decide who or what will you transport.
type0 10y ago
What makes you different from someone that walks on the street and looks on all the advertisements and neon lights from shops, casinos and restaurants without paying? Without paying, you say!?

tremon 10y ago

Because you are hogging the cabbie's time and car. The potential income lost by having a cab drive you around for free is several orders of magnitude above the digital version. Now, comparing it to free-riding a subway/bus service on the other hand...

Klathmon 10y ago
Well, let's compare it, because that is a much better comparison! Every time i bring it up i get downvoted, but why is blocking ads but still consuming the content okay? I'm genuinely curious. To me it really feels like stealing. Like sneaking into a movie theater/concert/amusement park without paying, or like you said free-riding a subway/bus. And when looked at through that lens, many of the excuses people make seem comical. (Ads make pages slow, they are ugly to look at, I don't agree with the business model). To me those excuses sound like saying "I don't think the movie is worth it, so i'm just not going to pay" while walking into the theater, or walking into a concert without paying because "waiting in line to get a ticket takes too long, so i just won't". I'm hoping to have an actual conversation here and figure out why I feel so differently about this than many of the people on here do. What am I missing?
- marcusarmstrong 10y ago
  It's a stream of bytes sent to my computer. I have the right to look at as many or as few of them as I wish.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    I understand that you have the capability of doing that, but why do you have the right to do that? Why is it that you morally think it's okay to just consume content others have created without paying?
    - coldpie 10y ago
      I think publishers broke the moral contract first by making the distribution of malware and supporting Internet scams their primary business model. Once they broke the moral contract, we responded by developing ad blockers to protect ourselves from their maliciousness. I think if publishers stopped distributing malware, misleading ads, and Internet scams, then there would be far less demand for ad blockers. They created the problem, it's up to them to fix it. Unlike a subway ride, it's impossible to tell whether a website has ads or not before you visit it. So I can't know whether I've violated the morals you're talking about until I already have done it. I think publishers are welcome to create adblock-blockers, and I don't have any interest in working around them. I suspect it's not a feasible business model, but that's their problem, not mine.
      - Klathmon 10y ago
        > I think publishers are welcome to create adblock-blockers, and I don't have any interest in working around them. And i'm fine with that as well. If you want to block ads that's cool with me, but don't expect to get the content as well.
        type0 10y ago
        You see, there is a problem calling website pages "content", unless I know what that articles contains there is no way for me to know if it is of any value or not. Serving malicious ads and slowing down my internet speed just adds insult to the injury. I don't think it's okay to block adblockers, this is equivalent to discrimination IRL (e.g not letting someone into the restaurant because of their religion or skin color etc). If they want to get payed by the readers, there's always subscription model (lock it behind the paywall), don't discriminate me because of the software I'm using.
- tremon 10y ago
  I'm not going to speak for anyone else on HN, but for me and most people around me, blocking ads while still consuming content is normal practice. Do you mute the TV, or leave the room during commercial breaks? Commercial TV is also funded by advertising, so if your position is that blocking ads is wrong, will you also argue that it is morally wrong to not watch TV commercials? For me, blocking ads is a form of civil disobedience: I disagree with the predatory tactics of the ad industry, so I feel morally obligated not to support them. Arguing your case like it is just "consumers vs poor publishers" is ignoring the negative effects that a third party has on both the publishers and the consumers, and dismissing those arguments as "comical" might be part of the reason why it's so alien to you. It's the same as the case against music piracy: those arguments are also framed as "consumers vs poor artists" while completely ignoring the effects of the copyright-holding businesses. Also, I don't think many people will tell you that they have a legal right to do so. The legal argument boils down to "there's no law against it", which is a different assertion than "there's an explicit law supporting me". Most people will instead tell you that they have a moral right to protect their computer or their life from the shady practices of advertisers. For a more extreme viewpoint (but still one I can get behind), I'll gladly refer you to http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-...
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    See, I don't think you are morally obligated to "view" any ads, just that you shouldn't block them. I don't generally mute the tv during ads, but i will fast forward sometimes if i'm watching a recording. And while I don't think anyone should feel obligated to view ads, blocking them deprives the content creators of income, which means a bigger push for other forms of income which I feel are pretty much universally worse (paywalled content, native advertising, in-form advertising which is non-targeted and quickly out of date, etc...). It's a bit of a fine line i guess. Blocking them outright is too far, but scrolling past them without looking is more than fine. It's kind of weird, and i'll be the first to admit that it might be hypocritical to say that, but it's what i feel. But as for a "solution" (but obviously not a perfect one), I've found Google Contributor to be a fantastic service. It's a system that basically lets you "bid" for advertising space the same way the ads do, and if you "win" the bid, you don't see an ad and a portion of your monthly fee goes to the site owner.
- ManlyBread 10y ago
  >why is blocking ads but still consuming the content okay? The alternative is to turn off the adblocker and leave your computer vulnerable to malware. It's an "either me or them" scenario, except it's caused by the irresponsibility of the other side. Why take the risk for someone else's profit? There's nothing positive to gain from this and you can also add performance issues and actual problems with finding information or navigating the website. >many of the excuses people make seem comical. >Ads make pages slow I suppose it was a while since you had the pleasure to browse a modern website on an older device. >they are ugly to look at Why is this not a valid point in your opinion? I find it that ugly, cringeworthy ads make it harder to focus on the actual content of the website, especially if these are animated. >I don't agree with the business model And I have the very rare occasion to effectively demonstrate my disagreement in a way that affects the company, unlike TV or printed press where I can do nothing about the ads served.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    The difference from tv is that if you mute the ad, the provider still gets paid. What I don't see there is an explanation of why "I don't like the ads/privacy risks/other and therefore will not use this site" is not an option under consideration? As an ad block user I can't answer the question myself, but it's still a valid question.

elros 10y ago

I own the car.

lmm 10y ago

The custom and practice of the web has always been that publicly accessible pages are served without payment, and the user agent (maybe a browser, maybe a script, maybe a screenreader, maybe something else) is entitled to render a page in any way or none - users might have custom stylesheets, might or might not have support for certain elements or formats. When you put content on the web that's what you sign up for.

madeofpalk 10y ago
> entitled I don't think this is the correct word (and it definitely enforces publishers negative preconceived notions), but they can't be relying on an untrusted party (browsers) to enforce their business model. As you put it, the nature of the internet is that user agents are able to render it however they wish.

ManlyBread 10y ago

Because in this case you're the cab driver and you get to decide who or what will you transport.

type0 10y ago

What makes you different from someone that walks on the street and looks on all the advertisements and neon lights from shops, casinos and restaurants without paying? Without paying, you say!?