4 ms·

> Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? Practically: because it leads to a race to the bottom, lowering to their level, the world just gets worse and wor

by hsod 10y ago

> Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? Practically: because it leads to a race to the bottom, lowering to their level, the world just gets worse and worse Philosophically: because ethics are a fundamental part of who you are, and strangers acting unethically does not relieve you of their burdens

ubernostrum 10y ago
OK, so how far would you like to take that? Facebook will try to track me and my behavior, and tailor ads based on it, regardless of whether I'm a Facebook user and regardless of whether I'm logged in. In theory any link someone sends me might end up trying to connect to Facebook's advertising network and record information about my behavior. At what point do I "agree" to this? What do I get "in return" for this? What if it's a crappy article that I close right away? Or the page load takes too long and I close it before it finishes (but, in true form, the ad code would already have run)? Since I don't know until I've loaded the page -- at which point you think I have an ethical duty to let Facebook serve ads -- whether it will have ads at all, or whether they'll be Facebook ads, at what point do I find that out and have an opportunity, in your model, to decide I don't want to be a party to that? (in case you're wondering, the correct answer is "use an ad-blocker to pre-emptively ensure nobody can force ads on you without your agreement")
- hsod 10y ago
  This is an overly specific distraction. Accidentally or unwillingly loading FB resources doesn't come with any ethical obligations, obviously. I'm talking about being a Facebook user, as in maintaining a profile and logging on and using the site. My contention is that by affirmatively choosing to use their resources, an ethical obligation is created.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    I don't think I have any ethical obligation to Facebook whatsoever. My browser is my agent, not theirs. I can and do already modify lots of sites to hide cruft (like "social recommendations") I don't want to see; do you think I have an ethical obligation to consume a site exactly as its creator intended it to look? Do I only have an ethical obligation if the creator stands to somehow make money from it? What if what I'm blocking isn't an ad but is a referral link where they'd get paid if I go there and buy something? There is no coherent position which creates an ethical obligation to view sites in full and unmodified (especially given that one of the primary purposes of web browsers, historically, has been to mangle what a site sent to you into something that's actually a sensible and renderable document tree).
beefield 10y ago
I do agree when these strangers are living and breathing human beings. But when the stranger is an institution whose sole purpose of being and the only ethics defined by the owners of the institution (and even law?) is to extract as much net value from me as possible, I have difficulties understanding why I should still play with the rule book for good guys. If this makes me a bad person, so be it. Can't say I am too ashamed of that...

by hsod 10y ago

ubernostrum 10y ago

OK, so how far would you like to take that? Facebook will try to track me and my behavior, and tailor ads based on it, regardless of whether I'm a Facebook user and regardless of whether I'm logged in. In theory any link someone sends me might end up trying to connect to Facebook's advertising network and record information about my behavior. At what point do I "agree" to this? What do I get "in return" for this? What if it's a crappy article that I close right away? Or the page load takes too long and I close it before it finishes (but, in true form, the ad code would already have run)? Since I don't know until I've loaded the page -- at which point you think I have an ethical duty to let Facebook serve ads -- whether it will have ads at all, or whether they'll be Facebook ads, at what point do I find that out and have an opportunity, in your model, to decide I don't want to be a party to that? (in case you're wondering, the correct answer is "use an ad-blocker to pre-emptively ensure nobody can force ads on you without your agreement")

hsod 10y ago
This is an overly specific distraction. Accidentally or unwillingly loading FB resources doesn't come with any ethical obligations, obviously. I'm talking about being a Facebook user, as in maintaining a profile and logging on and using the site. My contention is that by affirmatively choosing to use their resources, an ethical obligation is created.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  I don't think I have any ethical obligation to Facebook whatsoever. My browser is my agent, not theirs. I can and do already modify lots of sites to hide cruft (like "social recommendations") I don't want to see; do you think I have an ethical obligation to consume a site exactly as its creator intended it to look? Do I only have an ethical obligation if the creator stands to somehow make money from it? What if what I'm blocking isn't an ad but is a referral link where they'd get paid if I go there and buy something? There is no coherent position which creates an ethical obligation to view sites in full and unmodified (especially given that one of the primary purposes of web browsers, historically, has been to mangle what a site sent to you into something that's actually a sensible and renderable document tree).

beefield 10y ago

I do agree when these strangers are living and breathing human beings. But when the stranger is an institution whose sole purpose of being and the only ethics defined by the owners of the institution (and even law?) is to extract as much net value from me as possible, I have difficulties understanding why I should still play with the rule book for good guys. If this makes me a bad person, so be it. Can't say I am too ashamed of that...