3 ms·

I am also surprised at all the hate against ads. Yes, there are some bad ones (disrupting, malware etc.), but how does that justify you blocking all ads (and th

I am also surprised at all the hate against ads. Yes, there are some bad ones (disrupting, malware etc.), but how does that justify you blocking all ads (and thereby robbing websites of their only legitimate source of income)? As Immanuel Kant said (loosely translated): Act in such a way that you actions could serve as the foundation for a general legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative I.e. "if there are some bad ads, nobody should have to look at any ads" would be a bad law.

jeena 10y ago
1. All ads are bad 2. Closing your eyes is not the same as robbing
- f_allwein 10y ago
  Ok,then how should websites/ search engines/ social networks finance themselves in your opinion?
  - jeena 10y ago
    How is that a problem for me to solve? They have to find a way which is morally ok and still pays enough without pissing off people.
Falkon1313 10y ago
Browsers added built-in popup blockers and the option to disable flash for just this reason - to enable users to block only the bad behavior. Well-behaved ads would continue to work just fine. But the advertisers completely ignored that very clear message. Rather than avoiding bad behavior and being good citizens of the society, they instead found ways to circumvent the blocks, achieve the same effects, and make things worse. And now they want us to feel sorry for them. To feel guilty for not letting them victimize us with their bad behavior. Blocking all ads is a reasonable response. We gave them a chance to behave. They blew it. Besides, if their ads have, (hypothetical number) just a 3% chance of serving malware that might cost $1000 in time (or otherwise) to repair, then each ad would cost each consumer (on average) $30. So who's robbing who? (Admittedly 3%/$1000 are probably high numbers, but arguing that is no longer arguing whether the advertisers are committing an offense, just arguing the degree of the offense.)

jeena 10y ago

1. All ads are bad 2. Closing your eyes is not the same as robbing

f_allwein 10y ago
Ok,then how should websites/ search engines/ social networks finance themselves in your opinion?
- jeena 10y ago
  How is that a problem for me to solve? They have to find a way which is morally ok and still pays enough without pissing off people.

Falkon1313 10y ago

Browsers added built-in popup blockers and the option to disable flash for just this reason - to enable users to block only the bad behavior. Well-behaved ads would continue to work just fine. But the advertisers completely ignored that very clear message. Rather than avoiding bad behavior and being good citizens of the society, they instead found ways to circumvent the blocks, achieve the same effects, and make things worse. And now they want us to feel sorry for them. To feel guilty for not letting them victimize us with their bad behavior. Blocking all ads is a reasonable response. We gave them a chance to behave. They blew it. Besides, if their ads have, (hypothetical number) just a 3% chance of serving malware that might cost $1000 in time (or otherwise) to repair, then each ad would cost each consumer (on average) $30. So who's robbing who? (Admittedly 3%/$1000 are probably high numbers, but arguing that is no longer arguing whether the advertisers are committing an offense, just arguing the degree of the offense.)