3 ms·

> It's not that hard to ignore ads Speak for yourself, especially after years of having them blocked I find them incredibly distracting when I look at someone

> It's not that hard to ignore ads Speak for yourself, especially after years of having them blocked I find them incredibly distracting when I look at someone else's screen. > I don't feel entitled to their content for free I don't either, but if your server will give it to me, I'll take it. If they wanted it secured, they should have used a pay wall. That's their fault, not my problem. If you give it to my computer, I get to decide how it's displayed. Ultimately, it's my hardware, if it does anything I don't like, I have a right to fix it and that right of ownership trumps any non-existent contract in my book.

thomaskcr 10y ago
It's just an honor system thing. If you feel entitled to consume their content that they pay to host while making sure they don't get paid for it then that's how you feel and just like you said you fully have that ability and control. They do offer a way you can pay to not have ads, and they offer a way for people who don't want the hassle of a paywall to consume their content by viewing ads. There will always be people who just don't feel others should be paid for the services they offer. In my opinion this is just like grabbing a big handful of Halloween candy that was left out without a sign saying "take one", there's nothing preventing you from taking all you want but the expectation is that you just take one so everyone can have some.
- problems 10y ago
  It's not so much entitlement as it is possibility, if I didn't have the possibility, I wouldn't demand it or feel like I deserved it. Because I have the possibility, I can do it. So I do. > In my opinion this is just like grabbing a big handful of Halloween candy that was left out without a sign saying "take one", there's nothing preventing you from taking all you want but the expectation is that you just take one so everyone can have some. Not really, I don't own the candy or anything about it. I do own my computer. Maybe it's just interacting with a machine that you own like that I've heard it makes most people more utilitarian.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    Is being able to do it without breaking any laws (which I assume is what you mean by possibility) really your criterion for ethical behavior?
    - problems 10y ago
      Nah, the legal thing doesn't even come in, even if it breaks laws I'd still do it. The possibility means lack of preventative measures on their part, like a pay wall or allowing only some custom TPM-based browser which forces the viewing of ads. I own my hardware, it does what I tell it. That's about as far as the ethical side of this goes. Ad companies getting to invade my privacy and send me malware is certainly not ethical. Especially if they use my own hardware against me to do so. If they don't play by any rules, neither do I. So when it comes to getting annoying ads and their related problems out of my face, anything goes.
      - johncolanduoni 10y ago
        Ah, so if for example your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you think it's fine to steal his stuff? I'm not saying that's the same thing as blocking ads (not even close) but it sure seems to fit your "lack of preventive measures" criterion for ethical behavior.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        You're ignoring that the web server is configured on purpose to give these things away without asking for payment. If your friend is standing there in his house, and when you ask to borrow his stuff he says yes and hands it to you, that's a lot closer. It's not just a lack of prevention. It's a purposeful, deliberate choice to send this content even if you're not paying or loading the ads.
        10y ago
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > In my opinion this is just like grabbing a big handful of Halloween candy that was left out without a sign saying "take one" No, that would be a DoS attack. Browsing without ads is taking the same amount of candy anyone else does. At worst it's ignoring the stack of flyers next to the candy bowl.
  - problems 10y ago
    That's actually a really good comparison, blocking ads doesn't prevent anyone else from viewing the content, which is really the problem with the taking all the candy. At worst, it's like the candy owner sitting there saying "if you don't pay for this free candy, I'm going to take it away".

thomaskcr 10y ago

It's just an honor system thing. If you feel entitled to consume their content that they pay to host while making sure they don't get paid for it then that's how you feel and just like you said you fully have that ability and control. They do offer a way you can pay to not have ads, and they offer a way for people who don't want the hassle of a paywall to consume their content by viewing ads. There will always be people who just don't feel others should be paid for the services they offer. In my opinion this is just like grabbing a big handful of Halloween candy that was left out without a sign saying "take one", there's nothing preventing you from taking all you want but the expectation is that you just take one so everyone can have some.

problems 10y ago
It's not so much entitlement as it is possibility, if I didn't have the possibility, I wouldn't demand it or feel like I deserved it. Because I have the possibility, I can do it. So I do. > In my opinion this is just like grabbing a big handful of Halloween candy that was left out without a sign saying "take one", there's nothing preventing you from taking all you want but the expectation is that you just take one so everyone can have some. Not really, I don't own the candy or anything about it. I do own my computer. Maybe it's just interacting with a machine that you own like that I've heard it makes most people more utilitarian.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  Is being able to do it without breaking any laws (which I assume is what you mean by possibility) really your criterion for ethical behavior?
  - problems 10y ago
    Nah, the legal thing doesn't even come in, even if it breaks laws I'd still do it. The possibility means lack of preventative measures on their part, like a pay wall or allowing only some custom TPM-based browser which forces the viewing of ads. I own my hardware, it does what I tell it. That's about as far as the ethical side of this goes. Ad companies getting to invade my privacy and send me malware is certainly not ethical. Especially if they use my own hardware against me to do so. If they don't play by any rules, neither do I. So when it comes to getting annoying ads and their related problems out of my face, anything goes.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      Ah, so if for example your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you think it's fine to steal his stuff? I'm not saying that's the same thing as blocking ads (not even close) but it sure seems to fit your "lack of preventive measures" criterion for ethical behavior.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        You're ignoring that the web server is configured on purpose to give these things away without asking for payment. If your friend is standing there in his house, and when you ask to borrow his stuff he says yes and hands it to you, that's a lot closer. It's not just a lack of prevention. It's a purposeful, deliberate choice to send this content even if you're not paying or loading the ads.
        10y ago
Dylan16807 10y ago
> In my opinion this is just like grabbing a big handful of Halloween candy that was left out without a sign saying "take one" No, that would be a DoS attack. Browsing without ads is taking the same amount of candy anyone else does. At worst it's ignoring the stack of flyers next to the candy bowl.
- problems 10y ago
  That's actually a really good comparison, blocking ads doesn't prevent anyone else from viewing the content, which is really the problem with the taking all the candy. At worst, it's like the candy owner sitting there saying "if you don't pay for this free candy, I'm going to take it away".