4 ms·

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 possibi

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.
      - ahartman00 10y ago
        "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" Closer. Its more like if your friend says you can use his car, but you need to pay him $x per mile. So you use an odometer changing device to make it look like you didnt actually use it.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        Nah. The sites are very deliberately not charging because they want more users. An analogy that involves a bill isn't appropriate.
        ahartman00 10y ago
        True. But they can only afford to not charge because of the ads. I guess we will see how this plays out :)
    - problems 10y ago
      Stealing his stuff results in a direct loss for him, rendering a page you were already given without a few components isn't remotely comparable. Maybe a better analogy would be to walk through his lawn if he didn't put a fence up. This probably does about as much damage to his lawn as bandwidth would be wasted on you as an ad blocker.
      - johncolanduoni 10y ago

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.
    - ahartman00 10y ago
      "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" Closer. Its more like if your friend says you can use his car, but you need to pay him $x per mile. So you use an odometer changing device to make it look like you didnt actually use it.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        Nah. The sites are very deliberately not charging because they want more users. An analogy that involves a bill isn't appropriate.
        ahartman00 10y ago
        True. But they can only afford to not charge because of the ads. I guess we will see how this plays out :)
  - problems 10y ago
    Stealing his stuff results in a direct loss for him, rendering a page you were already given without a few components isn't remotely comparable. Maybe a better analogy would be to walk through his lawn if he didn't put a fence up. This probably does about as much damage to his lawn as bandwidth would be wasted on you as an ad blocker.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago