4 ms·

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

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
  I'm not saying they're comparable (in fact I explicitly said they aren't), I'm just saying that there's either more to it than "they didn't stop me" or you're applying your criterion inconsistently. And wasted bandwidth isn't the real issue, unless the business in question's only expense is bandwidth.
  - problems 10y ago
    > And wasted bandwidth isn't the real issue, unless the business in question's only expense is bandwidth. Well then what's the issue? Bandwidth is the only thing I'm costing them really, the only difference between me going there and me not going there is bandwidth. If I legitimately couldn't use the site due to a pay-wall I wouldn't go there. Unless there's some secret way to make me pay for content that I'd only consume if it's free?

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
I'm not saying they're comparable (in fact I explicitly said they aren't), I'm just saying that there's either more to it than "they didn't stop me" or you're applying your criterion inconsistently. And wasted bandwidth isn't the real issue, unless the business in question's only expense is bandwidth.
- problems 10y ago
  > And wasted bandwidth isn't the real issue, unless the business in question's only expense is bandwidth. Well then what's the issue? Bandwidth is the only thing I'm costing them really, the only difference between me going there and me not going there is bandwidth. If I legitimately couldn't use the site due to a pay-wall I wouldn't go there. Unless there's some secret way to make me pay for content that I'd only consume if it's free?