4 ms·

So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? Because those aren't just little sites, but entire companies that have value solely because of ads. Take

So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? Because those aren't just little sites, but entire companies that have value solely because of ads. Take away ads and they don't exist.

na85 9y ago
Companies that violate my privacy, track me and harvest my data to sell to advertisers so that Zuckerberg can buy all the mansions around his to protect his privacy? I would be completely fine if Facebook and Google and whoever else ceased to exist.
serf 9y ago
>So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? No, not value-less, but I didn't agree to pay for their services with the total loss of my privacy on-line. (and one doesn't have to use any of those services in order to be spied upon by them)
- KGIII 9y ago
  One might argue that you do agree, when you make use of their services.
  - sanxiyn 9y ago
    No, Google terms of service does not forbid you from blocking Google ads. And no free rider argument please, I am perfectly willing to pay for Google's service. If Google wants to get paid, they can make Google Contributor available in my country. I already pay for YouTube Red.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Blocking is much different than fraudulently clicking.
      - sanxiyn 9y ago
        Google terms of service does not forbid users from producing invalid clicks either. (Point 1, it's called invalid, not fraudulent. Point 2, Google does forbid website owners, but not users.) I am just objecting to your statement that when one uses Google's service, one is making any sort of agreement that one wouldn't block ads or produce invalid clicks. There is no such agreement.
        KGIII 9y ago
        No, I'm sticking with fraudulent. The intent is to defraud. Even if you say there is no specific agreement, there's the morality issue. Your morals may allow you to essentially vandalize, mine do not. The agreement may not be written down, but I think it's covered in the 'don't be an ass' part of the social contract.
        fish_fan 9y ago
        It's not on me that clicks are considered meaningful—that's the site owner's problem.
        KGIII 9y ago
        "I did it, but it's not my responsibility." That's what I read from your reply. Suffice to say, we have different morals. And no, I don't have anything that is ad supported. I dislike the tracking and security implications, but not enough to alter my morality. This is morally similar to vandalism, in my opinion. If your okay with that, don't let me tell you how to live. I just can't justify harming people for something I can just block or ignore.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        kevmo314 9y ago
        Google implicitly forbids users by holding the website owner liable. Years ago, I had a small site that ran banner ads. A couple of users found the site really useful so they clicked on lots of ads thinking that it would help the site. Unsurprisingly, I got banned, even though my visitors had the best intentions.
taohansen 9y ago
it may surprise you to read but there are a non-zero percentage of people out there (inclusive me) who believe exactly the statement you just phrased as a question. these are companies which actively take advantage of the worst in all of us to deliver products that monopolize our time at the cost of calm, concentration, and patience.
iwdw 9y ago
>So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? I don't see anything wrong with this statement.

So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? Because those aren't just little sites, but entire companies that have value solely because of ads. Take away ads and they don't exist.

na85 9y ago

Companies that violate my privacy, track me and harvest my data to sell to advertisers so that Zuckerberg can buy all the mansions around his to protect his privacy? I would be completely fine if Facebook and Google and whoever else ceased to exist.

serf 9y ago

>So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? No, not value-less, but I didn't agree to pay for their services with the total loss of my privacy on-line. (and one doesn't have to use any of those services in order to be spied upon by them)

KGIII 9y ago
One might argue that you do agree, when you make use of their services.
- sanxiyn 9y ago
  No, Google terms of service does not forbid you from blocking Google ads. And no free rider argument please, I am perfectly willing to pay for Google's service. If Google wants to get paid, they can make Google Contributor available in my country. I already pay for YouTube Red.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Blocking is much different than fraudulently clicking.
    - sanxiyn 9y ago
      Google terms of service does not forbid users from producing invalid clicks either. (Point 1, it's called invalid, not fraudulent. Point 2, Google does forbid website owners, but not users.) I am just objecting to your statement that when one uses Google's service, one is making any sort of agreement that one wouldn't block ads or produce invalid clicks. There is no such agreement.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        No, I'm sticking with fraudulent. The intent is to defraud. Even if you say there is no specific agreement, there's the morality issue. Your morals may allow you to essentially vandalize, mine do not. The agreement may not be written down, but I think it's covered in the 'don't be an ass' part of the social contract.
        fish_fan 9y ago
        It's not on me that clicks are considered meaningful—that's the site owner's problem.
        KGIII 9y ago
        "I did it, but it's not my responsibility." That's what I read from your reply. Suffice to say, we have different morals. And no, I don't have anything that is ad supported. I dislike the tracking and security implications, but not enough to alter my morality. This is morally similar to vandalism, in my opinion. If your okay with that, don't let me tell you how to live. I just can't justify harming people for something I can just block or ignore.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - kevmo314 9y ago
        Google implicitly forbids users by holding the website owner liable. Years ago, I had a small site that ran banner ads. A couple of users found the site really useful so they clicked on lots of ads thinking that it would help the site. Unsurprisingly, I got banned, even though my visitors had the best intentions.

taohansen 9y ago

it may surprise you to read but there are a non-zero percentage of people out there (inclusive me) who believe exactly the statement you just phrased as a question. these are companies which actively take advantage of the worst in all of us to deliver products that monopolize our time at the cost of calm, concentration, and patience.

iwdw 9y ago

>So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? I don't see anything wrong with this statement.