3 ms·
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 yo
by 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 agoIt'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]