4 ms·

> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use Adblock software on their browser. I don't see this as selfish, not when it comes online ads.

by Hoasi 8y ago

> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use Adblock software on their browser. I don't see this as selfish, not when it comes online ads. I think this "moral" argument is pushed by people who generally benefit from ads and have less incentive to considers ethical issues raised by ad tech. From their perspective, advertising is free money. Publishing has a cost and people's work and effort should be compensated, all right. But you are not ripping someone off just because they picked the wrong revenue model. You are just protecting yourself by preventing your data being used by thirds parties without your consent. And you should. And besides, there are ethical ads options. Given the choice, I would support publishers using these ads, in absence of a better solution.

gwbas1c 8y ago
A different way to think about it is to think of the web. Back when ads were just static banners, I never saw a point in blocking them. Then, ads started actively degrading my browsing experience. Some ads would make a web page load slowly, or not load at all. Other ads would cover up the page that I was reading. I can assume that the same can be said for some web radio ads?
krelian 8y ago
If there was a paywall and it was priced too high in your view , what would you do? I assume you'd simply decide not to pay and move on. Online ads are essentially an honor system: I'll let you consume my content but you'll need to watch ads. Yet here you decide to circumvent the system instead of just walking away. Why?
- lelandbatey 8y ago
  The idea that there's an "honor system" always surprises me. Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads? That's not how ads work: nearly universally, what I'm told is "HEY, come get this great free content!" But when I reach for the content it's snatched away and the "but first a word from our sponsors" diatribe begins. You can't have it both ways, either the content is free and I can consume it on my terms, or inform me of what's expected for this exchange and I'll make a decision about whether I want to pay the cost or not.
  - krelian 8y ago
    >Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads? Does it need to be stated? When I leave my bike outside where is it stated that it's mine and you are not allowed to take a ride? Where is it stated that you shouldn't have loud conversations in the theater? You know full well that ads pay for the content but choose to play the ignorant. You're doing this simply because you can and there are no consequences and, as of now, those that do watch the ads are financing the service you consume.

by Hoasi 8y ago

gwbas1c 8y ago

A different way to think about it is to think of the web. Back when ads were just static banners, I never saw a point in blocking them. Then, ads started actively degrading my browsing experience. Some ads would make a web page load slowly, or not load at all. Other ads would cover up the page that I was reading. I can assume that the same can be said for some web radio ads?

krelian 8y ago

If there was a paywall and it was priced too high in your view , what would you do? I assume you'd simply decide not to pay and move on. Online ads are essentially an honor system: I'll let you consume my content but you'll need to watch ads. Yet here you decide to circumvent the system instead of just walking away. Why?

lelandbatey 8y ago
The idea that there's an "honor system" always surprises me. Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads? That's not how ads work: nearly universally, what I'm told is "HEY, come get this great free content!" But when I reach for the content it's snatched away and the "but first a word from our sponsors" diatribe begins. You can't have it both ways, either the content is free and I can consume it on my terms, or inform me of what's expected for this exchange and I'll make a decision about whether I want to pay the cost or not.
- krelian 8y ago
  >Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads? Does it need to be stated? When I leave my bike outside where is it stated that it's mine and you are not allowed to take a ride? Where is it stated that you shouldn't have loud conversations in the theater? You know full well that ads pay for the content but choose to play the ignorant. You're doing this simply because you can and there are no consequences and, as of now, those that do watch the ads are financing the service you consume.