4 ms·

So, I can understand those who argue for ad-supported websites, and against ad-blockers. But can anyone honestly claim that putting an invisible 'sponsored' on

by gnud 8y ago

So, I can understand those who argue for ad-supported websites, and against ad-blockers. But can anyone honestly claim that putting an invisible 'sponsored' on non-sponsored posts is ethically OK? Can't we all agree that ads should be readily identifiable as such?

badfrog 8y ago
> Can't we all agree that ads should be readily identifiable as such? By human users for sure. Scripts are a whole other question.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Are they though? Why would they be? Or taking it another way, what moral reasoning justifies making it purposefully difficult for scripts (read: user agents) to identify ads? BTW. to the extent clearly marking ads/sponsored content is required by law, I wonder whether Facebook could be sued for making this difficult for users with disabilities - after all, accessibility tools like screen readers are scripts and rely on machine-readable metadata.
- elizabeth_olu 8y ago
  www.elizabethblog.com.ng
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > Scripts are a whole other question. I disagree entirely.
ummonk 8y ago
You mean identifiable to bots? Since they're already visually identifiable to humans, who don't see the invisible 'sponsored'.