4 ms·

It's not founded on "but advertisements" it's founded on "but paying for content". The fact that websites are developed by people (wages), hosted on infrastruct

It's not founded on "but advertisements" it's founded on "but paying for content". The fact that websites are developed by people (wages), hosted on infrastructure (hardware renting) and require countless other jobs is somehow magically forgotten in these discussions.

perched_robin 6y ago
Whatever can be killed by adblockers should be. 95% of the web consists of bloated javascript made by overpaid frontend devs that's less functional than a plain text file. So the ad money runs dry and nobody can afford to push 20 megabytes of javascript and fonts with every page view anymore. What a tragedy.
krageon 6y ago
It's not up to me or anyone consuming content to help with figuring out the right way to pay for it. What is up to me is the choice to not be potentially exposed to malware any time I go to read the news. While you may have a point, that point just doesn't matter within the context that we're talking about. Making companies money is not my responsibility.
- LunaSea 6y ago
  It absolutely is your responsibility if you are consuming the content. Consuming the content means agreeing to the premise that the content is paid for using ads. If you disagree with said premise you may happily browse another website. Malware is already illegal to install and you are free to sue the website for damages. I don't like ads either but trying to justify that their should be a choice of browsing a website without the ads it hosts is ludicrous.
  - krageon 6y ago
    > Consuming the content means agreeing to the premise that the content is paid for using ads. It is in fact not this way, because the content arrives with or without the ads. In the EU EULAs (the dystopian construct that you'd expect to enforce that bit of lunacy) that purport to apply to content you have already accessed are not legally valid. Leaving the legal interpretation aside, me doing one thing doesn't mean consent for something else. Believing otherwise is both unethical and amoral, stances I don't hugely feel like interacting with.
    - LunaSea 6y ago
      > It is in fact not this way, because the content arrives with or without the ads But that's simply a technical implementation detail. If the articles you read had first party ads or videos with embedded ads in them, that choice wouldn't exist like it already doesn't when you watch TV. > Leaving the legal interpretation aside, me doing one thing doesn't mean consent for something else. Believing otherwise is both unethical and amoral, stances I don't hugely feel like interacting with. Yes and you stealing content (consuming without paying for it) is somehow moral? It's easy to find all kinds of free content, should it be music, movies or series but lets not kid ourselves in thinking that it is some great human right to have access to things we didn't pay for.
  - perched_robin 6y ago
    Is it morally wrong to look away when an ad comes onscreen? Do I need to tape my eyes open?

perched_robin 6y ago

Whatever can be killed by adblockers should be. 95% of the web consists of bloated javascript made by overpaid frontend devs that's less functional than a plain text file. So the ad money runs dry and nobody can afford to push 20 megabytes of javascript and fonts with every page view anymore. What a tragedy.

krageon 6y ago

It's not up to me or anyone consuming content to help with figuring out the right way to pay for it. What is up to me is the choice to not be potentially exposed to malware any time I go to read the news. While you may have a point, that point just doesn't matter within the context that we're talking about. Making companies money is not my responsibility.

LunaSea 6y ago
It absolutely is your responsibility if you are consuming the content. Consuming the content means agreeing to the premise that the content is paid for using ads. If you disagree with said premise you may happily browse another website. Malware is already illegal to install and you are free to sue the website for damages. I don't like ads either but trying to justify that their should be a choice of browsing a website without the ads it hosts is ludicrous.
- krageon 6y ago
  > Consuming the content means agreeing to the premise that the content is paid for using ads. It is in fact not this way, because the content arrives with or without the ads. In the EU EULAs (the dystopian construct that you'd expect to enforce that bit of lunacy) that purport to apply to content you have already accessed are not legally valid. Leaving the legal interpretation aside, me doing one thing doesn't mean consent for something else. Believing otherwise is both unethical and amoral, stances I don't hugely feel like interacting with.
  - LunaSea 6y ago
    > It is in fact not this way, because the content arrives with or without the ads But that's simply a technical implementation detail. If the articles you read had first party ads or videos with embedded ads in them, that choice wouldn't exist like it already doesn't when you watch TV. > Leaving the legal interpretation aside, me doing one thing doesn't mean consent for something else. Believing otherwise is both unethical and amoral, stances I don't hugely feel like interacting with. Yes and you stealing content (consuming without paying for it) is somehow moral? It's easy to find all kinds of free content, should it be music, movies or series but lets not kid ourselves in thinking that it is some great human right to have access to things we didn't pay for.
- perched_robin 6y ago
  Is it morally wrong to look away when an ad comes onscreen? Do I need to tape my eyes open?