4 ms·

I don't love ads, so if you goal is to just not have ads on your product, I get it. We had the same choice on Read the Docs, but didn't really have any other w

I don't love ads, so if you goal is to just not have ads on your product, I get it. We had the same choice on Read the Docs, but didn't really have any other way to make money. We decided to build Ethical Ads, so that we could be proud of the ads we show, knowing we weren't adding to massive pool of data out there. I talked a bit more about it here: https://www.ericholscher.com/blog/2016/aug/31/funding-oss-marketing-money/ https://www.ericholscher.com/blog/2016/aug/31/funding-oss-ma... We talk about what ethical advertising is here: https://www.ethicalads.io/advertising-vision/ https://www.ethicalads.io/advertising-vision/ -- and if you're building a dev-focused site, know that you have an option if you want monetization without sacrificing your values.

Nullabillity 6y ago
Advertising itself is inherently unethical, surveillance or not.
- zepto 6y ago
  Is it? I would agree with you that 99% of advertising may be compromised, but it isn’t clear to me that it’s inherent. If I say “I will be paid $5 if I tell you about the positive experience I have had with product X, would you like to hear about it?”, what is unethical about that? Can you elaborate on your logic?
  - notafraudster 6y ago
    I'm not the person you responded to, but I view this scenario as unethical because you felt it was appropriate to profit off wasting my time -- even under the veneer of politely asking, for the same reason that there any other number of things you can politely ask to do but should know better than to ask to do -- and didn't even think the share the profit with me (at a minimum with the majority share being mine, since clearly you value your time less than I value mine, otherwise you wouldn't be giving me an advertising pitch). Your scenario has the appearance, more or less, of a not especially pushy door to door salesman. Don't knock on my door. Leave me alone. You know no one wants their door knocked on. Leave everyone alone.
    - bobthebuilders 6y ago
      I want my door knocked on! Don't make assumptions for everyone based on your own experiences.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > I'm not the person you responded to, but I view this scenario as unethical because you felt it was appropriate to profit off wasting my time. How does one know what will ‘waste someone’s time’ without asking? Perhaps the product will save someone’s time. For most of my life, I thought wristwatches were a pointless anachronism, since the time is visible on so many screens. I held this opinion without having had the experience of owning an analog watch. Recently, I have come to understand that a watch benefits me enormously, and saves me a lot of time and stress. I wish someone had articulated the benefits of a watch to me decades ago. It’s one of the pieces of advice I’d give to my 18 year old self. This would have been valuable information, paid or not. -- even under the veneer of politely asking, for the same reason that there any other number of things you can politely ask to do but should know better than to ask to do Clearly true for some kinds of advertising, but not obviously true for all kinds. I can see this as an a explanation for why many kinds of advertising are inconsiderate, but I don’t see an ethical argument. -- and didn't even think the share the profit with me (at a minimum with the majority share being mine, You can always decline an offer you don’t like. In my watch example, I’d be happy for the salesman to have received a commission or even a tip from me if I had known how much it would benefit me. Again - I am understanding your preference, but there is no ethical case here. > since clearly you value your time less than I value mine, otherwise you wouldn't be giving me an advertising pitch). I don’t see an ethical or a logical argument here. > Your scenario has the appearance, more or less, of a not especially pushy door to door salesman. Don't knock on my door. Leave me alone. This is reducing my example to a strawman rather than making an ethical argument. > You know no one wants their door knocked on. Leave everyone alone. This is obviously true for straw man inconsiderate salespeople. But obviously false as a generalization about all advertising. I am not disputing that most advertising is compromised - I said 99% above. What I am asking for is an ethical argument as to why all advertising is unethical. I don’t think you have responded to that request.
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    For the transaction itself: the payment you get incentivizes you to portray it in a positive light, rather than giving your honest opinion. For society at large: advertising amplifies the speech of the rich, which is inherently antidemocratic.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > For the transaction itself: the payment you get incentivizes you to portray it in a positive light, rather than giving your honest opinion. That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer. Why is it unethical? > For society at large: advertising amplifies the speech of the rich, which is inherently antidemocratic. It does amplify the voices of the rich, but you are making it sounds like it only amplifies the speech of the rich, which is not true. It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising, regardless of whether they are rich or not. That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. I see legitimate criticism of capitalist wealth accumulation feedback loops (which could be fixed e.g. with a wealth tax) in what you are saying, but no valid argument that advertising is inherently unethical.
      - Nullabillity 6y ago
        > That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer. > Why is it unethical? If people were good at actually taking that into account then advertising wouldn't be effective, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. > It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising AKA (a subset of) rich people. > That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. 1 person = 1 vote = 1 voice > To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. Is it wrong that it's illegal for the police to let you off with a warning in exchange for a bribe? Is it wrong that it's illegal to sell votes? There are plenty of things that are legal to do of your own volition, but are illegal to sell. That's not a restriction on the performing those deeds in themselves, it's a restriction on commerce.

Nullabillity 6y ago

Advertising itself is inherently unethical, surveillance or not.

zepto 6y ago
Is it? I would agree with you that 99% of advertising may be compromised, but it isn’t clear to me that it’s inherent. If I say “I will be paid $5 if I tell you about the positive experience I have had with product X, would you like to hear about it?”, what is unethical about that? Can you elaborate on your logic?
- notafraudster 6y ago
  I'm not the person you responded to, but I view this scenario as unethical because you felt it was appropriate to profit off wasting my time -- even under the veneer of politely asking, for the same reason that there any other number of things you can politely ask to do but should know better than to ask to do -- and didn't even think the share the profit with me (at a minimum with the majority share being mine, since clearly you value your time less than I value mine, otherwise you wouldn't be giving me an advertising pitch). Your scenario has the appearance, more or less, of a not especially pushy door to door salesman. Don't knock on my door. Leave me alone. You know no one wants their door knocked on. Leave everyone alone.
  - bobthebuilders 6y ago
    I want my door knocked on! Don't make assumptions for everyone based on your own experiences.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > I'm not the person you responded to, but I view this scenario as unethical because you felt it was appropriate to profit off wasting my time. How does one know what will ‘waste someone’s time’ without asking? Perhaps the product will save someone’s time. For most of my life, I thought wristwatches were a pointless anachronism, since the time is visible on so many screens. I held this opinion without having had the experience of owning an analog watch. Recently, I have come to understand that a watch benefits me enormously, and saves me a lot of time and stress. I wish someone had articulated the benefits of a watch to me decades ago. It’s one of the pieces of advice I’d give to my 18 year old self. This would have been valuable information, paid or not. -- even under the veneer of politely asking, for the same reason that there any other number of things you can politely ask to do but should know better than to ask to do Clearly true for some kinds of advertising, but not obviously true for all kinds. I can see this as an a explanation for why many kinds of advertising are inconsiderate, but I don’t see an ethical argument. -- and didn't even think the share the profit with me (at a minimum with the majority share being mine, You can always decline an offer you don’t like. In my watch example, I’d be happy for the salesman to have received a commission or even a tip from me if I had known how much it would benefit me. Again - I am understanding your preference, but there is no ethical case here. > since clearly you value your time less than I value mine, otherwise you wouldn't be giving me an advertising pitch). I don’t see an ethical or a logical argument here. > Your scenario has the appearance, more or less, of a not especially pushy door to door salesman. Don't knock on my door. Leave me alone. This is reducing my example to a strawman rather than making an ethical argument. > You know no one wants their door knocked on. Leave everyone alone. This is obviously true for straw man inconsiderate salespeople. But obviously false as a generalization about all advertising. I am not disputing that most advertising is compromised - I said 99% above. What I am asking for is an ethical argument as to why all advertising is unethical. I don’t think you have responded to that request.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  For the transaction itself: the payment you get incentivizes you to portray it in a positive light, rather than giving your honest opinion. For society at large: advertising amplifies the speech of the rich, which is inherently antidemocratic.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > For the transaction itself: the payment you get incentivizes you to portray it in a positive light, rather than giving your honest opinion. That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer. Why is it unethical? > For society at large: advertising amplifies the speech of the rich, which is inherently antidemocratic. It does amplify the voices of the rich, but you are making it sounds like it only amplifies the speech of the rich, which is not true. It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising, regardless of whether they are rich or not. That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. I see legitimate criticism of capitalist wealth accumulation feedback loops (which could be fixed e.g. with a wealth tax) in what you are saying, but no valid argument that advertising is inherently unethical.
    - Nullabillity 6y ago
      > That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer. > Why is it unethical? If people were good at actually taking that into account then advertising wouldn't be effective, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. > It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising AKA (a subset of) rich people. > That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. 1 person = 1 vote = 1 voice > To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. Is it wrong that it's illegal for the police to let you off with a warning in exchange for a bribe? Is it wrong that it's illegal to sell votes? There are plenty of things that are legal to do of your own volition, but are illegal to sell. That's not a restriction on the performing those deeds in themselves, it's a restriction on commerce.