5 ms·

Not really the same. The implied agreement when you visit an ad based site is that you get the ads. Otherwise if no one got them, the site could not exist. I

by cochne 5y ago

Not really the same. The implied agreement when you visit an ad based site is that you get the ads. Otherwise if no one got them, the site could not exist. It’s a form of payment for what the site provides to you, not the product itself.

Spooky23 5y ago
There's no implied agreement - a product is offered at no cost, and I'm under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to look at anything. I'm a weirdo who still buys the paper newspaper. I throw out the Thursday auto advertisements and the Sunday ads. Content producers made a conscious decision to aggregate their screen real estate and outsource ad placement to unrelated third parties. The result is a cesspool of awful, low engagement content. Its so bad that they enter into awful agreements with aggregators to repackage their content for pennies. That's their problem, not mine. On the flip, I live in a state capital, and when the legislature is in session, interest groups spend 10x what they spend on useless online ad spots to buy full-page or panel ads in the printed newspaper. Presumably they aren't doing that in an effort to set money on fire.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"I'm under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to look at anything" That would depend on you moral theory of choice; applying Kantian (deontological) moral theory, your behavior violates the principle of 'universalizability'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics
  - krisoft 5y ago
    I’m not following you. In what way would it violate the principle of ‘universalizability’?
    - nickff 5y ago
      From the Wikipedia on universalizability: >"The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances." >"For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible." If everyone were to block ads, the publications that you're reading would not be able to pay for the content they publish. Note that 'universalizability' requires a somewhat static analysis, and usually doesn't look at how systems might adapt to changed circumstances, though this is not a big problem here, as you have voluntarily chosen to interact with ad-supported publishers under the current regime.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        Content on the web was much better before the scourge of advertising took over. I very much wish everybody would universally block ads. Appealing to the current situation in a static sense is a cop out that lets you condemn what would be a welcome reversion.
        Drew_ 5y ago
        Much better for privileged geeks maybe not for anyone else.
        mindslight 5y ago
        Say what you actually mean rather than just invoking a nebulous condemnation of "privilege". The information on the web used to be of much higher quality. Within the first page of search results you'd usually find a no-nonsense website full of painstakingly curated information. Who had the means to access that information is orthogonal to its quality.
        Drew_ 5y ago
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Seems like an absurd leap to me. Am I obliged to read the sports section of a newspaper? What does it mean when a entire category of commerce is so toxic that government security officials recommend that civilian agencies preclude employees from seeing it?
JohnFen 5y ago
> The implied agreement when you visit an ad based site is that you get the ads. That's not the agreement that ad companies think is being implied, though. The ad companies think the deal is "Looking at this website gives us permission to spy on you across the web".
godshatter 5y ago
> The implied agreement when you visit an ad based site is that you get the ads. They are putting stuff out on a server for public consumption. The implied agreement is that I'm allowed to view it, or not view it, in whole or in part. Their business plan is their problem.

by cochne 5y ago

Spooky23 5y ago

There's no implied agreement - a product is offered at no cost, and I'm under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to look at anything. I'm a weirdo who still buys the paper newspaper. I throw out the Thursday auto advertisements and the Sunday ads. Content producers made a conscious decision to aggregate their screen real estate and outsource ad placement to unrelated third parties. The result is a cesspool of awful, low engagement content. Its so bad that they enter into awful agreements with aggregators to repackage their content for pennies. That's their problem, not mine. On the flip, I live in a state capital, and when the legislature is in session, interest groups spend 10x what they spend on useless online ad spots to buy full-page or panel ads in the printed newspaper. Presumably they aren't doing that in an effort to set money on fire.

nickff 5y ago
>"I'm under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to look at anything" That would depend on you moral theory of choice; applying Kantian (deontological) moral theory, your behavior violates the principle of 'universalizability'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics
- krisoft 5y ago
  I’m not following you. In what way would it violate the principle of ‘universalizability’?
  - nickff 5y ago
    From the Wikipedia on universalizability: >"The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances." >"For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible." If everyone were to block ads, the publications that you're reading would not be able to pay for the content they publish. Note that 'universalizability' requires a somewhat static analysis, and usually doesn't look at how systems might adapt to changed circumstances, though this is not a big problem here, as you have voluntarily chosen to interact with ad-supported publishers under the current regime.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      Content on the web was much better before the scourge of advertising took over. I very much wish everybody would universally block ads. Appealing to the current situation in a static sense is a cop out that lets you condemn what would be a welcome reversion.
      - Drew_ 5y ago
        Much better for privileged geeks maybe not for anyone else.
        mindslight 5y ago
        Say what you actually mean rather than just invoking a nebulous condemnation of "privilege". The information on the web used to be of much higher quality. Within the first page of search results you'd usually find a no-nonsense website full of painstakingly curated information. Who had the means to access that information is orthogonal to its quality.
        Drew_ 5y ago
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Seems like an absurd leap to me. Am I obliged to read the sports section of a newspaper? What does it mean when a entire category of commerce is so toxic that government security officials recommend that civilian agencies preclude employees from seeing it?

JohnFen 5y ago

> The implied agreement when you visit an ad based site is that you get the ads. That's not the agreement that ad companies think is being implied, though. The ad companies think the deal is "Looking at this website gives us permission to spy on you across the web".

godshatter 5y ago

> The implied agreement when you visit an ad based site is that you get the ads. They are putting stuff out on a server for public consumption. The implied agreement is that I'm allowed to view it, or not view it, in whole or in part. Their business plan is their problem.