4 ms·

>"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

by 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
        There's nothing nebulous about affording access to information being a privilege.
        mindslight 5y ago
        What's nebulous is that you're not making an argument. Sure, we can say that affording Internet access (gear) is a form of privilege. What bearing does that have on what I said?
        Drew_ 5y ago
        Take a moment to consider how expensive and exclusive access to the internet was "back in the good ol' days" and maybe you'll be able to connect the dots. If you still can't there's nothing I can do for you sorry.
        mindslight 5y ago
        I can infer several arguments that you could hope to be implying. But I'm not going to guess at the specific one you're trying to make just to argue with myself. In general: Correlation is not causation. As I said, the quality of information was orthogonal to who could access it. And furthermore, even in modern times advertising does not pay for Internet access nor computing devices.
  - krisoft 5y ago
    > Note that 'universalizability' requires a somewhat static analysis Sounds very convenient. You are allowed to make one logical step (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies go bankrupt) but are not allowed to make the equally sound step of (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies will seek other revenue sources such as paywalls). But if you say i’m not allowed to argue the second one let’s talk about the first kind. So universal add blocking puts those companies who keep clinging to add supported operation into bankruptcy. Goodridance. It is not like one must have free-as-in-beer services to have a coherent moral compass. They go bankrupt and we will manage without them. Totally consistent. Similarly you wouldn’t say that the idea of punishing murderers lacks ‘universability’ just because it would shut down the Assasin’s Guild.
    - nickff 5y ago
      But you seem to want to read the publications with ads... If I extend your (unreasonable) murder analogy, I'd have to say that you were hiring the Assassin's Guild, but refusing to pay because you don't like their terms.
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?

by nickff 5y ago

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
        There's nothing nebulous about affording access to information being a privilege.
        mindslight 5y ago
        What's nebulous is that you're not making an argument. Sure, we can say that affording Internet access (gear) is a form of privilege. What bearing does that have on what I said?
        Drew_ 5y ago
        Take a moment to consider how expensive and exclusive access to the internet was "back in the good ol' days" and maybe you'll be able to connect the dots. If you still can't there's nothing I can do for you sorry.
        mindslight 5y ago
        I can infer several arguments that you could hope to be implying. But I'm not going to guess at the specific one you're trying to make just to argue with myself. In general: Correlation is not causation. As I said, the quality of information was orthogonal to who could access it. And furthermore, even in modern times advertising does not pay for Internet access nor computing devices.
- krisoft 5y ago
  > Note that 'universalizability' requires a somewhat static analysis Sounds very convenient. You are allowed to make one logical step (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies go bankrupt) but are not allowed to make the equally sound step of (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies will seek other revenue sources such as paywalls). But if you say i’m not allowed to argue the second one let’s talk about the first kind. So universal add blocking puts those companies who keep clinging to add supported operation into bankruptcy. Goodridance. It is not like one must have free-as-in-beer services to have a coherent moral compass. They go bankrupt and we will manage without them. Totally consistent. Similarly you wouldn’t say that the idea of punishing murderers lacks ‘universability’ just because it would shut down the Assasin’s Guild.
  - nickff 5y ago
    But you seem to want to read the publications with ads... If I extend your (unreasonable) murder analogy, I'd have to say that you were hiring the Assassin's Guild, but refusing to pay because you don't like their terms.

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?