6 ms·

I don't think it's fair these sites editorialize content but avoid the repercussions of not editorializing away human trafficking rings (for example), or how th

I don't think it's fair these sites editorialize content but avoid the repercussions of not editorializing away human trafficking rings (for example), or how they dodge billions in taxes around the world. If a paid tier offered no ads, tracking or similar anti-features, you'd have a point. Since even paid offerings can't give up profiling and data sharing, it's perfectly fair to get that experience from the free data they choose to serve instead of a 402 payment required.

endisneigh 5y ago
You can also just not visit those sites if you don’t want to be tracked. Whether the companies dodge taxes isn’t really relevant - blame your government for allowing it. People are certainly entitled to not be tracked, but not to indulge in services for free without payment, tracking or ads. Ironically, using these services without paying or submitting to trackings or ads and these companies not paying taxes both violate the principal of “not paying your share”
- StockHuman 5y ago
  > Ironically, using these services without paying or submitting to trackings or ads and these companies not paying taxes both violate the principal of “not paying your share” That is my point, yes; we are already past that point of paying one's fair share as a legitimate concern. I don't owe such a consideration for fairness to an entity that doesn't honour the same to me.
- tomthe 5y ago
  fair points, but the internet allows unseen concentration and economies of scale. The existence of some services prevents the upcoming/use of others and thus I am basically forced to use some of these services (e.g.: Twitter, Whatsapp), if I want to keep my standard of living that I had before a lot of stuff moved there (Events that are organized only on Facebook come to my mind).
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    You’re not forced though. I’ve never used Twitter personally, for example. It’s pretty simple - I assume you have a job, and that they have customers. Would you want those customers to basically take your work without paying?
    - tomthe 5y ago
      oh yes - But what I produce is open-source and meant to be as widely distributed as wanted anyway. My ethical framework allows me to justify the use ad-blockers without creating too much cognitive dissonance. Poor Twitter, Facebook and Google and their employers will survive without my donations. But my local newspaper on the other hand...
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Would you agree that people can steal from Amazon for the same reason? Your logic seems arbitrary.
        oauea 5y ago
        Well one thing is clear, you wouldn't download a car.
        nobody9999 5y ago
        >Would you agree that people can steal from Amazon for the same reason? Your logic seems arbitrary. How is blocking ads/tracking "stealing"? Assuming I don't have a contract with someone, I haven't agreed to allow ads/tracking. And given the chance to enter into such a contract, I will politely decline. Claiming that blocking ads/tracking is stealing is like claiming that people should have to pay to enter a retail establishment even if they don't buy anything. Is that what you advocate? Don't want to service people who block ads/trackers? Then don't serve them content. It's not as if that isn't already being done. Just because someone chooses to support their platform with ads/trackers doesn't create a duty or responsibility for me to see those ads or allow those trackers. I don't wish to allow ads/trackers on my private property. Why should I be forced to do so? Because it breaks your business model? That's not my problem. It's yours.
- nerdjon 5y ago
  It doesn't help that many of those services have used their power to basically become the only available option. Take YouTube for example, there are basically zero alternatives out there. It is such a dominating force for watching videos. I have basically cut all of google out of my life as much as possible, but YouTube is the one that you can't drop for the random video that you may want to watch. I have zero qualms about using a third party service while "mooching" off of google. Many others in this list are similar, reddit... discord... etc. I would not have an issue supporting those companies with a monthly subscription if they did not pull shady stuff. These companies are way too comfortable abusing their users. I was trying to get support from Microsoft for a product I bought. With pihole on my network I was unable to load chat because someone had the bright idea to host the css and js for it on their ad domain.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    You can purchase for YouTube Premium and get rid of ads. I don’t see how people can justify blocking the ads. Content producers need people to view the ads to get paid. I’m sure at your workplace you wouldn’t like people using your services or consuming your products without paying in some form.
    - rebeccaskinner 5y ago
      Ad-free tiers, in the rare cases they are offered at all, are never surveillance free tiers. While I’m personally opposed to all advertisement, the surveillance is really the massive problem with modern ad-tech and there’s just no sense at throwing money at offerings that continue to do all the surveillance and just don’t show the ad.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Ads have been the only proven way for many people on the web to monetize sustainably. If you have another way that works there’s a lot of money out there ripe for the taking.
        5y ago
- oauea 5y ago
  If you don't want people making their own frontends, blame your government for allowing it.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    This makes no sense.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > People are certainly entitled to not be tracked, but not to indulge in services for free without payment, tracking or ads. They certainly are, and the onus is on the web sites to prevent/limit it. The rule of the Internet is simple: If you put something on a Web site, everyone has the right to visit it. An obvious example: I cannot put up a static HTML page with images, and demand people who view the images pay me for it. Nor can I demand that they download and view the whole page. As someone visiting any page, I am in full control of what bits from that site I will receive and process via a browser. The site's owner has no say in it - his responsibility is to control what is sent to me - not what I do with what is sent to me.[1] He can do this using access control (e.g. accounts), and other methods. It's your obligation to design the site in a way that you would like it to be used. It is not the visitor's obligation to understand your profit model and try to honor it. [1] Except things like IP/copyright/trademark, which is a different topic than the one at hand.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Lol who came up with that rule? It’s not true at all. Your analogy breaks down because people actively circumvent restrictions. It’s like arguing theft is ok if a store can’t properly secure their goods.
    - progman32 5y ago
      I rather think it's more like getting a free sample of pie from the deli and only eating the whipped cream.
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      > Lol who came up with that rule? It’s not true at all. The founders of the Web. And IANAL but I would bet that if there have been any court rulings about this, they will be in line with what I said. > It’s like arguing theft is ok if a store can’t properly secure their goods. Not at all. A store is someone's private property and there are laws surrounding it. If I enter a store, the law has already established what I can and cannot do. The same applies to the goods in the store. When I visit a web site, I never enter their property. I make a request for data, and the web site decides whether to decline or accept the request. The web site can put in mechanisms on conditionally accepting the request. There's a reason the official terminology is request and handshake. Since I never enter on to a site owner's property, your analogy doesn't hold.
- yosito 5y ago
  > People are certainly entitled to not be tracked, but not to indulge in services for free without payment, tracking or ads. These services are not just an indulgence for many people. I've had jobs that require me to access things on Discord or Facebook. Many businesses require using Facebook or WhatsApp for customer service. I've needed support for various issues that only existed on reddit or Twitter. These are just a few examples. Sure, one could opt to not participate in society or to go without essentials. But you shouldn't have to live such an extreme aescetic monk lifestyle just to avoid being tracked and profiled and having your profile sold to people who wish to manipulate your behavior.
- gausswho 5y ago
  > You can also just not visit those sites if you don’t want to be tracked Facebook's like button tracks you all over the web
- slothtrop 5y ago
  Content creators often integrate ad content for sponsors, doing away with the need for 3rd party javascript. Users are entitled to control Javascript on the client side as they see fit. Companies can and do block service for detected ad-blocking or blocked javascript. For the aforementioned with front-ends, they choose not to. They know ultimately they'll make more money from those users in aggregate if they use the service than not. In other words if people "just don't use the service", the service is worse off. There are revenue generators that are effectively endemic to the services by design and cannot be "blocked". Issues aren't just about tracking. Youtube for instance got where it is today by effectively stealing copyrighted content, and they still facilitate and profit from it, notwithstanding screwing over content creators with illegitimate takedowns. There isn't really a persuasive argument that Youtube is entitled to more of your data.
satyrnein 5y ago
I don't think it follows generally that, if something is offered without monetary cost but with terms of use, and you don't like those terms, you are free to use it in violation of those terms. For example GPL code is often $0, but that doesn't give me the option of ignoring the copyleft provisions if I don't like them. The only valid options are to comply or to not use it.
- StockHuman 5y ago
  That's an excellent point, and I agree - not just here, but in practice as well - I go out of my way to respect the GPL and similar licenses for my own work and others'. My respect of copyleft does not come from a want to adhere to legal terms, but instead an appreciation for what those terms hope to achieve more broadly, and the positive impact they have on society. As I described in another comment, I do not owe FAANG respect or legal cooperation it doesn't reciprocate. Of course, if you feel like it's your duty to run the web without adblockers, I understand that, and more power to you.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I’m curious, which laws have FAANG broken that they haven’t already been fined for?
    - StockHuman 5y ago
      That's a strange question, I have no private data about current of future lawbreaking. We know they're keen to lobby and litigate their way out of laws, and pay paltry fines when they fail to do so, but I cannot predict the next instance beyond enumerating any currently ongoing cases.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > I don't think it follows generally that, if something is offered without monetary cost but with terms of use, and you don't like those terms, you are free to use it in violation of those terms. I honestly wonder how well this has been tested in courts for web sites. As an example, if I visit a web site that has a "Terms of Use" link, but I don't click on the link, will the courts still rule that I'm bound by them? An extreme case: If there is a static web site with images, and somewhere on the page there is a Terms of Use along the lines of "If you view these images you must pay me 10 cents", then is that legally binding? (Note: Copyright is very different from "terms of use"). I vaguely recall there was a ruling that if you buy a physical item and its terms of use are in the box (i.e. you cannot view it without buying), then you are not bound by them. Of course, this is not analogous.

endisneigh 5y ago

You can also just not visit those sites if you don’t want to be tracked. Whether the companies dodge taxes isn’t really relevant - blame your government for allowing it. People are certainly entitled to not be tracked, but not to indulge in services for free without payment, tracking or ads. Ironically, using these services without paying or submitting to trackings or ads and these companies not paying taxes both violate the principal of “not paying your share”

StockHuman 5y ago
> Ironically, using these services without paying or submitting to trackings or ads and these companies not paying taxes both violate the principal of “not paying your share” That is my point, yes; we are already past that point of paying one's fair share as a legitimate concern. I don't owe such a consideration for fairness to an entity that doesn't honour the same to me.
tomthe 5y ago
fair points, but the internet allows unseen concentration and economies of scale. The existence of some services prevents the upcoming/use of others and thus I am basically forced to use some of these services (e.g.: Twitter, Whatsapp), if I want to keep my standard of living that I had before a lot of stuff moved there (Events that are organized only on Facebook come to my mind).
- endisneigh 5y ago
  You’re not forced though. I’ve never used Twitter personally, for example. It’s pretty simple - I assume you have a job, and that they have customers. Would you want those customers to basically take your work without paying?
  - tomthe 5y ago
    oh yes - But what I produce is open-source and meant to be as widely distributed as wanted anyway. My ethical framework allows me to justify the use ad-blockers without creating too much cognitive dissonance. Poor Twitter, Facebook and Google and their employers will survive without my donations. But my local newspaper on the other hand...
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Would you agree that people can steal from Amazon for the same reason? Your logic seems arbitrary.
      - oauea 5y ago
        Well one thing is clear, you wouldn't download a car.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >Would you agree that people can steal from Amazon for the same reason? Your logic seems arbitrary. How is blocking ads/tracking "stealing"? Assuming I don't have a contract with someone, I haven't agreed to allow ads/tracking. And given the chance to enter into such a contract, I will politely decline. Claiming that blocking ads/tracking is stealing is like claiming that people should have to pay to enter a retail establishment even if they don't buy anything. Is that what you advocate? Don't want to service people who block ads/trackers? Then don't serve them content. It's not as if that isn't already being done. Just because someone chooses to support their platform with ads/trackers doesn't create a duty or responsibility for me to see those ads or allow those trackers. I don't wish to allow ads/trackers on my private property. Why should I be forced to do so? Because it breaks your business model? That's not my problem. It's yours.
nerdjon 5y ago
It doesn't help that many of those services have used their power to basically become the only available option. Take YouTube for example, there are basically zero alternatives out there. It is such a dominating force for watching videos. I have basically cut all of google out of my life as much as possible, but YouTube is the one that you can't drop for the random video that you may want to watch. I have zero qualms about using a third party service while "mooching" off of google. Many others in this list are similar, reddit... discord... etc. I would not have an issue supporting those companies with a monthly subscription if they did not pull shady stuff. These companies are way too comfortable abusing their users. I was trying to get support from Microsoft for a product I bought. With pihole on my network I was unable to load chat because someone had the bright idea to host the css and js for it on their ad domain.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  You can purchase for YouTube Premium and get rid of ads. I don’t see how people can justify blocking the ads. Content producers need people to view the ads to get paid. I’m sure at your workplace you wouldn’t like people using your services or consuming your products without paying in some form.
  - rebeccaskinner 5y ago
    Ad-free tiers, in the rare cases they are offered at all, are never surveillance free tiers. While I’m personally opposed to all advertisement, the surveillance is really the massive problem with modern ad-tech and there’s just no sense at throwing money at offerings that continue to do all the surveillance and just don’t show the ad.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Ads have been the only proven way for many people on the web to monetize sustainably. If you have another way that works there’s a lot of money out there ripe for the taking.
      - 5y ago
oauea 5y ago
If you don't want people making their own frontends, blame your government for allowing it.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  This makes no sense.
BeetleB 5y ago
> People are certainly entitled to not be tracked, but not to indulge in services for free without payment, tracking or ads. They certainly are, and the onus is on the web sites to prevent/limit it. The rule of the Internet is simple: If you put something on a Web site, everyone has the right to visit it. An obvious example: I cannot put up a static HTML page with images, and demand people who view the images pay me for it. Nor can I demand that they download and view the whole page. As someone visiting any page, I am in full control of what bits from that site I will receive and process via a browser. The site's owner has no say in it - his responsibility is to control what is sent to me - not what I do with what is sent to me.[1] He can do this using access control (e.g. accounts), and other methods. It's your obligation to design the site in a way that you would like it to be used. It is not the visitor's obligation to understand your profit model and try to honor it. [1] Except things like IP/copyright/trademark, which is a different topic than the one at hand.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Lol who came up with that rule? It’s not true at all. Your analogy breaks down because people actively circumvent restrictions. It’s like arguing theft is ok if a store can’t properly secure their goods.
  - progman32 5y ago
    I rather think it's more like getting a free sample of pie from the deli and only eating the whipped cream.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > Lol who came up with that rule? It’s not true at all. The founders of the Web. And IANAL but I would bet that if there have been any court rulings about this, they will be in line with what I said. > It’s like arguing theft is ok if a store can’t properly secure their goods. Not at all. A store is someone's private property and there are laws surrounding it. If I enter a store, the law has already established what I can and cannot do. The same applies to the goods in the store. When I visit a web site, I never enter their property. I make a request for data, and the web site decides whether to decline or accept the request. The web site can put in mechanisms on conditionally accepting the request. There's a reason the official terminology is request and handshake. Since I never enter on to a site owner's property, your analogy doesn't hold.
yosito 5y ago
> People are certainly entitled to not be tracked, but not to indulge in services for free without payment, tracking or ads. These services are not just an indulgence for many people. I've had jobs that require me to access things on Discord or Facebook. Many businesses require using Facebook or WhatsApp for customer service. I've needed support for various issues that only existed on reddit or Twitter. These are just a few examples. Sure, one could opt to not participate in society or to go without essentials. But you shouldn't have to live such an extreme aescetic monk lifestyle just to avoid being tracked and profiled and having your profile sold to people who wish to manipulate your behavior.
gausswho 5y ago
> You can also just not visit those sites if you don’t want to be tracked Facebook's like button tracks you all over the web
slothtrop 5y ago
Content creators often integrate ad content for sponsors, doing away with the need for 3rd party javascript. Users are entitled to control Javascript on the client side as they see fit. Companies can and do block service for detected ad-blocking or blocked javascript. For the aforementioned with front-ends, they choose not to. They know ultimately they'll make more money from those users in aggregate if they use the service than not. In other words if people "just don't use the service", the service is worse off. There are revenue generators that are effectively endemic to the services by design and cannot be "blocked". Issues aren't just about tracking. Youtube for instance got where it is today by effectively stealing copyrighted content, and they still facilitate and profit from it, notwithstanding screwing over content creators with illegitimate takedowns. There isn't really a persuasive argument that Youtube is entitled to more of your data.

satyrnein 5y ago

I don't think it follows generally that, if something is offered without monetary cost but with terms of use, and you don't like those terms, you are free to use it in violation of those terms. For example GPL code is often $0, but that doesn't give me the option of ignoring the copyleft provisions if I don't like them. The only valid options are to comply or to not use it.

StockHuman 5y ago
That's an excellent point, and I agree - not just here, but in practice as well - I go out of my way to respect the GPL and similar licenses for my own work and others'. My respect of copyleft does not come from a want to adhere to legal terms, but instead an appreciation for what those terms hope to achieve more broadly, and the positive impact they have on society. As I described in another comment, I do not owe FAANG respect or legal cooperation it doesn't reciprocate. Of course, if you feel like it's your duty to run the web without adblockers, I understand that, and more power to you.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I’m curious, which laws have FAANG broken that they haven’t already been fined for?
  - StockHuman 5y ago
    That's a strange question, I have no private data about current of future lawbreaking. We know they're keen to lobby and litigate their way out of laws, and pay paltry fines when they fail to do so, but I cannot predict the next instance beyond enumerating any currently ongoing cases.
BeetleB 5y ago
> I don't think it follows generally that, if something is offered without monetary cost but with terms of use, and you don't like those terms, you are free to use it in violation of those terms. I honestly wonder how well this has been tested in courts for web sites. As an example, if I visit a web site that has a "Terms of Use" link, but I don't click on the link, will the courts still rule that I'm bound by them? An extreme case: If there is a static web site with images, and somewhere on the page there is a Terms of Use along the lines of "If you view these images you must pay me 10 cents", then is that legally binding? (Note: Copyright is very different from "terms of use"). I vaguely recall there was a ruling that if you buy a physical item and its terms of use are in the box (i.e. you cannot view it without buying), then you are not bound by them. Of course, this is not analogous.