6 ms·

If my attention has value, then hijacking it is a form of theft.

by snarfy 5y ago

cblconfederate 5y ago
If my attention has value, then not being paid for it is theft
- indigochill 5y ago
  Someone is being paid for it - the content provider/location you've given your attention to. They're just selling it off to third parties without your consent.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    I think people would be more likely to consent if they were paid for it. Brave browser does something like that
mixedCase 5y ago
Playing devil's advocate given my beliefs on ads, but value does not imply property rights.
ganzuul 5y ago
Yeah dude. That is your life being stolen in a very real way. Imagine if you had your life flash by your eyes in an NDE and 5% was advertisements.
blackboxlogic 5y ago
If my attention has value, then the exchange should be taxed.
- PopAlongKid 5y ago
  This is true if it is a barter exchange (under U.S. tax law at least). However I have a hard time seeing this as a barter - what are you getting in exchange for your attention that has a positive fair market value?
  - blackboxlogic 5y ago
    "You can view this content if you also stare at these ads. If you don't want to see the ads then don't visit this webpage." Sounds like an exchange to me. Edit: aren't "donations" received by a for-profit also taxable? Edit2: items of value acquired by theft are taxable.
    - PopAlongKid 5y ago
      Yes, you are correct. I was still thinking of the content being "free", but it's not if you provide something to get it. Of course to actually impose income tax on these transactions would be nearly impossible. For the business, they would at least have expenses to deduct against the barter income, but for the private individual it would hobby income, with no deductions available. Also, how would FMV be established? The attention of a high-wealth person inclined to spend money is obviously worth more than that of someone of more modest means who spends very frugally, yet they both receive the same content in exchange. And if the FMV ends up being on the order of a dollar or two, it's not worth anyone's time to track it and report it.
      - blackboxlogic 5y ago
        Re: business expense deductions, I think businesses already handle those. Re: taxing private individuals' micro attention "income", could be handled like "use" tax. I think my state allows me to list purchases I made online and shipped into my state so I can pay sales tax for them, or to take the "I don't know, just charge me the average amount" option. Maybe YouTube needs to send me a W2 each March which itemizes all the "work" I've done for them? Re: fair market value, doesn't seem hard when there is an option to pay dollars for a service instead of watching ads, you just found out how much your attention is worth. Attention FMV could be standardized by the IRS like milage reimbursement (58.5 cents/mile in 2022) regardless of the exact cost of /your/ miles. Edit: I'm not suggesting this would be good or easy but it would acknowledge that an entire industry is dodging taxes and degrading our quality of life. Also, were I king, this tax would be quite high (to reflect the harm to society) and would be the responsibility of the advertiser.
    - 5y ago
dionidium 5y ago
This is actually a nice little reductio argument against the notion that your attention has value (at least in the sense you imply). If the proposition "my attention has value" leads to an absurd conclusion ("hijacking my attention is a form of theft"), then the premise must be false.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Why is the conclusion absurd? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Comparing it to theft is actually a very generous interpretation. To me advertising is more like mind rape for profit. Someone pays money to violate your mind and insert into it whatever noise they want whether you consent to it or not.
  - dionidium 5y ago
    How is that different from what you are doing to me right now?
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      How could it not be completely different? We both came to HN. We saw this article about advertising. We clicked the "450 comments" link because we wanted to see what other people were posting. We wanted to participate. That's what we're doing right now. I didn't pay money to put this comment on your screen to make you read it every time you try to do anything on your phone or computer. No, we're the ones who came here to talk about this stuff. Speech is not advertising.
      - dymk 5y ago
        Of course speech is advertising. In what meaningful way is what you're doing not advertising your own views, opinions, and values, same as any company might do so with a billboard?
        aspenmayer 5y ago
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Awesome. I never thought about it that way. Perfect counter argument to people who act like we're stealing from them when we block their mind hacking attempts.
alphachloride 5y ago
This comment hijacked my attention.

If my attention has value, then hijacking it is a form of theft.

by snarfy 5y ago

If my attention has value, then hijacking it is a form of theft.

cblconfederate 5y ago

If my attention has value, then not being paid for it is theft

indigochill 5y ago
Someone is being paid for it - the content provider/location you've given your attention to. They're just selling it off to third parties without your consent.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  I think people would be more likely to consent if they were paid for it. Brave browser does something like that

mixedCase 5y ago

Playing devil's advocate given my beliefs on ads, but value does not imply property rights.

ganzuul 5y ago

Yeah dude. That is your life being stolen in a very real way. Imagine if you had your life flash by your eyes in an NDE and 5% was advertisements.

blackboxlogic 5y ago

If my attention has value, then the exchange should be taxed.

PopAlongKid 5y ago
This is true if it is a barter exchange (under U.S. tax law at least). However I have a hard time seeing this as a barter - what are you getting in exchange for your attention that has a positive fair market value?
- blackboxlogic 5y ago
  "You can view this content if you also stare at these ads. If you don't want to see the ads then don't visit this webpage." Sounds like an exchange to me. Edit: aren't "donations" received by a for-profit also taxable? Edit2: items of value acquired by theft are taxable.
  - PopAlongKid 5y ago
    Yes, you are correct. I was still thinking of the content being "free", but it's not if you provide something to get it. Of course to actually impose income tax on these transactions would be nearly impossible. For the business, they would at least have expenses to deduct against the barter income, but for the private individual it would hobby income, with no deductions available. Also, how would FMV be established? The attention of a high-wealth person inclined to spend money is obviously worth more than that of someone of more modest means who spends very frugally, yet they both receive the same content in exchange. And if the FMV ends up being on the order of a dollar or two, it's not worth anyone's time to track it and report it.
    - blackboxlogic 5y ago
      Re: business expense deductions, I think businesses already handle those. Re: taxing private individuals' micro attention "income", could be handled like "use" tax. I think my state allows me to list purchases I made online and shipped into my state so I can pay sales tax for them, or to take the "I don't know, just charge me the average amount" option. Maybe YouTube needs to send me a W2 each March which itemizes all the "work" I've done for them? Re: fair market value, doesn't seem hard when there is an option to pay dollars for a service instead of watching ads, you just found out how much your attention is worth. Attention FMV could be standardized by the IRS like milage reimbursement (58.5 cents/mile in 2022) regardless of the exact cost of /your/ miles. Edit: I'm not suggesting this would be good or easy but it would acknowledge that an entire industry is dodging taxes and degrading our quality of life. Also, were I king, this tax would be quite high (to reflect the harm to society) and would be the responsibility of the advertiser.
  - 5y ago

dionidium 5y ago

This is actually a nice little reductio argument against the notion that your attention has value (at least in the sense you imply). If the proposition "my attention has value" leads to an absurd conclusion ("hijacking my attention is a form of theft"), then the premise must be false.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Why is the conclusion absurd? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Comparing it to theft is actually a very generous interpretation. To me advertising is more like mind rape for profit. Someone pays money to violate your mind and insert into it whatever noise they want whether you consent to it or not.
- dionidium 5y ago
  How is that different from what you are doing to me right now?
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    How could it not be completely different? We both came to HN. We saw this article about advertising. We clicked the "450 comments" link because we wanted to see what other people were posting. We wanted to participate. That's what we're doing right now. I didn't pay money to put this comment on your screen to make you read it every time you try to do anything on your phone or computer. No, we're the ones who came here to talk about this stuff. Speech is not advertising.
    - dymk 5y ago
      Of course speech is advertising. In what meaningful way is what you're doing not advertising your own views, opinions, and values, same as any company might do so with a billboard?
      - aspenmayer 5y ago

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Awesome. I never thought about it that way. Perfect counter argument to people who act like we're stealing from them when we block their mind hacking attempts.

alphachloride 5y ago

This comment hijacked my attention.