4 ms·

If a site owner publishes content and makes it available free of charge, it is available for visitors to consume free of charge. Your argument shows a lack of r

If a site owner publishes content and makes it available free of charge, it is available for visitors to consume free of charge. Your argument shows a lack of respect for the autonomy of internet users, who are not obligated to consume ads just because they are presented alongside other site content, just as TV viewers are not obligated to watch the ads during commercial breaks. Site owners have alternative means of generating revenue (affiliate links, sponsored content, merchandise, donations, etc.) and the option of charging for site content. No site owner is entitled to revenue from advertising.

robomartin 5y ago
I don't like ads. Yet I respect the fact that the product supplier needs them to pay the bills. You don't like ads. You have zero respect for the product supplier. You consume their work product and delete the ads, using an artificially-constructed moral high ground to justify it. The web would not exist if your world view had been dominant from the early days. Few people are interested in paying for anything directly. Gmail has 1.5 billion users. Care to guess how many pay for the service? Nobody is going to pay for search, and yet it is one of the most valuable tools on the internet, arguably the one thing that makes it work. A service like YouTube is incredibly valuable, not just from an entertainment perspective but also for learning and more. Once again, nobody wants to pay for it. I could go on. There are millions of excellent sites beyond what Google has to offer. What's more important is that none of these services would have been built to where they are today were it not for the use of advertising as a revenue generation channel. At a higher philosophical level, the question might be: What future valuable service or product would we not allow to germinate if nobody wants to pay for anything and everyone uses ad blockers. Like it or not, this is one of the easiest ways for entrepreneurs to finance their dreams and ideas on the web. Given the vast majority of people will not pay for anything, the options become very few. This is certainly true at inception. Later on, as a business matures, other potential revenue streams surface. Go try and start something like Facebook (about 3 billion users) and ask people to pay you just $1 per year. Aside from the fact that it would be impossible to support the infrastructure and people needed to run such a beast, well, nobody is going to hand you even $1 per year for the service. I don't care what features and privacy enhancements you might offer, nobody is going to pay. What's left? Well, initially, advertising. That's the only way. Sad, but true. We don't have to like reality, but we should understand it.
- commoner 5y ago
  I respect the ability of site owners to make their own decisions about how to run their own businesses. I respect the courage it takes for a site owner to accept responsibility for their own decisions. When a site owner chooses to supply content without charging for it and without stipulating that it must be consumed in its entirety without an ad blocker, I respect that. And if some of that content interests me, I will accept the site owner's offer of free content and consume the parts that I want to consume, while ignoring or blocking the parts that I don't. How I spend my time and attention on the site is my personal decision, not the site owner's decision, not your decision, and not anyone else's decision. I don't care if an unsound and generally unaccepted ethical theory like the one you're advocating for disregards my individual right to spend my time and attention as I please. I don't care if you would rather prioritize someone else's profit over my autonomy. My time and my attention belong to me. I don't use Gmail, and I would prefer Gmail's user base to be distributed among many smaller companies that compete with each other to provide better products. I don't use Facebook, and I would prefer it to be completely supplanted by fediverse services that don't violate the privacy of users and non-users, and don't create poor working conditions for its contractors.* YouTube is not irreplaceable either, and I would rather see a variety of platforms like PeerTube instances and Vimeo break YouTube's near-monopoly of online video content in the U.S. and many other countries. I fully understand the reality of online advertising, which only amplifies my support for ad blocking. * https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo...

robomartin 5y ago

I don't like ads. Yet I respect the fact that the product supplier needs them to pay the bills. You don't like ads. You have zero respect for the product supplier. You consume their work product and delete the ads, using an artificially-constructed moral high ground to justify it. The web would not exist if your world view had been dominant from the early days. Few people are interested in paying for anything directly. Gmail has 1.5 billion users. Care to guess how many pay for the service? Nobody is going to pay for search, and yet it is one of the most valuable tools on the internet, arguably the one thing that makes it work. A service like YouTube is incredibly valuable, not just from an entertainment perspective but also for learning and more. Once again, nobody wants to pay for it. I could go on. There are millions of excellent sites beyond what Google has to offer. What's more important is that none of these services would have been built to where they are today were it not for the use of advertising as a revenue generation channel. At a higher philosophical level, the question might be: What future valuable service or product would we not allow to germinate if nobody wants to pay for anything and everyone uses ad blockers. Like it or not, this is one of the easiest ways for entrepreneurs to finance their dreams and ideas on the web. Given the vast majority of people will not pay for anything, the options become very few. This is certainly true at inception. Later on, as a business matures, other potential revenue streams surface. Go try and start something like Facebook (about 3 billion users) and ask people to pay you just $1 per year. Aside from the fact that it would be impossible to support the infrastructure and people needed to run such a beast, well, nobody is going to hand you even $1 per year for the service. I don't care what features and privacy enhancements you might offer, nobody is going to pay. What's left? Well, initially, advertising. That's the only way. Sad, but true. We don't have to like reality, but we should understand it.

commoner 5y ago
I respect the ability of site owners to make their own decisions about how to run their own businesses. I respect the courage it takes for a site owner to accept responsibility for their own decisions. When a site owner chooses to supply content without charging for it and without stipulating that it must be consumed in its entirety without an ad blocker, I respect that. And if some of that content interests me, I will accept the site owner's offer of free content and consume the parts that I want to consume, while ignoring or blocking the parts that I don't. How I spend my time and attention on the site is my personal decision, not the site owner's decision, not your decision, and not anyone else's decision. I don't care if an unsound and generally unaccepted ethical theory like the one you're advocating for disregards my individual right to spend my time and attention as I please. I don't care if you would rather prioritize someone else's profit over my autonomy. My time and my attention belong to me. I don't use Gmail, and I would prefer Gmail's user base to be distributed among many smaller companies that compete with each other to provide better products. I don't use Facebook, and I would prefer it to be completely supplanted by fediverse services that don't violate the privacy of users and non-users, and don't create poor working conditions for its contractors.* YouTube is not irreplaceable either, and I would rather see a variety of platforms like PeerTube instances and Vimeo break YouTube's near-monopoly of online video content in the U.S. and many other countries. I fully understand the reality of online advertising, which only amplifies my support for ad blocking. * https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo...