3 ms·

my argument isn't that adblocking is theft, my argument is specifically that if you're watching a video and circumvent the ad through technology, that is, since

my argument isn't that adblocking is theft, my argument is specifically that if you're watching a video and circumvent the ad through technology, that is, since it is. clicking skip isn't. not watching it isn't. scrolling down and reading the comments isn't, same with just muting the sound. certainly you're not obligated to engage with the ad. if circumventing it is not theft, then piracy is not a problem for the same reason. > The analogy I would make is that, once I've obtained a piece of software, there is no ethical issue with me deciding to modify my copy of it, perhaps to remove assets I don't want included. your analogy, is also piracy, since by your stance here removing restrictions that might requirement payment is OK even though that too is piracy. though if you want to be pedantic all adblocking can be considered fraud since you're deceiving the content provider (by blocking ads) for personal gain (not seeing ads).

JohnFen 4y ago
> my argument is specifically that if you're watching a video and circumvent the ad through technology, that is, since it is That's your assertion, but what is your reasoning? This is an honest question, because it's not at all clear to me why it should be considered theft. > your analogy, is also piracy, since by your stance here removing restrictions that might requirement payment is OK even though that too is piracy. And I have the same question here. Why should that be considered theft? At worst, it's a violation of terms of service, it seems to me. > though if you want to be pedantic all adblocking can be considered fraud since you're deceiving the content provider (by blocking ads) for personal gain (not seeing ads). I disagree that it's fraud, too. I'm not deceiving anybody. And the "personal gain" aspect seems strained to me. "Personal gain" typically means "material gain" -- that is, being materially enriched.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  > That's your assertion, but what is your reasoning? This is an honest question, because it's not at all clear to me why it should be considered theft. it's theft to me because you're taking things - the product of effort, labor, electricity, etc - without any payment when requested, in this case, ads. same reason I think sneaking into a theater or amusement park without paying is also theft. > I disagree that it's fraud, too. I'm not deceiving anybody. And the "personal gain" aspect seems strained to me. "Personal gain" typically means "material gain" -- that is, being materially enriched. are you not materially enriched if you get access to sites without paying? if you don't gain anything, then there would be no reason to do it. the preference is the indication that something has been gained. obviously you can believe whatever you want, but there's really nothing different about avoiding ads and cracking software, aka piracy. and if you're OK with that, fundamentally there's really nothing special about digital goods, including money whose existence for many exists primarily virtually. there are people who think theft is OK, all land is stolen, etc. that's fine, I guess, I just have a different opinion.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Thank you for at least explaining your position. We certainly disagree, and that's fair. But it helps to at least understand each other. > obviously you can believe whatever you want, but there's really nothing different about avoiding ads and cracking software, aka piracy. and if you're OK with that, fundamentally there's really nothing special about digital goods, including money whose existence for many exists primarily virtually. But this makes it clear that I've failed to make myself understood at all. Oh well, such is life.

JohnFen 4y ago

> my argument is specifically that if you're watching a video and circumvent the ad through technology, that is, since it is That's your assertion, but what is your reasoning? This is an honest question, because it's not at all clear to me why it should be considered theft. > your analogy, is also piracy, since by your stance here removing restrictions that might requirement payment is OK even though that too is piracy. And I have the same question here. Why should that be considered theft? At worst, it's a violation of terms of service, it seems to me. > though if you want to be pedantic all adblocking can be considered fraud since you're deceiving the content provider (by blocking ads) for personal gain (not seeing ads). I disagree that it's fraud, too. I'm not deceiving anybody. And the "personal gain" aspect seems strained to me. "Personal gain" typically means "material gain" -- that is, being materially enriched.

endisneigh 4y ago
> That's your assertion, but what is your reasoning? This is an honest question, because it's not at all clear to me why it should be considered theft. it's theft to me because you're taking things - the product of effort, labor, electricity, etc - without any payment when requested, in this case, ads. same reason I think sneaking into a theater or amusement park without paying is also theft. > I disagree that it's fraud, too. I'm not deceiving anybody. And the "personal gain" aspect seems strained to me. "Personal gain" typically means "material gain" -- that is, being materially enriched. are you not materially enriched if you get access to sites without paying? if you don't gain anything, then there would be no reason to do it. the preference is the indication that something has been gained. obviously you can believe whatever you want, but there's really nothing different about avoiding ads and cracking software, aka piracy. and if you're OK with that, fundamentally there's really nothing special about digital goods, including money whose existence for many exists primarily virtually. there are people who think theft is OK, all land is stolen, etc. that's fine, I guess, I just have a different opinion.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Thank you for at least explaining your position. We certainly disagree, and that's fair. But it helps to at least understand each other. > obviously you can believe whatever you want, but there's really nothing different about avoiding ads and cracking software, aka piracy. and if you're OK with that, fundamentally there's really nothing special about digital goods, including money whose existence for many exists primarily virtually. But this makes it clear that I've failed to make myself understood at all. Oh well, such is life.