4 ms·

> the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and so

> the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong.

stickfigure 4y ago
The internet is not an honesty box.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Well I think it is - they're offering something with an understanding. Yes the understanding isn't legally enforced, but socially that's what they're expecting. Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree, rather than continuing to take while knowing that it's not what they wanted.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    > Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree If you think the current state of online advertising as a business model is actively immoral, as I do, then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do Why not avoid the businesses instead?
      - cwkoss 4y ago
        Do you think people in costco should avoid trying samples if they don't intend to purchase the item?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        No - do you? Trying samples is what they're presented for.
        cwkoss 4y ago
        By your own logic, shouldn't you avoid eating samples for products you have no intent on purchasing?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        No that doesn't make any sense - the whole point of a sample is to give to people who don't already have an intent to purchase. That's what the company wants to do and their offer to you. I don't think these replies are the clever 'gotchas' that you think they are.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        Certainly this doesn't hold up without an explanation and you shouldn't expect the reader to provide that for themselves. If that sounds wrong to you, I'd invite you to put your thoughts into words.
        cwkoss 4y ago
        Samples are funded by the expectation that some will follow through with a purchase and justify the free distribution of those samples. Websites with ads are funded by the expectation that some will click through, make a purchase, and justify the free distribution of those bits. If you eat samples with no intent of making a purchase, you are subverting FoodCo's expectation that samples will lead to sales. You are making their business model unsustainable. Why do you think the free taking of bits (which cost much less to serve, and is much less tangible) is less justified than the free taking of food samples? In both cases it subverts the business model expectations of the party offering the free stuff. I think individuals are not obligated to support the business models of companies that give them free stuff in hopes it will make them money - so have no moral concerns with either case.
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    Their understanding is entirely in their own mind. I, and a very large percentage of internet users, reject it. Content publishers might want this social contract to exist, but it does not. I personally don't find ad-supported content objectionable. But it's still my browser running on my computer and I'll do what I like with it.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > Their understanding is entirely in their own mind. Well yeah that's how society works. Unless you want written code for all social interactions? Most don't.
  - Stupulous 4y ago
    How far do you take this point? Because the social expectation is not just that you allow the ads to be served, but that you read/watch them and that they increase the likelihood of you buying the products/services being advertised. Is it immoral for me to ignore the ads that I allow them to display on my computer? And if not, what is the difference apart from the effort I'm putting in?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - oriolid 4y ago
      I think the normal expectation would be that the advertiser pays for the ads being shown together with the content you're really interested in, and it's the advertisers' problem if the ads produce any value for them.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      No I don't agree with this - the expectation is that the ads are there. Whether they're successful or not is their problem.
      - Stupulous 4y ago
        This feels like an arbitrary line to me. The host expects the ads to be rendered, and that's my problem. The advertiser expects their ads to be viewed, but that's their problem. What's the distinction? Is it that I'm only in an implicit social contract with the person serving the content I want? Then it would be morally fine for me to block ads as long as I trick advertisers into thinking I didn't- the host only cares about whether they get paid. And what about on YouTube or Instagram, where the advertiser is the host? Google expects me to view their ads, not just render them, and I'm definitely in a social contract with them. Or is it that they are allowed to stake a moral claim on the content of my browser, but not on my attention? Then I'd be allowed to block full-screen ads that force me to find an X, or autoplaying ads with sound, as they are forcing me to give them something they have no right to. And if I had an attention deficit disorder or a shopping addiction, all ads would be in that category. Even without such things, every ad accesses my attention without my consent, even if it's just the attention required to ignore them.
  - dahart 4y ago
    No, nice try I guess but this is wrong in several ways. Morals are not defined by capitulating to the wishes of others. If it was, the moral thing for advertisers to do would be to not try to show people ads who don’t wish to view them but do wish to consume content. Your argument here falls apart the second you consider any symmetry. Furthermore, there are decades of history of advertisers being perfectly aware that most people would prefer not to see the ads, given a choice. They do not, in fact, expect people to just watch the ads. As evidence of this fact, they have come up with dozens and dozens of legal and technical mechanisms to force people to view their ads despite their preferences.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > Morals are not defined by capitulating to the wishes of others. Respecting, not capitulating. > If it was, the moral thing for advertisers to do would be to not try to show people ads who don’t wish to view them but do wish to consume content. No, if the website and user don't have a common understanding, then both can go separate ways. > perfectly aware that most people would prefer not to see the ads, given a choice And I'd prefer not to pay the bill in a restaurant, but that's not the expectation. > they have come up with dozens and dozens of legal and technical mechanisms to force people to view their ads And restaurants come up with legal and technical mechanisms to make me pay the bill.
      - dahart 4y ago
        Morals are not defined by respecting the wishes of other people either. You’re right to pivot to common expectations, that’s closer, but when you examine the actual expectations of both the public and the advertisers, you find that it roundly undermines your choice of framing here. Restaurants are a false analogy. There is an explicit agreement known in advance by both parties, a legal contract with a restaurant when you order, and leaving without paying is a crime. There is no such expectation with ads. This is cringey and goofy. It’s not a moral issue, you’re really stretching. Even if it was a moral issue, the global known public expectation of ads is that they’re sometimes tolerated and on the whole not preferred. You’re choosing to prioritize the viewpoint of advertisers over respecting the wishes of the public, while if you look at it from the public’s perspective, ads have never been the “moral” choice. Your argument, of course, is also wearing blinders to the many ways that ads can be actually immoral, for example as a soft bait-and-switch, by offering one thing to entice while delivering something else with an agenda, and the ways ads are often directly immoral by using misleading or untrue information, selling goods and services that are overall harmful to the public, from excessive sugar to payday loans to expensive pharmaceuticals to politics.
tboughen 4y ago
I disagree. There are forms of adverts that my browser extensions will not block - simple images for example. It’s not my fault that sites choose not to use these any more, and instead use a model that is, in my view, an unacceptable security risk.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  If it’s unacceptable, don’t visit the website again. That seems more honest to me.
  - ASalazarMX 4y ago
    It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs? The ultimate purpose of ads is getting money from us, why can't we have a say about how the request is presented to us? Ads are not a privilege or a right, they're beggars posted at every corner of the Internet.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs? Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts.
      - ASalazarMX 4y ago
        > Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts. By not consuming intrusive ads, and by not buying products promoted with unethical practices. You can't possibly defend the current state of private spying and surveillance, it's dystopian. The data collected is sold (directly or indirectly) to bad actors, and is ripe for abuse. You can't just say "deal with it or GTFO", ad blocking is the only recourse we as consumers have to voice our opinion.
ivanche 4y ago
It’s interesting that moral and social burden is somehow put onto people that don’t want to be tracked/shadow profiled/spied on, and NOT on the companies that do tracking/spying.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  What moral and social burden? If you don't like it, ignore them and don't visit their websites. They aren't forcing you to.
  - ivanche 4y ago
    I am sorry, was it you that wrote "I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong."? If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > I am sorry, was it you that wrote HN lets you see who wrote a comment - it says above each one. > If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is. I mean you don't have a burden to visit their website if you don't want to. If it was a government organisation then yes.
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    I don't know what code their sites will send my browser until they send it. But I do know that my browser tells them not to track me in its initial request, so they are free to send me away and not let me "in the door". But they don't, they let me in despite me being very clear that I am entering on the condition that they don't track me, so here we are. They don't get to pull the surprised-face card when I then proceed to not let them track me. Adjacent to that, I think a "I'm not going to display your ads" or bluntly "don't show me ads" header would make perfect sense and yet I'm quite sure that webmasters would treat it the exact same way that they've treated do-not-track.
delvinj 4y ago
I think its more like: you visit the honesty box for eggs, but someone follows you home and watches everything you do for six months.
- account42 4y ago
  Also the "honesty box" vendor put all the more ethical egg sellers out of business by undercutting them.

stickfigure 4y ago

The internet is not an honesty box.

chrisseaton 4y ago
Well I think it is - they're offering something with an understanding. Yes the understanding isn't legally enforced, but socially that's what they're expecting. Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree, rather than continuing to take while knowing that it's not what they wanted.
- coldpie 4y ago
  > Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree If you think the current state of online advertising as a business model is actively immoral, as I do, then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do Why not avoid the businesses instead?
    - cwkoss 4y ago
      Do you think people in costco should avoid trying samples if they don't intend to purchase the item?
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        No - do you? Trying samples is what they're presented for.
        cwkoss 4y ago
        By your own logic, shouldn't you avoid eating samples for products you have no intent on purchasing?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        No that doesn't make any sense - the whole point of a sample is to give to people who don't already have an intent to purchase. That's what the company wants to do and their offer to you. I don't think these replies are the clever 'gotchas' that you think they are.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        Certainly this doesn't hold up without an explanation and you shouldn't expect the reader to provide that for themselves. If that sounds wrong to you, I'd invite you to put your thoughts into words.
        cwkoss 4y ago
        Samples are funded by the expectation that some will follow through with a purchase and justify the free distribution of those samples. Websites with ads are funded by the expectation that some will click through, make a purchase, and justify the free distribution of those bits. If you eat samples with no intent of making a purchase, you are subverting FoodCo's expectation that samples will lead to sales. You are making their business model unsustainable. Why do you think the free taking of bits (which cost much less to serve, and is much less tangible) is less justified than the free taking of food samples? In both cases it subverts the business model expectations of the party offering the free stuff. I think individuals are not obligated to support the business models of companies that give them free stuff in hopes it will make them money - so have no moral concerns with either case.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  Their understanding is entirely in their own mind. I, and a very large percentage of internet users, reject it. Content publishers might want this social contract to exist, but it does not. I personally don't find ad-supported content objectionable. But it's still my browser running on my computer and I'll do what I like with it.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Their understanding is entirely in their own mind. Well yeah that's how society works. Unless you want written code for all social interactions? Most don't.
- Stupulous 4y ago
  How far do you take this point? Because the social expectation is not just that you allow the ads to be served, but that you read/watch them and that they increase the likelihood of you buying the products/services being advertised. Is it immoral for me to ignore the ads that I allow them to display on my computer? And if not, what is the difference apart from the effort I'm putting in?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - oriolid 4y ago
    I think the normal expectation would be that the advertiser pays for the ads being shown together with the content you're really interested in, and it's the advertisers' problem if the ads produce any value for them.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    No I don't agree with this - the expectation is that the ads are there. Whether they're successful or not is their problem.
    - Stupulous 4y ago
      This feels like an arbitrary line to me. The host expects the ads to be rendered, and that's my problem. The advertiser expects their ads to be viewed, but that's their problem. What's the distinction? Is it that I'm only in an implicit social contract with the person serving the content I want? Then it would be morally fine for me to block ads as long as I trick advertisers into thinking I didn't- the host only cares about whether they get paid. And what about on YouTube or Instagram, where the advertiser is the host? Google expects me to view their ads, not just render them, and I'm definitely in a social contract with them. Or is it that they are allowed to stake a moral claim on the content of my browser, but not on my attention? Then I'd be allowed to block full-screen ads that force me to find an X, or autoplaying ads with sound, as they are forcing me to give them something they have no right to. And if I had an attention deficit disorder or a shopping addiction, all ads would be in that category. Even without such things, every ad accesses my attention without my consent, even if it's just the attention required to ignore them.
- dahart 4y ago
  No, nice try I guess but this is wrong in several ways. Morals are not defined by capitulating to the wishes of others. If it was, the moral thing for advertisers to do would be to not try to show people ads who don’t wish to view them but do wish to consume content. Your argument here falls apart the second you consider any symmetry. Furthermore, there are decades of history of advertisers being perfectly aware that most people would prefer not to see the ads, given a choice. They do not, in fact, expect people to just watch the ads. As evidence of this fact, they have come up with dozens and dozens of legal and technical mechanisms to force people to view their ads despite their preferences.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Morals are not defined by capitulating to the wishes of others. Respecting, not capitulating. > If it was, the moral thing for advertisers to do would be to not try to show people ads who don’t wish to view them but do wish to consume content. No, if the website and user don't have a common understanding, then both can go separate ways. > perfectly aware that most people would prefer not to see the ads, given a choice And I'd prefer not to pay the bill in a restaurant, but that's not the expectation. > they have come up with dozens and dozens of legal and technical mechanisms to force people to view their ads And restaurants come up with legal and technical mechanisms to make me pay the bill.
    - dahart 4y ago
      Morals are not defined by respecting the wishes of other people either. You’re right to pivot to common expectations, that’s closer, but when you examine the actual expectations of both the public and the advertisers, you find that it roundly undermines your choice of framing here. Restaurants are a false analogy. There is an explicit agreement known in advance by both parties, a legal contract with a restaurant when you order, and leaving without paying is a crime. There is no such expectation with ads. This is cringey and goofy. It’s not a moral issue, you’re really stretching. Even if it was a moral issue, the global known public expectation of ads is that they’re sometimes tolerated and on the whole not preferred. You’re choosing to prioritize the viewpoint of advertisers over respecting the wishes of the public, while if you look at it from the public’s perspective, ads have never been the “moral” choice. Your argument, of course, is also wearing blinders to the many ways that ads can be actually immoral, for example as a soft bait-and-switch, by offering one thing to entice while delivering something else with an agenda, and the ways ads are often directly immoral by using misleading or untrue information, selling goods and services that are overall harmful to the public, from excessive sugar to payday loans to expensive pharmaceuticals to politics.

tboughen 4y ago

I disagree. There are forms of adverts that my browser extensions will not block - simple images for example. It’s not my fault that sites choose not to use these any more, and instead use a model that is, in my view, an unacceptable security risk.

chrisseaton 4y ago
If it’s unacceptable, don’t visit the website again. That seems more honest to me.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs? The ultimate purpose of ads is getting money from us, why can't we have a say about how the request is presented to us? Ads are not a privilege or a right, they're beggars posted at every corner of the Internet.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs? Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts.
    - ASalazarMX 4y ago
      > Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts. By not consuming intrusive ads, and by not buying products promoted with unethical practices. You can't possibly defend the current state of private spying and surveillance, it's dystopian. The data collected is sold (directly or indirectly) to bad actors, and is ripe for abuse. You can't just say "deal with it or GTFO", ad blocking is the only recourse we as consumers have to voice our opinion.

ivanche 4y ago

It’s interesting that moral and social burden is somehow put onto people that don’t want to be tracked/shadow profiled/spied on, and NOT on the companies that do tracking/spying.

chrisseaton 4y ago
What moral and social burden? If you don't like it, ignore them and don't visit their websites. They aren't forcing you to.
- ivanche 4y ago
  I am sorry, was it you that wrote "I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong."? If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > I am sorry, was it you that wrote HN lets you see who wrote a comment - it says above each one. > If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is. I mean you don't have a burden to visit their website if you don't want to. If it was a government organisation then yes.
- anonymousab 4y ago
  I don't know what code their sites will send my browser until they send it. But I do know that my browser tells them not to track me in its initial request, so they are free to send me away and not let me "in the door". But they don't, they let me in despite me being very clear that I am entering on the condition that they don't track me, so here we are. They don't get to pull the surprised-face card when I then proceed to not let them track me. Adjacent to that, I think a "I'm not going to display your ads" or bluntly "don't show me ads" header would make perfect sense and yet I'm quite sure that webmasters would treat it the exact same way that they've treated do-not-track.

delvinj 4y ago

I think its more like: you visit the honesty box for eggs, but someone follows you home and watches everything you do for six months.

account42 4y ago
Also the "honesty box" vendor put all the more ethical egg sellers out of business by undercutting them.