4 ms·

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

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.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        You said this: > By your own logic, ... And didn't explain why OP is being hypocritical with their arguments. It seems you are misunderstanding their position.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    If the goal is to end online advertising as a business model, then not visiting the site is either morally equivalent (no change) or morally worse (does not harm the business) to visiting it with an ad blocker (does harm the business).
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.

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.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        You said this: > By your own logic, ... And didn't explain why OP is being hypocritical with their arguments. It seems you are misunderstanding their position.
- coldpie 4y ago
  If the goal is to end online advertising as a business model, then not visiting the site is either morally equivalent (no change) or morally worse (does not harm the business) to visiting it with an ad blocker (does harm the business).

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.