3 ms·

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 advertis

by 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.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    The restaurant analogy works. Blocking web ads is not like ignoring a billboard, or turning away from TV ads. When you go to an ad-supported web site, your individual request actually costs money to serve. You are incrementally increasing their costs while denying them the corresponding income. You are making a decision to continue increasing those costs for your own benefit. There's a reasonable argument to be made that the first request is a gimme. As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere.
    - dahart 4y ago
      Billboards and TV ads cost money too, generally speaking far more money per ad than web ads. The idea that they’re somehow different from website ads is wrong. > As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere. False, because that’s not the actual public expectation today. The common expectation that would define what is moral in this situation is that blocking is reasonable because ads are intrusive and annoying and often get in the way of the reason I’m on the site. I’d be fine with saying it’s “nice” and it’s “supporting” the site to not block the ad, but hard disagree that blocking is immoral, that’s just hyperbole. That’s not really the advertiser’s wish either, they don’t want the result to be less traffic, they just want you to watch the ad. So your suggestion isn’t actually respecting their wishes.
    - cwkoss 4y ago
      The ads on the bottom of CVS receipts are incrementally increasing their costs. Do you feel a moral obligation to read each one?
    - lwhi 4y ago
      Except when did I agree I wanted to pay for my lunch with my eyeballs .. ?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Morals are not defined by respecting the wishes of other people either. I think they are - it's moral to respect other people's reasonable wishes, or not interact with them if you're not able to respect them. If I know someone expects that I'll bring a bottle of wine to their party, I should either do that, or I should decline to come to the party. If I know that's what they were expecting and I turn up empty handed and eat all their party food then I'm just a bad person even if no laws were broken. 'Nah nah nah no laws broken, agreement was never written down, no money changed hands' isn't a kind way to interact with people.

by dahart 4y ago

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.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  The restaurant analogy works. Blocking web ads is not like ignoring a billboard, or turning away from TV ads. When you go to an ad-supported web site, your individual request actually costs money to serve. You are incrementally increasing their costs while denying them the corresponding income. You are making a decision to continue increasing those costs for your own benefit. There's a reasonable argument to be made that the first request is a gimme. As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Billboards and TV ads cost money too, generally speaking far more money per ad than web ads. The idea that they’re somehow different from website ads is wrong. > As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere. False, because that’s not the actual public expectation today. The common expectation that would define what is moral in this situation is that blocking is reasonable because ads are intrusive and annoying and often get in the way of the reason I’m on the site. I’d be fine with saying it’s “nice” and it’s “supporting” the site to not block the ad, but hard disagree that blocking is immoral, that’s just hyperbole. That’s not really the advertiser’s wish either, they don’t want the result to be less traffic, they just want you to watch the ad. So your suggestion isn’t actually respecting their wishes.
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    The ads on the bottom of CVS receipts are incrementally increasing their costs. Do you feel a moral obligation to read each one?
  - lwhi 4y ago
    Except when did I agree I wanted to pay for my lunch with my eyeballs .. ?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Morals are not defined by respecting the wishes of other people either. I think they are - it's moral to respect other people's reasonable wishes, or not interact with them if you're not able to respect them. If I know someone expects that I'll bring a bottle of wine to their party, I should either do that, or I should decline to come to the party. If I know that's what they were expecting and I turn up empty handed and eat all their party food then I'm just a bad person even if no laws were broken. 'Nah nah nah no laws broken, agreement was never written down, no money changed hands' isn't a kind way to interact with people.