5 ms·

I think "immoral" is a reach as a description of spam, and to be crystal clear I'm not defending spam. How is spam any more immoral than ads in a web page? Both

I think "immoral" is a reach as a description of spam, and to be crystal clear I'm not defending spam. How is spam any more immoral than ads in a web page? Both are inserting advertising into a channel that a user is accessing information through, as a way to raise revenue or change behavior. (Spam is not by definition phishing, any more than banner ads are innately phishing, though phishing can be served through both mediums.) If spam is _immoral_ then why is adtech in general not _immoral_?

sbarre 4y ago
Because, like so many things, context matters. Ads have a place in the world, where we expect to see them (whether we like them or not), and typically most ads are not trying to pass as non-ads (yes of course there are exceptions to this). The difference here is that these exist in a place where ads should not be, as per the description and use of the service. And it also subverts the experience the service owner is trying to provide. Imagine if you accept a "free sample" box of cereal and you get home and open it and it's just full of flyers, instead of being full of cereal. Or this is why you can't just go to any private space like a shopping mall with a megaphone and a sandwich board and start advertising your services without permission. Security will ask you to leave, because the owner of the mall didn't agree to this.
- bleep_bloop 4y ago
  Much more eloquently composed response than mine.
- smallerfish 4y ago
  > Or this is why you can't just go to any private space like a shopping mall with a megaphone and a sandwich board and start advertising your services without permission. Security will ask you to leave, because the owner of the mall didn't agree to this. You can certainly go to any public space and do this, however. People do it all the time (admittedly less frequently with megaphones). Are all of the people on street corners doing twirlies with cardboard signs immoral? Billboards would be a gray area example whereby they're hosted on private resources (land) but intrude into public space (view from highway). > Imagine if you accept a "free sample" box of cereal and you get home and open it and it's just full of flyers, instead of being full of cereal. Imagine if you accept a "free social media feed" of information about your community, and you "get home" and it's full of ads. Or you accept a "free article" from a website by clicking on a link, and when you load it (consuming bandwidth on a line that you paid for), it contains just as many ads as it does paragraphs of information. As I said, I'm not defending spam in general (which is obnoxious), or the act of the person/people who polluted/vandalized the npm repos. I just think "immoral" is a little strong unless you also want to paint much of the rest of the ad world with the same brush.
  - lib-dev 4y ago
    I'll paint 'em all with that brush. It's a fundamentally manipulative industry.
  - sbarre 4y ago
    > You can certainly go to any public space and do this, however. People do it all the time (admittedly less frequently with megaphones). Are all of the people on street corners doing twirlies with cardboard signs immoral? Billboards would be a gray area example whereby they're hosted on private resources (land) but intrude into public space (view from highway). Yes I specifically said private spaces for a reason. Apples and oranges here. There are no public spaces on the Internet. > Imagine if you accept a "free social media feed" of information about your community, and you "get home" and it's full of ads. Or you accept a "free article" from a website by clicking on a link, and when you load it (consuming bandwidth on a line that you paid for), it contains just as many ads as it does paragraphs of information. Not sure why you're trying so hard to counter my examples, with inadequate examples to boot? I am still getting something from that feed with ads, or that article with ads. If I only get flyers and no cereal, then not the same, right?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - smallerfish 4y ago
      The internet absolutely was a public space until the ads/walled garden model replaced it.
      - sbarre 4y ago
        You and I have different definitions of public space. I've been on the net since the early 90s, and even back then there were no public spaces. There is nowhere online, and really never has been, where you have a right to be, or where you can express your government-given rights (also, which government? most of us are not US citizens) without anyone having the ability to cut you off or kick you out at their own discretion. Every server, whether it was Usenet, IRC, the web, email, or otherwise, was, and is, owned by a private entity that could moderate, manage and restrict usage as they see fit. If you cause them enough trouble, they will boot you, and have every right to do so. I don't call that public spaces.
bleep_bloop 4y ago
We accept ads because in return we usually receive a product or service for free. It's an unwritten contract that society has accepted. Spam on the other hand is nothing more than guerrilla advertisement. It's obnoxious. It serves no purpose other than to it's creator. It provides no benefit to end users or society. Sounds kinda immoral if you ask me.
raincole 4y ago
> How is spam any more immoral than ads in a web page? What? Many websites need ads to survive. Node.js doesn't need spam to survice. It's a quite huge difference, don't you think?
Georgelemental 4y ago
You are free to put ads on your own service, because you own it and can do what you want with it. But you don't have the right to vandalize someone else's service with spam.
salawat 4y ago
Adtech is immoral. It has been immoral, it will remain immoral. When you start diluting what people are actually looking for in an ocean of advertisement, malware, tracking pixels, and surveillance call-homes you've firmly left the territory of the moral.

sbarre 4y ago

Because, like so many things, context matters. Ads have a place in the world, where we expect to see them (whether we like them or not), and typically most ads are not trying to pass as non-ads (yes of course there are exceptions to this). The difference here is that these exist in a place where ads should not be, as per the description and use of the service. And it also subverts the experience the service owner is trying to provide. Imagine if you accept a "free sample" box of cereal and you get home and open it and it's just full of flyers, instead of being full of cereal. Or this is why you can't just go to any private space like a shopping mall with a megaphone and a sandwich board and start advertising your services without permission. Security will ask you to leave, because the owner of the mall didn't agree to this.

bleep_bloop 4y ago
Much more eloquently composed response than mine.
smallerfish 4y ago
> Or this is why you can't just go to any private space like a shopping mall with a megaphone and a sandwich board and start advertising your services without permission. Security will ask you to leave, because the owner of the mall didn't agree to this. You can certainly go to any public space and do this, however. People do it all the time (admittedly less frequently with megaphones). Are all of the people on street corners doing twirlies with cardboard signs immoral? Billboards would be a gray area example whereby they're hosted on private resources (land) but intrude into public space (view from highway). > Imagine if you accept a "free sample" box of cereal and you get home and open it and it's just full of flyers, instead of being full of cereal. Imagine if you accept a "free social media feed" of information about your community, and you "get home" and it's full of ads. Or you accept a "free article" from a website by clicking on a link, and when you load it (consuming bandwidth on a line that you paid for), it contains just as many ads as it does paragraphs of information. As I said, I'm not defending spam in general (which is obnoxious), or the act of the person/people who polluted/vandalized the npm repos. I just think "immoral" is a little strong unless you also want to paint much of the rest of the ad world with the same brush.
- lib-dev 4y ago
  I'll paint 'em all with that brush. It's a fundamentally manipulative industry.
- sbarre 4y ago
  > You can certainly go to any public space and do this, however. People do it all the time (admittedly less frequently with megaphones). Are all of the people on street corners doing twirlies with cardboard signs immoral? Billboards would be a gray area example whereby they're hosted on private resources (land) but intrude into public space (view from highway). Yes I specifically said private spaces for a reason. Apples and oranges here. There are no public spaces on the Internet. > Imagine if you accept a "free social media feed" of information about your community, and you "get home" and it's full of ads. Or you accept a "free article" from a website by clicking on a link, and when you load it (consuming bandwidth on a line that you paid for), it contains just as many ads as it does paragraphs of information. Not sure why you're trying so hard to counter my examples, with inadequate examples to boot? I am still getting something from that feed with ads, or that article with ads. If I only get flyers and no cereal, then not the same, right?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - smallerfish 4y ago
    The internet absolutely was a public space until the ads/walled garden model replaced it.
    - sbarre 4y ago
      You and I have different definitions of public space. I've been on the net since the early 90s, and even back then there were no public spaces. There is nowhere online, and really never has been, where you have a right to be, or where you can express your government-given rights (also, which government? most of us are not US citizens) without anyone having the ability to cut you off or kick you out at their own discretion. Every server, whether it was Usenet, IRC, the web, email, or otherwise, was, and is, owned by a private entity that could moderate, manage and restrict usage as they see fit. If you cause them enough trouble, they will boot you, and have every right to do so. I don't call that public spaces.

bleep_bloop 4y ago

We accept ads because in return we usually receive a product or service for free. It's an unwritten contract that society has accepted. Spam on the other hand is nothing more than guerrilla advertisement. It's obnoxious. It serves no purpose other than to it's creator. It provides no benefit to end users or society. Sounds kinda immoral if you ask me.

raincole 4y ago

> How is spam any more immoral than ads in a web page? What? Many websites need ads to survive. Node.js doesn't need spam to survice. It's a quite huge difference, don't you think?

Georgelemental 4y ago

You are free to put ads on your own service, because you own it and can do what you want with it. But you don't have the right to vandalize someone else's service with spam.

salawat 4y ago

Adtech is immoral. It has been immoral, it will remain immoral. When you start diluting what people are actually looking for in an ocean of advertisement, malware, tracking pixels, and surveillance call-homes you've firmly left the territory of the moral.