4 ms·

> Is it unethical to use accessibility tools that cannot see visual ads? Arguably, in a black and white sense I think so. In a practical sense no. You wouldn't

> Is it unethical to use accessibility tools that cannot see visual ads? Arguably, in a black and white sense I think so. In a practical sense no. You wouldn't expect someone who's blind to get a free meal at a restaurant just because they are blind. From a practical point of view implementing ads for the visually impaired probably costs more than the ads gain, and therefore a company would rather not, but if a company implemented an accommodation so that the ad could be experienced by the impaired person, then I would argue not experiencing that ad is unethical. > Is it unethical to use a computer that isn’t associated with you? The point is applying Kant's categorical imperative. If we took the idea of using ad block and made it a rule that everyone must follow, websites would not be able to fund themselves because they fund themselves by showing ads which creates a contradiction and therefore using adblock is unethical. You can equivocate to try to justify the behavior, but that doesn't change that for most of the web, you are provided a web page in exchange for ads. Companies are taking your data and selling it because they can, and you don't know the value of your data, so that is arguably theft and almost certainly unethical too. Poorly specified contracts are also unethical. When you visit a website, you don't know what you are giving up or the price you are paying. That's wrong. I am a little sad there is no wide spread doxxing of the owners of adtech/data broker companies to force the ethics discussion in congress.

Spooky23 3y ago
I just don’t agree and that’s ok. It’s funny that many people paid for newspapers specifically to get ads. Ads were native content and sought out. If you offer content for free, I don’t understand why I have an ethical obligation to look at or read that content, ads included. Personally, I think many of the low quality ad platforms aren’t ads at all - they are information gathering platforms
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Life isn't about what you take, it's about what you give. If everyone takes without giving, there is nothing left to take. If everyone gives without taking, there is enough to take when you need it. This is fundamental to how societies operate. This was core christian ethos before it was corrupted by the GOP. This is why the west has higher trust societies, and much of the rest of the world does not. Reciprocity is an extremely important consideration. Kantian ethics is the foundation of the west. If you take your actions and thoughts and project them onto everyone else, the websites you enjoy wouldn't exist. If you understand that, you just don't want to feel uncomfortable and are in denial. If you do not understand that you are choosing ignorance. You don't have to agree, but we are both effectively parasites. What's worse is the conflict of interest. On the topic of news papers, if content is not paid for it is that the content itself that becomes an engine of money making. Content becomes ads. If nobody pays for high quality investigative journalism you don't get high quality investigative journalism. If you don't donate to your politicians, someone else will. If you don't pay for your news papers, someone else will. If you don't pay for your social media, someone else will. You can argue these companies are taking more than they give, and they are, but your position of personal responsibility is worth considering. The sum of everyone's thoughts on their personal responsibility creates culture, and this "next quarters profits" culture that we live in is an extension of the very ideas you have expressed. When you choose to act in a self interested way, you justify someone else acting in a self interested way. So you justify the selfish acts against you through your actions. If you think it's ok to not experience ads, you justify people using ads to collect and sell your data. Using an adblocker is what you can do, just like selling your data is what the company can do. It's "might makes right" in form, which is the opposite of reciprocity. Might makes right is great for the winner, but I don't think we are winning.
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    - So you justify the selfish acts against you through your actions. Can you apply this analogy on ad and data harvesting companies?

Spooky23 3y ago

I just don’t agree and that’s ok. It’s funny that many people paid for newspapers specifically to get ads. Ads were native content and sought out. If you offer content for free, I don’t understand why I have an ethical obligation to look at or read that content, ads included. Personally, I think many of the low quality ad platforms aren’t ads at all - they are information gathering platforms

hayst4ck 3y ago
Life isn't about what you take, it's about what you give. If everyone takes without giving, there is nothing left to take. If everyone gives without taking, there is enough to take when you need it. This is fundamental to how societies operate. This was core christian ethos before it was corrupted by the GOP. This is why the west has higher trust societies, and much of the rest of the world does not. Reciprocity is an extremely important consideration. Kantian ethics is the foundation of the west. If you take your actions and thoughts and project them onto everyone else, the websites you enjoy wouldn't exist. If you understand that, you just don't want to feel uncomfortable and are in denial. If you do not understand that you are choosing ignorance. You don't have to agree, but we are both effectively parasites. What's worse is the conflict of interest. On the topic of news papers, if content is not paid for it is that the content itself that becomes an engine of money making. Content becomes ads. If nobody pays for high quality investigative journalism you don't get high quality investigative journalism. If you don't donate to your politicians, someone else will. If you don't pay for your news papers, someone else will. If you don't pay for your social media, someone else will. You can argue these companies are taking more than they give, and they are, but your position of personal responsibility is worth considering. The sum of everyone's thoughts on their personal responsibility creates culture, and this "next quarters profits" culture that we live in is an extension of the very ideas you have expressed. When you choose to act in a self interested way, you justify someone else acting in a self interested way. So you justify the selfish acts against you through your actions. If you think it's ok to not experience ads, you justify people using ads to collect and sell your data. Using an adblocker is what you can do, just like selling your data is what the company can do. It's "might makes right" in form, which is the opposite of reciprocity. Might makes right is great for the winner, but I don't think we are winning.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  - So you justify the selfish acts against you through your actions. Can you apply this analogy on ad and data harvesting companies?