3 ms·

People do this more for ideaology reason. For some people (not me) ads are inherently bad, so it's okay to abuse advertiser. Just like for some people, copyri

People do this more for ideaology reason. For some people (not me) ads are inherently bad, so it's okay to abuse advertiser. Just like for some people, copyright are inherently bad, so piracy is not just a way to save several bucks, but a moral duty.

jedberg 3y ago
People also commit terrorist acts and justify it as "ideological".
- raincole 3y ago
  I didn't say I agree on these ideologies. I actually support the website owner's legal right to not serve users with ad blockers who don't pay in any other way.
- sambapa 3y ago
  Still better than people who commit terrorist acts only for money.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Are you just pointing out that sometimes justifications are wrong? Yeah, we know.
- CapsAdmin 3y ago
  I think using the cultural stigma of a "terrorist act" to make an analogy like that isn't very productive. It's as effective as saying "People also do bad things for ideological reasons", simply stating as fact that violating copyright is bad ignoring any of the nuance that was provided.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Clicking on ads consumes actual real world resources of the ad network (which is passed on to the advertiser). This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale.
    - brokenmachine 3y ago
      Attaching unwanted ads and tracking to desired content also consumes actual real world resources for people who don't want ads. Seems to go both ways.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      >Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Of course it does. It violates their rights. > This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale. "Stochastic terrorism" is a nonsense concept anyway.
      - jedberg 3y ago
        Your intellectual inconsistency is amusing. You believe in intellectual property but not stochastic terrorisim, even though both are just created concepts to explain things that people believe exist.
        memefrog 3y ago
        That is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you believe that everything with a name exists? If I say the words "the great replacement" does that mean that it actually exists? If I say "COVID-19 lab leak" does that confirm the truth of that theory too? I tried saying "my enormous wealth" a few times, but I'm still not enormously wealthy. Do you have any tips for how I can learn to make things true just by referring to them? To be more serious: "stochastic terrorism" is nonsensical because it attributes to a person some act that is not his responsibility. It doesn't matter how large your audience is or what you suspect they might do with the information: saying "this hospital performs masectomies on teenage girls" will never be a terrorist act, even if some audience member allegedly called in a bomb threat later. In no way, shape, or form is that act attributable to him. If you say something, and someone reacts by doing something, that is not your fault, and never will be.
        dooglius 3y ago
        Does someone have to believe in all concepts or in no concepts whatsoever?
- mrd3v0 3y ago
  A lot of nefarious, brutal and unethical behaviour that is completely normalised in today's world will be considered terrorist or otherwise in the future. It is still ideological no matter how horrible we think it is.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    Any examples?

jedberg 3y ago

People also commit terrorist acts and justify it as "ideological".

raincole 3y ago
I didn't say I agree on these ideologies. I actually support the website owner's legal right to not serve users with ad blockers who don't pay in any other way.
sambapa 3y ago
Still better than people who commit terrorist acts only for money.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Are you just pointing out that sometimes justifications are wrong? Yeah, we know.
CapsAdmin 3y ago
I think using the cultural stigma of a "terrorist act" to make an analogy like that isn't very productive. It's as effective as saying "People also do bad things for ideological reasons", simply stating as fact that violating copyright is bad ignoring any of the nuance that was provided.
- jedberg 3y ago
  Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Clicking on ads consumes actual real world resources of the ad network (which is passed on to the advertiser). This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale.
  - brokenmachine 3y ago
    Attaching unwanted ads and tracking to desired content also consumes actual real world resources for people who don't want ads. Seems to go both ways.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    >Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Of course it does. It violates their rights. > This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale. "Stochastic terrorism" is a nonsense concept anyway.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      Your intellectual inconsistency is amusing. You believe in intellectual property but not stochastic terrorisim, even though both are just created concepts to explain things that people believe exist.
      - memefrog 3y ago
        That is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you believe that everything with a name exists? If I say the words "the great replacement" does that mean that it actually exists? If I say "COVID-19 lab leak" does that confirm the truth of that theory too? I tried saying "my enormous wealth" a few times, but I'm still not enormously wealthy. Do you have any tips for how I can learn to make things true just by referring to them? To be more serious: "stochastic terrorism" is nonsensical because it attributes to a person some act that is not his responsibility. It doesn't matter how large your audience is or what you suspect they might do with the information: saying "this hospital performs masectomies on teenage girls" will never be a terrorist act, even if some audience member allegedly called in a bomb threat later. In no way, shape, or form is that act attributable to him. If you say something, and someone reacts by doing something, that is not your fault, and never will be.
      - dooglius 3y ago
        Does someone have to believe in all concepts or in no concepts whatsoever?
mrd3v0 3y ago
A lot of nefarious, brutal and unethical behaviour that is completely normalised in today's world will be considered terrorist or otherwise in the future. It is still ideological no matter how horrible we think it is.
- memefrog 3y ago
  Any examples?