3 ms·
They're not special-casing ads, surely. the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit. The ad "content" is not desired, create a deficit, paying w
by pbhjpbhj 3y ago
They're not special-casing ads, surely. the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit. The ad "content" is not desired, create a deficit, paying with CPU time for a deficit is moronic.
Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit That doesn't mean there isn't by the OP's logic a moral imperative to not look at that content, due to the environmental impact. My point is that same imperative should apply equally. > Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it. That's a bad analogy, unless someone holding a flyer out pays for a service you consumed.
- midoridensha 3y agoSuppose you go to some kind of event, and it's paid for by an advertiser. At the event, the advertiser walks around and hands out booklets for whatever they're selling, and insists you spend some time reading the booklet. Are you obligated to actually read the booklet? Or is "no thanks" OK?
- robertlagrant 3y agoYou're not obliged to read the booklet or to read ads online. I don't know why you'd talk as though I said you were.
- midoridensha 3y agoYou seem to be claiming that I shouldn't visit a web page without viewing the ads on it. But here you seem to be claiming it's ok to visit the event without reading their ad booklet. That's inconsistent.