2 ms·
The argument for the morality of adblockers, in my opinion, begins and ends with the idea that, were the adblocker something you could insert in your brain dire
by noqc 3y ago
The argument for the morality of adblockers, in my opinion, begins and ends with the idea that, were the adblocker something you could insert in your brain directly, you would clearly have the right to do so, and also clearly have the right not to disclose this to google.
Google gets paid by advertisers to go fishing. They bait the hooks. I don't think it is reasonable to complain that the fish eat the bait and not the hooks.
Maybe it's not good for their business model, but I don't understand why the fish has any duty to the fisherman. You want me to pay for this content? Great, let's settle on a price that doesn't involve your dominant market position first. What do you think you could charge everyone without losing your moat? That seems like a price I'm much more willing to pay.
- Night_Thastus 3y agoThat's a good argument. Mine is a bit different: * Who paid for the computer displaying the content? * Who paid for the electricity powering that computer? * Who paid for the internet service the computer is connected to? * Who paid for the housing the computer is in? The answer to all of those is ME. That seals it personally, I am not seeing ads in my own home when I'm paying for all that. I'm not denying Google has costs to keep YT running. I'm just stating that from my perspective, I've already paid plenty - both upfront and monthly. It would be different if it was a computer in a public library where I paid for nothing, and the ad revenue went to support that library. But that isn't the situation.