8 ms·

I don't understand why people don't have a fundamental right to refuse ad exposure in their private life (eg.: obviously you can't refuse to see a billboard on

by epgui 3y ago

I don't understand why people don't have a fundamental right to refuse ad exposure in their private life (eg.: obviously you can't refuse to see a billboard on the highway, but you should be able to refuse ads in your home or on your devices). It's very similar to having a right to refuse to eat something you think is unhealthy or that you're simply not interested in. If you feed your brain enough garbage (and ads have a very high "information noise" content) then your thinking will eventually become garbage as well. In this respect, we're no different than any other AI model. I hear you objecting and saying that ads create value. Suit yourself and watch all the ads you want. But oh, boy.

ajross 3y ago
> I don't understand why people don't have a fundamental right to refuse ad exposure. They do. You do, I do, we all do. No one has to watch any ad they don't want to. I think your complaint is that people don't have a fundamental right to download video for free from someone else's web site? And, no, they don't.
- epgui 3y ago
  Well that's a heck of a rephrasing.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Can you phrase it more formally then? If you wanted to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing this putative right for posterity, how would you write it? Again, the right you demanded clearly exists. You seem to me to be just asking for free stuff. Am I wrong?
    - epgui 3y ago
      > Again, the right you demanded clearly exists. Where is this written?
canjobear 3y ago
You have a right to reject watching ads. And Youtube has a right to not serve you videos.
- epgui 3y ago
  At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? Edit: it's a legitimate question. You can argue that nobody "needs" YouTube but the fact of the matter is that if you can't access YouTube, you can't ramp up on academic topics as easily as your colleagues, so you are at a disadvantage. It's a material effect. The question is "at what point" does this access become worth protecting.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    If you're going to argue that YouTube is a public good, then the government should be obliged to pay Google for its upkeep costs, or pay them some kind of fair market price to nationalize it completely. Which Google might be OK with, but you should be honest about what you're really proposing here.
    - epgui 3y ago
      Yes, I am talking about some form or other of exactly this, and I am not trying to hide it. I think big social networks have immense importance in society (much like many other utilities), and I think it's worth raising the question, and seriously considering, no matter what answer you land on.
      - hombre_fatal 3y ago
        Who pays the creators and how much?
        epgui 3y ago
        I don't have a business plan, and I haven't drafted any laws. But you can easily imagine a model in which government subsidies are granted at arms length to offset revenue lost by the protection of such a hypothetical right as the one I'm proposing. It doesn't have to be as alarming as many seem to think either. It's not so different from the current relationship between governments and utilities, NGOs, universities, telephone companies, power companies, etc.
caesil 3y ago
This is like saying you should have the right to walk into Walmart without seeing signs saying things are on sale. YouTube is a business and no one is making you visit that website.
- Afforess 3y ago
  Private life. Did you miss those key words?
- apsurd 3y ago
  it's more accurate to say walmart bursts into my home, sales banners FIRST, then only after i've assured them i've seen their banners, do they show me their goods available, in my own home, remember. there's nuance clearly. "i go to youtube" etc. but also, youtube comes to me. i do think i should have the right to reject packets at the protocol level.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    It's more like you invited Walmart to come over, held the door wide open for them, and then officially announced the vampire is welcome to come into your home. Nothing about Walmart showing up to your house is a surprise nor something you didn't want to happen
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    What? No. Not even close. You issued an HTTP request to youtube.com and asked them to send you some data back. This is not at all an uninvited intrusion. Stop being ridiculous.
    - apsurd 3y ago
      well yes! i don't deny, but this is why the thought experiment is fun. i did open my door, but also do i not have the right to still arbitrate what passes my dear home's threshold? packet by packet. why not!
      - 3y ago
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
The right in question isn't "to refuse ad exposure", it's to run, or not run, any arbitrary bit of code on our property, whether it serves ads, or fosters or prevents hacking, piracy, cheating, lawbreaking, unethical behavior, or antisocial behavior. Or generates kitten pictures. Google is within their rights to want people to view ads, and even within their rights to attempt technical measures to ensure viewership. But we all have the right to circumvent those technical measures, if they're running on our property, in addition to viewing, inspecting, saving, and copying them.
- epgui 3y ago
  I could get behind that.
- dylan604 3y ago
  YT ads are different from other ads on websites though. They are not running additional code. They are just different bits of video. The ads that run code, absofuckinglutely block them all and banish them to the void they belong. If I'm wrong with this assumption, please enlighten me on what they are doing
  - nathanlied 3y ago
    I believe "code" here is being used in the sense that you retrieve YouTube (the website - made of code) with the intent of watching X video. But you don't want some parts of YouTube's code (the bits that display ads) to run on your machine. One could argue that you should, indeed, have the right to block whatever parts of YouTube's 'code' from running on your machine. Currently, this is the case.
kmeisthax 3y ago
So, for most of the history of advertising, you didn't have a choice. Advertising was a part of someone else's property that would ambush[0] you before you could even ignore it. Internet advertising is an outlier in that it happens on your property. You ask for a web page, the web site sends back the page with a bunch of JavaScript that tries to run an ad auction on your computer, then your browser extensions delete the JavaScript, then another bit of JavaScript sent by the web site detects this and deletes the content, except no because your extension also defeated the antitamper script, except no because the web site legally threatened your ad blocker with billions of dollars in litigation for breaking the "don't rip DVDs" law. I'm not kidding about that, BTW[1][2][3]. There is a silent and ongoing effort by everyone - including ad companies - to appropriate your physical property with their intellectual property[4]. You see, on the totem pole of capitalist legitimacy, physical ownership is actually really weak. There's all sorts of government-granted monopolies that can be traded like property[5], but let you bulldoze lesser ownership over physical objects. You might own your computer, but I own the content, so I own your computer for as long as my content is somewhere on it. Talking about fundamental rights is interesting. Right now, at least in the US, people have a fundamental right to advertise - it's called the 1st Amendment. We can't even have functional campaign contribution laws because SCOTUS demands that billionaires have a god-given right to spend their billions shouting over everyone else in campaign ads. Several other fundamental rights mean you have the right to ignore shouty ads, but you don't have the right to shut the advertisers up. Likewise, the right to refuse ad exposure online is implied by the fact that the website runs on your computer. But other rights - such as the right to control copies of your speech - can negate that same implication. Anyway, this is why I think we should bring back the Boston Strangler[6]. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. [0] This is separate from the concept of "ambush marketing" where you try to ride another marketer's coat tails as close as possible without violating trademark law, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing [1] https://digiday.com/media/adblock-plus-accuses-axel-springer-censorship-ad-block-move/ https://digiday.com/media/adblock-plus-accuses-axel-springer... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-from-easylist-ad-blocklist-170811/ https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f... [3] Here's a longer GitHub issue/flamewar full of people debating whether or not you can apply DMCA 1201 equivalents to ad blockers: https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034 https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034 [4] Shut up Stallman, you know what it really means. - Not Cory Doctorow [5] I'm afraid to call them property because if I do that means the Takings clause applies and we can't ever roll back the life+70 insanity that Berne, Germany, and the EU foisted on us. [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_te...
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Billboards are regulated or even prohibited in some areas. Thought experiment: What is the thinking behind such regulation. Now imagine that the communications and discussion around the regulation of billboards was intermediated by billboard companies. Imagine the billboard companies are trillion dollar companies with lobbying budgets amongst the highest in th e world.
wdr1 3y ago
> I don't understand why people don't have a fundamental right to refuse ad exposure in their private life This seems a bit of a strawman in this context. You have the right to not visit YouTube. Likewise, you have the choice in subscribing to a magazine. If you choose to buy the magazine & bring it into your home, it seems odd to ask why you don't have the "right" to an ad free existence in your home. And, at least, in this context, YouTube does offer an ad-free version, YouTube Premium.
- epgui 3y ago
  I'm not responding to anyone else's argument, so it can't be a strawman; it's a comment de novo.

by epgui 3y ago

ajross 3y ago

> I don't understand why people don't have a fundamental right to refuse ad exposure. They do. You do, I do, we all do. No one has to watch any ad they don't want to. I think your complaint is that people don't have a fundamental right to download video for free from someone else's web site? And, no, they don't.

epgui 3y ago
Well that's a heck of a rephrasing.
- ajross 3y ago
  Can you phrase it more formally then? If you wanted to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing this putative right for posterity, how would you write it? Again, the right you demanded clearly exists. You seem to me to be just asking for free stuff. Am I wrong?
  - epgui 3y ago
    > Again, the right you demanded clearly exists. Where is this written?

canjobear 3y ago

You have a right to reject watching ads. And Youtube has a right to not serve you videos.

epgui 3y ago
At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? Edit: it's a legitimate question. You can argue that nobody "needs" YouTube but the fact of the matter is that if you can't access YouTube, you can't ramp up on academic topics as easily as your colleagues, so you are at a disadvantage. It's a material effect. The question is "at what point" does this access become worth protecting.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  If you're going to argue that YouTube is a public good, then the government should be obliged to pay Google for its upkeep costs, or pay them some kind of fair market price to nationalize it completely. Which Google might be OK with, but you should be honest about what you're really proposing here.
  - epgui 3y ago
    Yes, I am talking about some form or other of exactly this, and I am not trying to hide it. I think big social networks have immense importance in society (much like many other utilities), and I think it's worth raising the question, and seriously considering, no matter what answer you land on.
    - hombre_fatal 3y ago
      Who pays the creators and how much?
      - epgui 3y ago
        I don't have a business plan, and I haven't drafted any laws. But you can easily imagine a model in which government subsidies are granted at arms length to offset revenue lost by the protection of such a hypothetical right as the one I'm proposing. It doesn't have to be as alarming as many seem to think either. It's not so different from the current relationship between governments and utilities, NGOs, universities, telephone companies, power companies, etc.

caesil 3y ago

This is like saying you should have the right to walk into Walmart without seeing signs saying things are on sale. YouTube is a business and no one is making you visit that website.

Afforess 3y ago
Private life. Did you miss those key words?
apsurd 3y ago
it's more accurate to say walmart bursts into my home, sales banners FIRST, then only after i've assured them i've seen their banners, do they show me their goods available, in my own home, remember. there's nuance clearly. "i go to youtube" etc. but also, youtube comes to me. i do think i should have the right to reject packets at the protocol level.
- dylan604 3y ago
  It's more like you invited Walmart to come over, held the door wide open for them, and then officially announced the vampire is welcome to come into your home. Nothing about Walmart showing up to your house is a surprise nor something you didn't want to happen
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  What? No. Not even close. You issued an HTTP request to youtube.com and asked them to send you some data back. This is not at all an uninvited intrusion. Stop being ridiculous.
  - apsurd 3y ago
    well yes! i don't deny, but this is why the thought experiment is fun. i did open my door, but also do i not have the right to still arbitrate what passes my dear home's threshold? packet by packet. why not!
    - 3y ago

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

The right in question isn't "to refuse ad exposure", it's to run, or not run, any arbitrary bit of code on our property, whether it serves ads, or fosters or prevents hacking, piracy, cheating, lawbreaking, unethical behavior, or antisocial behavior. Or generates kitten pictures. Google is within their rights to want people to view ads, and even within their rights to attempt technical measures to ensure viewership. But we all have the right to circumvent those technical measures, if they're running on our property, in addition to viewing, inspecting, saving, and copying them.

epgui 3y ago
I could get behind that.
dylan604 3y ago
YT ads are different from other ads on websites though. They are not running additional code. They are just different bits of video. The ads that run code, absofuckinglutely block them all and banish them to the void they belong. If I'm wrong with this assumption, please enlighten me on what they are doing
- nathanlied 3y ago
  I believe "code" here is being used in the sense that you retrieve YouTube (the website - made of code) with the intent of watching X video. But you don't want some parts of YouTube's code (the bits that display ads) to run on your machine. One could argue that you should, indeed, have the right to block whatever parts of YouTube's 'code' from running on your machine. Currently, this is the case.

kmeisthax 3y ago

So, for most of the history of advertising, you didn't have a choice. Advertising was a part of someone else's property that would ambush[0] you before you could even ignore it. Internet advertising is an outlier in that it happens on your property. You ask for a web page, the web site sends back the page with a bunch of JavaScript that tries to run an ad auction on your computer, then your browser extensions delete the JavaScript, then another bit of JavaScript sent by the web site detects this and deletes the content, except no because your extension also defeated the antitamper script, except no because the web site legally threatened your ad blocker with billions of dollars in litigation for breaking the "don't rip DVDs" law. I'm not kidding about that, BTW[1][2][3]. There is a silent and ongoing effort by everyone - including ad companies - to appropriate your physical property with their intellectual property[4]. You see, on the totem pole of capitalist legitimacy, physical ownership is actually really weak. There's all sorts of government-granted monopolies that can be traded like property[5], but let you bulldoze lesser ownership over physical objects. You might own your computer, but I own the content, so I own your computer for as long as my content is somewhere on it. Talking about fundamental rights is interesting. Right now, at least in the US, people have a fundamental right to advertise - it's called the 1st Amendment. We can't even have functional campaign contribution laws because SCOTUS demands that billionaires have a god-given right to spend their billions shouting over everyone else in campaign ads. Several other fundamental rights mean you have the right to ignore shouty ads, but you don't have the right to shut the advertisers up. Likewise, the right to refuse ad exposure online is implied by the fact that the website runs on your computer. But other rights - such as the right to control copies of your speech - can negate that same implication. Anyway, this is why I think we should bring back the Boston Strangler[6]. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. [0] This is separate from the concept of "ambush marketing" where you try to ride another marketer's coat tails as close as possible without violating trademark law, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing [1] https://digiday.com/media/adblock-plus-accuses-axel-springer-censorship-ad-block-move/ https://digiday.com/media/adblock-plus-accuses-axel-springer... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-from-easylist-ad-blocklist-170811/ https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f... [3] Here's a longer GitHub issue/flamewar full of people debating whether or not you can apply DMCA 1201 equivalents to ad blockers: https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034 https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034 [4] Shut up Stallman, you know what it really means. - Not Cory Doctorow [5] I'm afraid to call them property because if I do that means the Takings clause applies and we can't ever roll back the life+70 insanity that Berne, Germany, and the EU foisted on us. [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_te...

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

Billboards are regulated or even prohibited in some areas. Thought experiment: What is the thinking behind such regulation. Now imagine that the communications and discussion around the regulation of billboards was intermediated by billboard companies. Imagine the billboard companies are trillion dollar companies with lobbying budgets amongst the highest in th e world.

wdr1 3y ago

> I don't understand why people don't have a fundamental right to refuse ad exposure in their private life This seems a bit of a strawman in this context. You have the right to not visit YouTube. Likewise, you have the choice in subscribing to a magazine. If you choose to buy the magazine & bring it into your home, it seems odd to ask why you don't have the "right" to an ad free existence in your home. And, at least, in this context, YouTube does offer an ad-free version, YouTube Premium.

epgui 3y ago
I'm not responding to anyone else's argument, so it can't be a strawman; it's a comment de novo.