5 ms·

> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding While it would be a convenient reality, the people on HN are not even close to represent

> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding While it would be a convenient reality, the people on HN are not even close to representative of the general population, and you can't generalize their tendencies. How many Kagi and Fastmail users are there compared to Google and Microsoft? Look at Google Play reviews for apps that front paid services: even for astonishingly cheap ones, a considerable percentage essentially say "not free: uninstalled! Those conniving bastards!" And if you're willing to pay for services instead of using ad-supported platforms, you must pay all of your music and other content, then? You don't even have to stomach the DRM from Apple Music, Amazon, e-reader platforms, et al with music shops, book stores, movie theaters, Bandcamp, Patreon, Substack -- there are so many services through which you can exercise your principles and pay for content directly. It's pretty common for the tech crowd to wag their finger at people who feel entitled to free commercial software and services (e.g. Kagi, Fastmail,) yet do the same exact thing with arts and entertainment. Getting access to content on ad-supported services isn't your right. There are alternatives. I'm not saying you must uninstall your ad blocker-- there are many unavoidable and essential things-- e.g., things for work-- that contain ads even when they really shouldn't. But you can't just assume that since you pay for some stuff, then everybody else is paying for some stuff, and since the distributors are real jerks, you have ethical carte blanche to take people's work without any payment. Creators don't have a choice to use these systems because people won't pay (directly) for things.

madsbuch 3y ago
I am quite sure I do not have the ethical card in any of these discussions. I also pay way less than the combined sum of the value I receive from the internet. But there is a marketplace. And the content of YouTube is not worth the price of YouTubes premium offerings because they embed ads. Ie. I pay to remove YouTube's ads, but not video sponsorships. That would be like paying for Kagi and still only be presented SEO-optimized worthless content – I pay for Kagi because I feel like they can filter away that content much better than Google. I am saying that a product you pay for is not the same as an ad-supported product. It is not just about stripping the product of ads after the user has paid. So everybody not willing to pay for a Gmail offering without ads, I completely understand them.
- chefandy 3y ago
  > I am quite sure I do not have the ethical card in any of these discussions. Realizing that you’re doing something unethical is philosophically better than denying the obvious. However, as a commercial artist, I’m not really interested in any gussied-up justification beyond that statement.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    as a commercial artist you should not tinker in ethics but try to sell and make some. money staying within the law. tbh,i hate moralization over what I decide to consume. If I should consume less travel for the sake of the environment, make it more expensive by taxing it. if you want to earn more money as a commercial artist, don't morally trip me into something I am not legally obligated to (watching ads), but deliver a product that is more valuable.
    - chefandy 3y ago
      I actually make plenty of money as a very technical commercial artist coming from a dev background, but thanks for your condescending and presumptuous concern. Believe it or not, I actually care enough about people who aren’t even me to point out when people are doing something materially unfair just because they can. If you hate people commenting on your admittedly unethical behavior, you might consider not publicly discussing it.
      - madsbuch 3y ago
        Your opinion represents everything that stops progress: The idea that we can use moral instead of sane legislation. I never said I was morally wrong. I merely said that I did not have a moral upper hand. I think I am morally indifferent. > you must pay all of your music and other content, then I do in fact pay for my music. I do in fact have news paper subscriptions. I don't think you got my point: I don't both want to pay for my cake on not eat it. If I pay for content, it should not have sponsorships. But then again, I did not grow up with paying for satellite TV while also being fed ads 20% of the time watching shows riddled with product placement. In Denmark we have proper public service offerings (that people pay for). In Denmark indie artists regularly receive grants to work on their art. On the point of supporting artists, by virtue of being a European, I probably have the moral upper hand.

madsbuch 3y ago

I am quite sure I do not have the ethical card in any of these discussions. I also pay way less than the combined sum of the value I receive from the internet. But there is a marketplace. And the content of YouTube is not worth the price of YouTubes premium offerings because they embed ads. Ie. I pay to remove YouTube's ads, but not video sponsorships. That would be like paying for Kagi and still only be presented SEO-optimized worthless content – I pay for Kagi because I feel like they can filter away that content much better than Google. I am saying that a product you pay for is not the same as an ad-supported product. It is not just about stripping the product of ads after the user has paid. So everybody not willing to pay for a Gmail offering without ads, I completely understand them.

chefandy 3y ago
> I am quite sure I do not have the ethical card in any of these discussions. Realizing that you’re doing something unethical is philosophically better than denying the obvious. However, as a commercial artist, I’m not really interested in any gussied-up justification beyond that statement.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  as a commercial artist you should not tinker in ethics but try to sell and make some. money staying within the law. tbh,i hate moralization over what I decide to consume. If I should consume less travel for the sake of the environment, make it more expensive by taxing it. if you want to earn more money as a commercial artist, don't morally trip me into something I am not legally obligated to (watching ads), but deliver a product that is more valuable.
  - chefandy 3y ago
    I actually make plenty of money as a very technical commercial artist coming from a dev background, but thanks for your condescending and presumptuous concern. Believe it or not, I actually care enough about people who aren’t even me to point out when people are doing something materially unfair just because they can. If you hate people commenting on your admittedly unethical behavior, you might consider not publicly discussing it.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      Your opinion represents everything that stops progress: The idea that we can use moral instead of sane legislation. I never said I was morally wrong. I merely said that I did not have a moral upper hand. I think I am morally indifferent. > you must pay all of your music and other content, then I do in fact pay for my music. I do in fact have news paper subscriptions. I don't think you got my point: I don't both want to pay for my cake on not eat it. If I pay for content, it should not have sponsorships. But then again, I did not grow up with paying for satellite TV while also being fed ads 20% of the time watching shows riddled with product placement. In Denmark we have proper public service offerings (that people pay for). In Denmark indie artists regularly receive grants to work on their art. On the point of supporting artists, by virtue of being a European, I probably have the moral upper hand.