4 ms·

Users are also harmed by watching the ads. It would be reasonable to calculate the value of each viewed ad as part of the compensation that is sought by a class

Users are also harmed by watching the ads. It would be reasonable to calculate the value of each viewed ad as part of the compensation that is sought by a class-action.

glitchc 3y ago
It's hard to show legally that users are harmed by watching ads, tort law requires a clear path to harm. If some users purport some benefit, that would negate the harm claims.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Wouldn't one clearcut argument be that many people are willing to pay money specifically to not see ads?
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I'm willing to pay money to buy a nice car. That doesn't mean a less nice car would harm me.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      If you paid money for a nice car and got a less nice car, you suffered financial harm.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      If less nice car doesn't have some of the same safety features like side impact air bags but are then in a t-bone collision where you are injured because the air bags were not there, then yes.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        If the nicer car doesn't have air bags then that might harm me more. This is orthoganal.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      If you, and 1000 others, paid $X each for a car with 18" rims, and each of you received a car with 22" rims, then you have all been harmed; regardless of whether or not any recipient is more or less happy with the result. The harm is not the result, it's the fraud that lead to it. Furthermore, Amazon has already written this argument with its actions: They didn't only introduce ads, they also introduced a higher-priced ad-free tier. By the Amazon's very action - which happens to be the context for this entire argument - the ability to watch without ads has a dollar value. That means the inability to watch without ads must have the inverse value, i.e. equivalent harm.
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      OK, but we are discussing something you'd pay money not to experience. I can only think that this implies that experience is in someway harmful, painful, or unpleasant.

Users are also harmed by watching the ads. It would be reasonable to calculate the value of each viewed ad as part of the compensation that is sought by a class-action.

glitchc 3y ago

It's hard to show legally that users are harmed by watching ads, tort law requires a clear path to harm. If some users purport some benefit, that would negate the harm claims.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Wouldn't one clearcut argument be that many people are willing to pay money specifically to not see ads?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I'm willing to pay money to buy a nice car. That doesn't mean a less nice car would harm me.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    If you paid money for a nice car and got a less nice car, you suffered financial harm.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    If less nice car doesn't have some of the same safety features like side impact air bags but are then in a t-bone collision where you are injured because the air bags were not there, then yes.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      If the nicer car doesn't have air bags then that might harm me more. This is orthoganal.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    If you, and 1000 others, paid $X each for a car with 18" rims, and each of you received a car with 22" rims, then you have all been harmed; regardless of whether or not any recipient is more or less happy with the result. The harm is not the result, it's the fraud that lead to it. Furthermore, Amazon has already written this argument with its actions: They didn't only introduce ads, they also introduced a higher-priced ad-free tier. By the Amazon's very action - which happens to be the context for this entire argument - the ability to watch without ads has a dollar value. That means the inability to watch without ads must have the inverse value, i.e. equivalent harm.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    OK, but we are discussing something you'd pay money not to experience. I can only think that this implies that experience is in someway harmful, painful, or unpleasant.