4 ms·
I understand this perspective, but I disagree with it. If someone wants to use a public space (i.e., the Internet), then they have accept that technological so
by basilgohar 2y ago
I understand this perspective, but I disagree with it.
If someone wants to use a public space (i.e., the Internet), then they have accept that technological solutions to annoyances are also part of that.
Block it with a subscription if you don't accept this reality. But getting the benefits of a free, global audience doesn't entitle the artist to any means of revenue they choose, including what annoys and harms people.
It's like saying you have to walk the long way around to your exhibit through the concessions hall before seeing my display, when someone can just take a shortcut and skip that, and blaming them for doing so.
- dismalaf 2y ago> But getting the benefits of a free, global audience The benefit of the audience is literally the ad views (or Premium views).
- carlosjobim 2y agoA restaurant is also a public space. But you can't eat for free or behave as you wish there.
- asadotzler 2y agoIf the restaurant puts food on the public sidewalk I'm free to pick it up. The internet is not inside of someone's business, they are inside of it. It is a public space and if they publish without a paywall, I'm free to consume that how ever I like. Your analogy is ridiculous and makes you come across as a simp for Big Advertising.
- carlosjobim 2y agoSigh. Why can't you write three sentences without resorting to insults? Usually people behave like that when they know they are wrong.
- dismalaf 2y ago> If the restaurant puts food on the public sidewalk I'm free to pick it up. If someone leaves their purse on the sidewalk and you just take it, you're committing a crime. Consuming a restaurant's food without paying for it is also a crime. It being on the sidewalk doesn't make it not their property (or the property of whoever paid for it). > The internet is not inside of someone's business, they are inside of it. It is a public space and if they publish without a paywall, I'm free to consume that how ever I like. There's already many court precedents that no, you can't consume it "however" you like. For example, all copyright laws apply. Ad blockers are a grey area in that yes, they're not disallowed, but that also means that companies are allowed to mess with you more or less however they want (YouTube for example throttles browsers with active ad blockers).