6 ms·
It is a disservice to yourself and family to not block ads. You shouldn't let these companies have a conduit into your life. I don't think it's amorale to use
by ehnto 1y ago
It is a disservice to yourself and family to not block ads. You shouldn't let these companies have a conduit into your life.
I don't think it's amorale to use the service for which you are blocking the ads for either. If they don't like it, they can try a new business model. They don't protect you, why should you protect them.
- philipallstar 1y ago[flagged]
- _Algernon_ 1y agoStealing a physical thing = the previous owner can't use it. Copying a thing or accessing a platform = the previous owner can still use or sell it. Even if you consider it unethical access, the comparison to stealing really misses the mark.
- jpadkins 1y agook, call it theft of services. You used the service but blocked how the creator makes money on the service. Is it really different from someone who runs out of a barber or restaurant?
- snapcaster 1y agoyes, the barber doesn't wield enormous power over society duh
- fragilerock 1y agothe restaurant spends resources (both physical and human) cooking and serving you the meal, likewise for the barber. a better example would be showing up late for a cinema showing so that you deliberately avoid watching the adverts and trailers... which i would guess most people would agree is morally fine?
- jpadkins 1y agoThe more direct cinema example would be sneaking into the theater and there were empty seats (so you did not deny anyone else access to the movie). Is that morally fine? You watched the movie, the creator doesn't get paid.
- ehnto 1y agoYes, the restaurant is not tracking me across the city, and it does not contain malware (although I guess you could get food poisoning). It would be amorale if these services were not exploiting everyone they can, including the creators. The better analogy would be, is it okay to walk out on a barber who is spying on your phone, coughing in your face, and won't stop trying to convince you to buy his buddies shampoo or vote for their political party.
- philipallstar 1y ago> the comparison to stealing really misses the mark I know this always triggers a hard-coded response based on regex, but the comparison doesn't rely on the specifics of stealing, so it's not a valid criticism. The logic is: people offer things in exchange for a price. You can take the things in exchange for the price, or you can leave the things. You shouldn't take the things without paying the price.
- snapcaster 1y agoWhy? I truly believe I have no moral obligation to any of these entities and I see them as amoral organizations _at best_ who can't possibly reciprocate
- philipallstar 1y agoCan you tell me the moral difference between that and saying that you don't believe you have a moral obligation to Porsche dealerships?
- snapcaster 1y agoPorsche dealerships aren't trying to brainwash me. I see advertising companies as an adversary and I don't owe enemies anything
- philipallstar 1y agoBut it's not the advertising company you're denying revenue from. It's the website you're visiting, who've chosen to pay for the content you're happy to take via advertising.
- snapcaster 1y agoAgain, i do not feel bad for the allies of my enemies
- fragmede 1y ago
- snapcaster 1y agoOkay, continue to let your mind get polluted out of some bizarre sense of moral duty to a faceless corporation
- const_cast 1y agoStealing is illegal, blocking ads isn't. The FBI recommends you use an ad blocker. If anything, ads steal from YOU. They take your time and attempt to get you to part with your money. You're not obligated to support a business model based on theft, if you want to consider it that. You're not obligated to support any business model. If it's allowed, then go for it. They can always switch to another business model.