4 ms·

The site is setup to require that you watch ads, that's why they're there. Regardless of the technical meaning of blocking an ad ("not downloading it"), the int

by relix 14y ago

The site is setup to require that you watch ads, that's why they're there. Regardless of the technical meaning of blocking an ad ("not downloading it"), the intent behind it is clear: not viewing the ads. Yes, the same argument can be made for not running Flash or Javascript, it doesn't detract from my point. You're specifically consuming content that was created to be viewed with ads, which is the trade you're making to consume the content. By not doing your part of the trade, you're the one exploiting the site, not the other way around. Regardless of the ethics of tracking people, because you can choose not to consume the content if you don't agree with the ads.

jasonlotito 14y ago
> The site is setup to require that you watch ads Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already. However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly. And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it. Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.
- s_baby 14y ago
  You can rationalize all you want but if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. You're not participating in a fair transaction.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    AdBlock is one of a few ways I have to set my terms in this otherwise one-sided transaction. Should I be ashamed of myself for occasionally using lynx too?
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    Reading this comment costs you $20. If you don't want to pay, don't read this comment. However, if you read this comment, you owe me $20. By not paying, you are not participating in a fair transaction. > if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. I'm not worried about that. I pay when given the opportunity for content on the web that I regularly enjoy. > You're not participating in a fair transaction. You seem to think that it's unfair that some people are able to negotiate a lower price than others. You can rationalize it all you want but if everyone did what you propose we do, everything would be far more expensive.

by relix 14y ago

jasonlotito 14y ago

> The site is setup to require that you watch ads Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already. However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly. And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it. Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.

s_baby 14y ago
You can rationalize all you want but if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. You're not participating in a fair transaction.
- Nursie 14y ago
  AdBlock is one of a few ways I have to set my terms in this otherwise one-sided transaction. Should I be ashamed of myself for occasionally using lynx too?
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  Reading this comment costs you $20. If you don't want to pay, don't read this comment. However, if you read this comment, you owe me $20. By not paying, you are not participating in a fair transaction. > if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist. I'm not worried about that. I pay when given the opportunity for content on the web that I regularly enjoy. > You're not participating in a fair transaction. You seem to think that it's unfair that some people are able to negotiate a lower price than others. You can rationalize it all you want but if everyone did what you propose we do, everything would be far more expensive.