4 ms·

Seriously? Choosing to not load ads is now "stealing".

• diminoten 13y ago
  I believe it is. You're consuming content while blocking the content creator's revenue stream. It's not stealing in the sense of deprivation, but in a world of bits, it's as close to digital theft as anything. Last time I disagreed with nitrogen however I was hellbanned, so maybe it's not in my best interest to voice dissent around here.
  • nitrogen 13y ago
    Last time I disagreed with nitrogen however I was hellbanned I'm not anybody special around here. Whatever happened, it didn't have anything to do with me.
    • diminoten 13y ago
      I said Snowden wasn't a good guy and got hellbanned. It was an upsetting experience. I'll survive, sorry for saying it was your fault.
      • nitrogen 13y ago
        I remember that thread. I disagreed with you, but I don't think the particular comments I read were worthy of a ban.
  • CodeMage 13y ago
    I've said it before and I'll say it again: posting your stuff on the Web and putting ads on your page does not automagically entitle you to any revenue. [1] You can call it "stealing" as much as you want, but it doesn't make it so. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6638345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6638345
    • diminoten 13y ago
      You're absolutely right. Hosting content on the web does not automagically entitle a person to revenue. What it does entitle a person to, however, is the ability to dictate the rules of the continued use of that website, and if, as part of the rules of the continued use of that website, viewing the ads is a requirement of viewing the content, a consumer is not entitled to the content without viewing the ads as well. Stealing, theft, banana-hammocking - it doesn't matter what we call it. It's detrimental to the website and detrimental to the health of the web. People need to be able to make money off of content on websites, or else they won't be able to specialize in the making of that content. If people can't specialize, society suffers from its inability to support the growth of skill. People can't get very good at things, and growth is limited. Frankly, you're not murdering any kittens, but you're not exactly petting them either.
      • CamperBob2 13y ago
        What it does entitle a person to, however, is the ability to dictate the rules of the continued use of that website, and if, as part of the rules of the continued use of that website I like how terms of service are not only equivalent to laws now, but genuine entitlements.
      • eevilspock 13y ago
        advertising is detrimental to society.
• dmm 13y ago
  "Anything that interferes with my business model" == stealing
  • diminoten 13y ago
    How can you not see the unsustainability of consuming content without compensating the creator of that content?
    • moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Ad supported content is compensated by the advertiser. I can read a free paper without browsing the adverts, but the bet by the advertiser is that they will get enough views that it doesn't matter. Also, adverts that drive people away are bad for the advertiser and if ads are universally blocked then the advertiser will go elsewhere, though if we are in a situation where 100% of people are blocking ads then something else is already afoot and other business models will emerge.
      • diminoten 13y ago
        Ad supported content won't be compensated by the advertiser if you block the ads. Web advertising is not analogous to any other kind of advertisement, because every user is counted.