5 ms·

"There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs" When I go to McDonald's, I don't pay for my Big Mac. I already put ga

"There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs" When I go to McDonald's, I don't pay for my Big Mac. I already put gas in my car!

forca 12y ago
Not even close with the analogy. Unless the content is behind a paywall, it's "free". Want to make money? Charge access. If your content is THAT compelling, people will line up and hand you money. Using a backhanded revenue machine like ads that track me and violate my "anonymity" is beyond the pale. So, yes. If I arrive on your site and there is no paywall, I will gladly view said content without allowing ads. If there is a paywall and your CONTENT, not ads, is good, I will gladly pay. There are sites I do pay for. Willingly. Because there is nothing better. I still block ads on these sites.
- DanBC 12y ago
  No, it's a pretty good analogy. You're paying for the transport of the bits, you haven't paid for the content of those bits. The content seems to be good - you chose to use it after all. You could boycott ad-supported content but you chose not to. (I agree with the rest of what you say btw).
  - correcthorse 12y ago
    If I get a free burger with onions in it and I don't like onions, I won't eat the onions.
- justinpaulson 12y ago
  You really want to live in a world where every single site is behind a paywall? because that is what you are advocating.
  - forca 12y ago
    I glady pay for Internet access, cable TV, the cinema, magazines, other content I view. The problem I have is with tracking. Ads should never do anything save show an ad. There should be no attempt to learn about me or track me or sell my data. Magazines I buy don't track me. I ignore ads in the cinema by whiling away that time on my mobile, I FF thru DVRd programs at home. I've paid already. I'm not viewing your dreck.
    - ivanca 12y ago
      Bullshit. There are hundreds of extensions that block third-party cookies and any form of tracking; what we are talking about here is hurting any content creator who wants to monetize their content without creating a paywall and therefore dealing with customers, chargebacks, credit card fraud, marketing, ads (the irony).
      - forca 12y ago
        No one is advocating anything except not tracking users. I already block ads like most people here. They are a vector for malware, they track users, they sell that data. Make money by charging for content. I miss the old days when people had to pay for stuff with tangible money, not with their anonymity. I would gladly pay to access content I found useful, just no tracking. Be content with the money and move on. No need to profile me, sell my profile to make more money. I pay to use several sites. I also block ads on these site, because the third parties don't respect privacy.
        ivanca 12y ago
        I repeat myself: Its extremely naive to believe everyone who needs access to the content in the internet has a credit card to pay for every bit of it that they need.
        vdaniuk 12y ago
        You are absolutely correct, this is a very important issue that tends to be overlooked in the debate because of the anti-ad zealots.
- ganeumann 12y ago
  You are free to ignore or block their ads. Sites may complain about blocking, but (almost?) none prevent it. But the sites are also free to put ads on their sites, why wouldn't they be, and how do you feel that this is "beyond the pale"? The people who run those sites are just trying to make a living in the same way that most popular media has tried to make a living for the past century. But actively trying to disrupt how they make a living goes beyond that. Imagine a museum that has a donation box but where you can go in for free if you want. You don't have to donate, but gumming up the slot so no one else can donate either goes beyond being not thinking the museum is worth paying for (although, for some reason, you're in it) to not thinking it should be in business at all. By arguing that instead of taking donations they should just charge admission, you're just rationalizing bad behavior.
  - doki_pen 12y ago
    It's more like a donation box that automatically takes money out of your pocket unless you are vigilant, with most patrons not noticing that it took their money. The analogy sort of fails because it's not a zero sum gain. You could actually argue that targeted ads are a benefit to users.
- ivanca 12y ago
  Its extremely naive to believe everyone who needs access to the content in the internet has a credit card to pay for every bit of it that they need. This kind of behavior will only push the movement even more far away from mainstream popularity, slowly becoming a new form of extremism.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 12y ago
When I go to McDonald's I don't have to pay for wear and tear on the roads because I already put gas in my car! Wait, that is actually how it works. In US typically you pay more for the gas because it has rolled into its cost the cost of maintenance for the roads. It is a flawed analogy line to begin with. But even here you can see how there are cases where this happens. It would probably be more accurate to say that you get a free McDonald's if they can send one of their clowns home with you and he can watch you eat it and records everything. Here the author just block the clown from following him. And presumably would prefer to actually pay for a McDonald's sandwich. (I personally would pay a negative sum for it, but that is just me).

"There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs" When I go to McDonald's, I don't pay for my Big Mac. I already put gas in my car!

forca 12y ago

Not even close with the analogy. Unless the content is behind a paywall, it's "free". Want to make money? Charge access. If your content is THAT compelling, people will line up and hand you money. Using a backhanded revenue machine like ads that track me and violate my "anonymity" is beyond the pale. So, yes. If I arrive on your site and there is no paywall, I will gladly view said content without allowing ads. If there is a paywall and your CONTENT, not ads, is good, I will gladly pay. There are sites I do pay for. Willingly. Because there is nothing better. I still block ads on these sites.

DanBC 12y ago
No, it's a pretty good analogy. You're paying for the transport of the bits, you haven't paid for the content of those bits. The content seems to be good - you chose to use it after all. You could boycott ad-supported content but you chose not to. (I agree with the rest of what you say btw).
- correcthorse 12y ago
  If I get a free burger with onions in it and I don't like onions, I won't eat the onions.
justinpaulson 12y ago
You really want to live in a world where every single site is behind a paywall? because that is what you are advocating.
- forca 12y ago
  I glady pay for Internet access, cable TV, the cinema, magazines, other content I view. The problem I have is with tracking. Ads should never do anything save show an ad. There should be no attempt to learn about me or track me or sell my data. Magazines I buy don't track me. I ignore ads in the cinema by whiling away that time on my mobile, I FF thru DVRd programs at home. I've paid already. I'm not viewing your dreck.
  - ivanca 12y ago
    Bullshit. There are hundreds of extensions that block third-party cookies and any form of tracking; what we are talking about here is hurting any content creator who wants to monetize their content without creating a paywall and therefore dealing with customers, chargebacks, credit card fraud, marketing, ads (the irony).
    - forca 12y ago
      No one is advocating anything except not tracking users. I already block ads like most people here. They are a vector for malware, they track users, they sell that data. Make money by charging for content. I miss the old days when people had to pay for stuff with tangible money, not with their anonymity. I would gladly pay to access content I found useful, just no tracking. Be content with the money and move on. No need to profile me, sell my profile to make more money. I pay to use several sites. I also block ads on these site, because the third parties don't respect privacy.
      - ivanca 12y ago
        I repeat myself: Its extremely naive to believe everyone who needs access to the content in the internet has a credit card to pay for every bit of it that they need.
        vdaniuk 12y ago
        You are absolutely correct, this is a very important issue that tends to be overlooked in the debate because of the anti-ad zealots.
ganeumann 12y ago
You are free to ignore or block their ads. Sites may complain about blocking, but (almost?) none prevent it. But the sites are also free to put ads on their sites, why wouldn't they be, and how do you feel that this is "beyond the pale"? The people who run those sites are just trying to make a living in the same way that most popular media has tried to make a living for the past century. But actively trying to disrupt how they make a living goes beyond that. Imagine a museum that has a donation box but where you can go in for free if you want. You don't have to donate, but gumming up the slot so no one else can donate either goes beyond being not thinking the museum is worth paying for (although, for some reason, you're in it) to not thinking it should be in business at all. By arguing that instead of taking donations they should just charge admission, you're just rationalizing bad behavior.
- doki_pen 12y ago
  It's more like a donation box that automatically takes money out of your pocket unless you are vigilant, with most patrons not noticing that it took their money. The analogy sort of fails because it's not a zero sum gain. You could actually argue that targeted ads are a benefit to users.
ivanca 12y ago
Its extremely naive to believe everyone who needs access to the content in the internet has a credit card to pay for every bit of it that they need. This kind of behavior will only push the movement even more far away from mainstream popularity, slowly becoming a new form of extremism.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rdtsc 12y ago

When I go to McDonald's I don't have to pay for wear and tear on the roads because I already put gas in my car! Wait, that is actually how it works. In US typically you pay more for the gas because it has rolled into its cost the cost of maintenance for the roads. It is a flawed analogy line to begin with. But even here you can see how there are cases where this happens. It would probably be more accurate to say that you get a free McDonald's if they can send one of their clowns home with you and he can watch you eat it and records everything. Here the author just block the clown from following him. And presumably would prefer to actually pay for a McDonald's sandwich. (I personally would pay a negative sum for it, but that is just me).