9 ms·

Kant's categorical imperative: > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. If everyone b

Kant's categorical imperative: > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. If everyone blocked ads the websites that rely on ad revenue would lose money and have to shut down. Sure, if only some of the users block ads they can probably survive, but someone had to see the ads. How do I justify that I get to block ads while others don't? That said, without adblock I do find NoScript to be a necessity when navigating some parts of the web (e.g. TPB), which has the side effect of being a sort-of ad-block. But that I can live with.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> Kant's categorical imperative: > > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. For what it's worth (and perhaps you intended it this way), this is a somewhat shallow application of the categorical imperative. There are other ways to justify using AdBlock (and in fact, condemn not using AdBlock) by means of the categorical imperative. For example: "If everyone uses AdBlock to prevent sleazy ads that can contain malware, then those ads will no longer have value, and they will cease to exist." If you think of AdBlock as a vaccine, then by the categorical imperative, it's necessary to vaccinate everyone[0]. Or, "If everyone uses AdBlock, then websites will have to invent monetization tactics that don't involve auctioning off its user's eyeballs and privacy". If you consider ads to be an intrusion and invasion of privacy, then killing the ad-supported model could actually be a good thing. I don't really want to get into a debate on adblockers in general, because the topic has been beaten to death on HN before, but I just felt compelled[1] to make this note about the categorical imperative for the sake of others reading this. [0] This is also a somewhat simplistic reduction, but you get the idea. [1] (Yes, that's a Kant pun)
- amelius 12y ago
  I knew nothing about Kant's imperative before I read this, still I thought almost exactly the same thing. I say it's a good thing we can vote with our adblockers.
officemonkey 12y ago
>websites that rely on ad revenue would lose money and have to shut down. I'm okay with a world like that.

chimeracoder 12y ago

> Kant's categorical imperative: > > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. For what it's worth (and perhaps you intended it this way), this is a somewhat shallow application of the categorical imperative. There are other ways to justify using AdBlock (and in fact, condemn not using AdBlock) by means of the categorical imperative. For example: "If everyone uses AdBlock to prevent sleazy ads that can contain malware, then those ads will no longer have value, and they will cease to exist." If you think of AdBlock as a vaccine, then by the categorical imperative, it's necessary to vaccinate everyone[0]. Or, "If everyone uses AdBlock, then websites will have to invent monetization tactics that don't involve auctioning off its user's eyeballs and privacy". If you consider ads to be an intrusion and invasion of privacy, then killing the ad-supported model could actually be a good thing. I don't really want to get into a debate on adblockers in general, because the topic has been beaten to death on HN before, but I just felt compelled[1] to make this note about the categorical imperative for the sake of others reading this. [0] This is also a somewhat simplistic reduction, but you get the idea. [1] (Yes, that's a Kant pun)

amelius 12y ago
I knew nothing about Kant's imperative before I read this, still I thought almost exactly the same thing. I say it's a good thing we can vote with our adblockers.

officemonkey 12y ago

>websites that rely on ad revenue would lose money and have to shut down. I'm okay with a world like that.