3 ms·

You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it a

by marrs 11y ago

You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers aren't getting much value from the newspaper. If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money they would have otherwise wasted.

kbenson 11y ago
I'm making no argument that they have to survive on their current business model, or that the current business model deserves to survive. I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract, and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. I don't see this as any different than if you were at a conference, and someone offered you a free book which you were interested in if you talked to them for thirty seconds about their product. Taking the book without hearing the pitch is not what I would consider acceptable behavior. In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content. Some people have made arguments about how intrusive some the the advertisement tracking is as a justification for blocking it. This is a perfectly acceptable justification for blocking that tracking, but it does nothing to address the further consumption of the content. The correct response to the abusive shopkeeper that berates you in line is not to steal his goods, but to leave the goods and refuse to give him your business. > If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not? In any case, the market decides this. You are just making information in the market harder to come by, making the market less efficient. > In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money that would otherwise be wasted. Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.
- marrs 11y ago
  I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract... Well, there isn't. ...and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though. In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content. Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others; maybe something important to them. They often work hard to produce the content in their spare time. They put ads on there as an afterthought to help cover the maintenance costs, but they would never do that if they thought it would turn visitors away. I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets, especially when - in the case of advertising - they're assets I have no control over and may be advertising products I don't even support. How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not? I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad. Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact. I don't even know what to make of this.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Well, there isn't. Are you sure? Why do you think the content is being provided then? Presumably there's a reason they've put the effort forth to make it available? > If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though. You shouldn't feel compelled to honor a site's acceptable use policy? In some cases violating the AUP can result in legal action, so in at least some cases you are legally compelled. > Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others... > I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets These aren't your sites. It's not your right to make choices for other people. You can accept what they want to bring to the table, or you can decline to trade. > I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad. You've made it easier on yourself. How have you helped anyone else out? The content provider wanted to trade you content for attention, and you took the content without providing the attention. In what way does that help anyone besides yourself? > I don't even know what to make of this. People are susceptible to rationalizing their current behavior, regardless of whether it's truly beneficial in the ways they think to the parties they think. Doubling down on behavior that a content provider may not like with the excuse you may feel morally obligated to save them money by doing so is ridiculous. What right do you have to dictate how they run their business, as long as it's within the law? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

by marrs 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago

I'm making no argument that they have to survive on their current business model, or that the current business model deserves to survive. I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract, and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. I don't see this as any different than if you were at a conference, and someone offered you a free book which you were interested in if you talked to them for thirty seconds about their product. Taking the book without hearing the pitch is not what I would consider acceptable behavior. In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content. Some people have made arguments about how intrusive some the the advertisement tracking is as a justification for blocking it. This is a perfectly acceptable justification for blocking that tracking, but it does nothing to address the further consumption of the content. The correct response to the abusive shopkeeper that berates you in line is not to steal his goods, but to leave the goods and refuse to give him your business. > If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not? In any case, the market decides this. You are just making information in the market harder to come by, making the market less efficient. > In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money that would otherwise be wasted. Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.

marrs 11y ago
I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract... Well, there isn't. ...and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though. In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content. Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others; maybe something important to them. They often work hard to produce the content in their spare time. They put ads on there as an afterthought to help cover the maintenance costs, but they would never do that if they thought it would turn visitors away. I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets, especially when - in the case of advertising - they're assets I have no control over and may be advertising products I don't even support. How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not? I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad. Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact. I don't even know what to make of this.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Well, there isn't. Are you sure? Why do you think the content is being provided then? Presumably there's a reason they've put the effort forth to make it available? > If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though. You shouldn't feel compelled to honor a site's acceptable use policy? In some cases violating the AUP can result in legal action, so in at least some cases you are legally compelled. > Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others... > I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets These aren't your sites. It's not your right to make choices for other people. You can accept what they want to bring to the table, or you can decline to trade. > I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad. You've made it easier on yourself. How have you helped anyone else out? The content provider wanted to trade you content for attention, and you took the content without providing the attention. In what way does that help anyone besides yourself? > I don't even know what to make of this. People are susceptible to rationalizing their current behavior, regardless of whether it's truly beneficial in the ways they think to the parties they think. Doubling down on behavior that a content provider may not like with the excuse you may feel morally obligated to save them money by doing so is ridiculous. What right do you have to dictate how they run their business, as long as it's within the law? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract