4 ms·

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 implic

by 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
- marrs 11y ago
  All of this is implied by you. Neither of us knows what motivates the publishers of websites. But you are missing the point entirely, which is that they all chose to publish to the web - a platform that by definition gives publishers very little say over how their content is consumed. To complain that some users don't consume your content the way you expected is just really naïve. For example, let's suppose you expect a user to download your animated gif advert. How do you know that the user isn't on a network that filters out all images to save bandwidth?
  - kbenson 11y ago
    This isn't about a producer complaining about users not consuming the content the right way. I'm not a producer, I'm a consumer, but that doesn't prevent me from noting when people are not acting in good faith. And that's how I see this, a lot of people not acting in good faith and rationalizing it through various excuses (myself included). Producers produce content and attach ads as a way to recoup the cost of producing and delivering that content. I feel confident in saying the vast majority of consumers understand their desire and motivations, even if they don't value those desires and motivations much. To take what they are offering while rejecting their conditions is not acting in good faith.
    - marrs 11y ago
      Having read your exchanges with Quadrangle and Baddox, I think I get where you're coming from. The trouble with your reasoning is that it only considers the point of view of the publisher and ignores the consumer entirely. It's not practical to enter into an agreement with every website you visit (in fact half the time you're downloading assets from websites you don't visit!) so let's not even go there. Let's just consider the consumer who wants to use the web but doesn't want to see ads. What should he do: disable ads or stop using the web? I guess your argument is that he should stop using the web because he is morally bound to honour the wishes of the publisher providing the content. Effectively you're placing the publishers' right to advertise ahead of the visitor's right to consume content on the web. And this is my problem with your argument. I just can't feel guilty about defending the rights of one person to have free access to information over the right of another person to advertise. As far as I'm concerned, where these 2 rights clash, the advertiser should forfeit. Since I feel no guilt, there is nothing to rationalize. Anyway, I sense this won't be enough for you, so in order to regain the moral highground, I have modified the header of my HTTP requests to include the following statement By responding to this request you agree not to send me advertising and accept that I may, at my discretion, block any advertising included in this or any other response.

by marrs 11y ago

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

marrs 11y ago
All of this is implied by you. Neither of us knows what motivates the publishers of websites. But you are missing the point entirely, which is that they all chose to publish to the web - a platform that by definition gives publishers very little say over how their content is consumed. To complain that some users don't consume your content the way you expected is just really naïve. For example, let's suppose you expect a user to download your animated gif advert. How do you know that the user isn't on a network that filters out all images to save bandwidth?
- kbenson 11y ago
  This isn't about a producer complaining about users not consuming the content the right way. I'm not a producer, I'm a consumer, but that doesn't prevent me from noting when people are not acting in good faith. And that's how I see this, a lot of people not acting in good faith and rationalizing it through various excuses (myself included). Producers produce content and attach ads as a way to recoup the cost of producing and delivering that content. I feel confident in saying the vast majority of consumers understand their desire and motivations, even if they don't value those desires and motivations much. To take what they are offering while rejecting their conditions is not acting in good faith.
  - marrs 11y ago
    Having read your exchanges with Quadrangle and Baddox, I think I get where you're coming from. The trouble with your reasoning is that it only considers the point of view of the publisher and ignores the consumer entirely. It's not practical to enter into an agreement with every website you visit (in fact half the time you're downloading assets from websites you don't visit!) so let's not even go there. Let's just consider the consumer who wants to use the web but doesn't want to see ads. What should he do: disable ads or stop using the web? I guess your argument is that he should stop using the web because he is morally bound to honour the wishes of the publisher providing the content. Effectively you're placing the publishers' right to advertise ahead of the visitor's right to consume content on the web. And this is my problem with your argument. I just can't feel guilty about defending the rights of one person to have free access to information over the right of another person to advertise. As far as I'm concerned, where these 2 rights clash, the advertiser should forfeit. Since I feel no guilt, there is nothing to rationalize. Anyway, I sense this won't be enough for you, so in order to regain the moral highground, I have modified the header of my HTTP requests to include the following statement By responding to this request you agree not to send me advertising and accept that I may, at my discretion, block any advertising included in this or any other response.