> is absolutely farcical. You failed to answer the points made by my comment, which includes the linked points. Did you reject my point of view without giving

> is absolutely farcical. You failed to answer the points made by my comment, which includes the linked points. Did you reject my point of view without giving it an honest read? > to project what you prefer onto others by calling it the "moral" or "responsible" thing to do is absolutely farcical. It is not my preference, but my moral view, as I so stated. Is there nothing you disapprove of in society? Racism, sexism, police corruption, robbery, or bribery? Is it farcical projection onto others of what I prefer if I said "The moral and responsible thing to do is to refuse the bribe and report the briber"? You can deny all my points in my comment (including in the link) and consider my reasoning farcical (I welcome rational debate), but to say that my expression of my morality as a statement of what people should do (the very definition of morality) "farcical" (You keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means) is nonsense. > Ads are an Internet tax. You are begging the question. > if that means anybody anywhere can access the content, regardless of monetary means. Are you saying there is no other way we could do this? If you read my points, you will understand that providing internet access this way costs society more than if we, as a society, paid for the internet and the content without advertising. Perhaps you also skipped my earlier comment herein: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9937155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9937155