181–190 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Actually NOT blocking ads is at the very least morally evil and degenerate. You are a very bad person if you think adverts are morally justifiable in any form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Not more unethical than making money off of manipulating people, spreading malware and viruses, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads and targeted ads aren’t the same thing, so idk if I agree that ad blocking is per se a privacy right. Practically, of course, it’s a different story.
Untargeted ads are still a security nightmare. Why would I permit loading and executing scripts / resources from arbitrary domains? Ublock is layer 0 defense against malware and viruses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No.
Why not? Do you prefer they keep making the ads worse to compensate? Or they paywall more? Or make the ads 'native' and indistinguishable from useful content? People don't want to work for you for free.
Because I don't have to.
> Do you prefer they keep making the ads worse to compensate?
They'll only be punishing users that haven't installed uBlock Origin yet.
> Or they paywall more?
No objection to that.
> Or make the ads 'native' and indistinguishable from useful content?
If I figure out someone is doing that, I'll never trust them again. I'll literally blacklist the site and if I see it posted here or anywhere else I'll point it out.
> People don't want to work for you for free.
They should start charging money then. Return 402 Payment Required instead of a free HTML page. If they send me ads, I will delete them. I won't be losing even one second of sleep over the matter. I'd delete real life ads too if could get away with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing at all unethical about it. We're not obligated to spend even one second looking at ads. They sent us free stuff hoping we were going to notice the ads they bundled alongside it. We're not obligated to do that though. It's that simple.
You're not ethical for consuming while also automatically bypassing even the possibility of an ad impression. It's the impression that pays for the content. No impressions. No content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually NOT blocking ads is at the very least morally evil and degenerate. You are a very bad person if you think adverts are morally justifiable in any form.
Thinking differently makes me a bad person. That's not a very convincing premise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On this subject, I did see an ad for a small music festival near my hometown, and i brought the ticket and had a good time. If i had not seen the add, I would not have known about the festival, so I actually did at least once see a useful ad
I used to hate ads, for the intrusion they made. Then I started to run my own ventures and realised advertising is essential: even finding friends and partners requires advertising of a sort. But on the web, advertising doesn’t stop at attention theft. Most web ads are agents of surveillance networks, and also are software running on your hardware. Neither we should tolerate.
There are ethical ways to go about it. In certain contexts, what people think of as advertising is really just information. It's totally fine to inform people when they ask for it.
When people open a store app, it's because they want to see products. There's no ethical conflict when the store app does what people want it to do. What's unethical is the constant product spam when people are trying to do anything else.
I wish there was legislation to prevent TV manufacturers from turning TV's into ad-spewing digital signage in your home. It's completely out of control. Yes, sure, you can, in some cases, plug in an external streaming device and, depending on the system, side step their incredibly abusive home screens full of ads and tracking. This might not be 100% possible on all devices. More importantly, you paid good money for a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is clearly not true; Wikipedia isn't ad supported and is incredibly successful and prolific. You can use educational tools like WolframAlpha freely and pay (using a normal subscription model) for its more advanced features, no advertising required. KhanAcademy is completely free (yes I know they host many of their videos on YouTube; that's a minority of the content on KA these days and I suspect would be a relat…
Wikipedia has a somewhat unique architecture in that it's mostly text and most of that text can be cached. This is also true about blogs and sites like HN and Stackoverflow, but not social media sites, search engines, messaging services, video and image hosting sites etc. Most Wikipedia visitors use an ad-supported search engine to find articles. All that Wikipedia itself needs to do is to find the URL in their cache…
Because Google spends billions of dollars contorting and manipulating the entire internet ecosystem to only work with Google's model of the internet.
There are really simple solutions how the internet can be ad free and function much better than it does today in terms of serving information people. The internet is far, far worse due to the financial incentives involved
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got the analogy right in that the internet is like a public park. Where your analogy goes wrong is in the fact that these service providers have set up a bakery in the park, and are trying to charge anyone who merely smells the bread, and then accuse people of stealing when they refuse to pay for the act of inhaling while walking through the public park. The internet is a public resource . Your website is a gu…
Sites don't require advertisements around links to their sites. Once you follow a link (scent) to the destination that is when advertisements are shown in exchange for allowing you to access something of value. >Once you have served it to me, you don't get to dictate how I use it. If you do not have a license to modify the site that is copyright infringement.
Do I infringe copyright if I rip out the ads in a magazine and throw them in the trash?