Forget about advertisers and site runners and economics and the rest of it. I run ad blocking software because ads are too good a delivery mechanism for malware.
The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
211–220 of 249 posts
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, not to bring ageism into the discussion, but I'm gonna bet that probably just means you were born in, what, the late 90s or later? Journalism serves a vital function. It's called the "fourth estate" for a reason, and should serve to enlighten the public on the goings on of the government and the world. Journalism is one of the forces counteracting government secrecy and surveillance. Hell, journalism is what br…
Could twitter and random blogs have stopped Vietnam and Nixon too, if they had existed back then? And if there is something unique to journalists that make them more proficient at stopping presidents and wars, why couldn't they stop the Iraq war? Because the powers that be coopted that power. I read the "journalists" in the early 21st century and it was depressing. Then again, the independent bloggers and twitters ha…
> Could twitter and random blogs have stopped Vietnam and Nixon too, if they had existed back then?
Go read about Watergate and get back to me (though, ironically, to do that you would need to read the works of investigative journalists...).
Today, the equivalent to Deep Throat might be Snowden, and that, too, required journalists like those from The Guardian to get the story out. That kind of journalism requires resources to research, travel, for legal costs associated with protecting sources, etc.
Regarding Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers would never have been published if the Times hadn't spent their own money going to court to defend their right to publish them.
So no, I don't believe twitter or random blogs have the power of the fourth estate.
> And if there is something unique to journalists that make them more proficient at stopping presidents and wars, why couldn't they stop the Iraq war?
That's a deeply complicated topic.
First, it's worth noting journalists never stopped Vietnam from starting. But as the war was waged, journalism played a role in turning public opinion against the war after it had started, thus hastening its end.
So, with that said, journalists actually played a very similar role vis a vis the Iraq war.
Now, I do believe they were less effective than in the past, but I actually believe that's exactly on point, here: that period is the same time when journalism began to struggle in the face of the ascendance of the Internet.
Which brings me right back to my very original point: Quality journalism is dying because no one will pay for content. And no one will pay for content because of the perceived low quality of journalism. Repeat ad nauseum.
Your mistake is in believing quality journalism never existed, but that's only because of your limited perspective, having only seen the medium as it began its slow decline.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
But all those reflexions on the issue are completely determined by the random assumptions you use in your examples. Kant 1. Imp: One could deny the disappearance or embrace it. One could see the new forces leading the web away from ads as something beneficial for society as a whole. Utilitarianism: There are many not quantifyable variables in a possible calculation. Just add seeing ads as exceedingly costly and your…
Ethics is always a subjective science, but these ethical models provide a fair and structured approach to looking at it. Kant 1. Doesn't ask "what's best for society"? It asks about the "universalizability principle" i.e. "if everyone acts like me is there a contradiction?". And in this case there is, if you browse an ad-supported site that could only exist if some people view the ads is a contradiction. You have to…
The first step is to just stop feeling guilty about doing what you want with your own property, and then you don't need to bother with these huge rationalizations either way.
Would you support a law that made it illegal to run ad-blocking software? Why or why not?
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't just assert that. I sincerely believe that most people overestimate (or pretend to overestimate) the value of journalism, and I'm curious about why you think it isn't so.
Alas, not to bring ageism into the discussion, but I'm gonna bet that probably just means you were born in, what, the late 90s or later? Journalism serves a vital function. It's called the "fourth estate" for a reason, and should serve to enlighten the public on the goings on of the government and the world. Journalism is one of the forces counteracting government secrecy and surveillance. Hell, journalism is what br…
This is turning into a classic unrecognized theoretical vs practical argument. I propose:
"Journalism could, and historically did, serve a vital function."
Exactly like horseshoe manufacturing. Just not today.
There's space for us both to be correct, in theory journalism, much like western civilization, would be a great idea to try, or maybe we had it in the past, or it would be an interesting goal for the future even if it never existed in the past beyond a mythical ideal, etc. While at the same time, in practice, we can pretty much flush the existing stuff and not miss it. For some definition of "us", we have already decided to ignore it and are not missing it. Some of the percentage of the population stats are pretty dismal.
It IS possible to gain value by debating the "why". I think you're indirectly correct WRT age (although I am quite a bit older than your theory) in that rolling all of media (including journalism) into roughly five giant corporations did very little for the quality of the craft, and the fish rots from the head down.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#215"What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues." -- https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.... Kant 1st Imperative -- Violates -- If everyone used Adblock, many websites would shutdown. I.e. "Adblock is…
If everyone used Adblock, many websites would shutdown. - Fails to make the claim that many (but not all) websites shutting down would be bad.
Kant's 2nd Imperative - Passes. It treats them as ends in and of themselves by focusing on the content they wish to present to me rather than lies which they don't control.
Utilitarianism - Impossible to come to agreement on. We could heap on whatever costs/benefits we want on either side to make it come out in our favor. Example, you don't take into account "Cost of tracking/malware vector" for site owner (site reputation, if there's a 0.1% chance of them serving malware which causes all their traffic to disappear), and viewers (Cost of malware).
Rule Utilitarianism - Same issue as above, you can tweak the numbers/rule to make the outcome whatever you want. Serving ads violates "Don't serve malware", "Don't promulgate lies/misleading statements"
Social Contract - Malware risk, tracking risk. I directly fund sites which I use when possible.
Virtue Ethics - Being supported by ads is un-virtuous.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethics is always a subjective science, but these ethical models provide a fair and structured approach to looking at it. Kant 1. Doesn't ask "what's best for society"? It asks about the "universalizability principle" i.e. "if everyone acts like me is there a contradiction?". And in this case there is, if you browse an ad-supported site that could only exist if some people view the ads is a contradiction. You have to…
The first step is to just stop feeling guilty about doing what you want with your own property, and then you don't need to bother with these huge rationalizations either way. Would you support a law that made it illegal to run ad-blocking software? Why or why not?
I'm saying you should try and it see if you feel guilty. You might or might not. What I feel is not relevant since I'm the one trying to make the point.
They aren't rationalizations, they are accepted standards for analyzing decisions based on ethical systems.
Also (what you are doing on your own property) only counts when it doesn't involve another person (the site owner).
"Rationalization a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
I'm not trying to avoid the true explanation, I'm trying to find the true explanation :) I'm not trying justify the act after the fact (for myself or others). Also not using Adblock software is not controversial.
"But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical" --https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics....
I don't believe in making a law because I don't believe in encoding every single ethical decision into laws. Just because I believe based on my analysis that it's wrong to use Adblock software doesn't mean that I believe people who use Adblock software should be fined or put in jail, etc. just that they are making a decision that is unethical. Laws deal with the practicalities of society and what has to be done to keep order, it should not be used as a tool for prescribing a 0-leeway master code of ethics upon each person.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, I've been trying to spread this exact understanding on HN for years[1]. You would think that this crowd would get that there is no free lunch. But cognitive dissonance is powerful: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair I've been tracking this debate (or, until recently, lack thereof) for years and no one is articulating thi…
> I've been tracking this debate (or, until recently, lack thereof) for years and no one is articulating this well, myself included. Specifically, no one is articulating how this doesn't even make sense from an economics perspective. That sounds like very bad economics. Because a) Either the spending power of the population is constant. In that case, there is no cost (for consumers), because they don't spend more , t…
The reasoning goes (and I have absolutely no idea if there is an element of truth to this or not so don't hold this against me) that advertising increases the velocity of the total amount spent and as such can actually increase the size of the total economy. So even if people do not insanely accumulate wealth it does leave their pockets faster essentially causing a decrease in total savings.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#218"What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues." -- https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.... Kant 1st Imperative -- Violates -- If everyone used Adblock, many websites would shutdown. I.e. "Adblock is…
If everyone used Adblock, many websites would shutdown. - Fails to make the claim that many (but not all) websites shutting down would be bad. Kant's 2nd Imperative - Passes. It treats them as ends in and of themselves by focusing on the content they wish to present to me rather than lies which they don't control. Utilitarianism - Impossible to come to agreement on. We could heap on whatever costs/benefits we want on…
(Fails to make the claim that many (but not all) websites shutting ) -- Not the intended claim. Kants 1 deals with "universalizability principle" (See other comment)
Kant's 2nd Imperative -- Incorrect perspective. Analyzing whether adding ads to your site isn't the question we are analyzing here (that might also be unethical). Blocking ads is what we are looking at.
Utilitarianism -- Incorrect perspective. Analyzing whether adding ads to your site isn't the question we are analyzing here (that might also be unethical). Blocking ads is what we are looking at.
Rule -- Incorrect perspective. Analyzing whether adding ads to your site isn't the question we are analyzing here (that might also be unethical). Blocking ads is what we are looking at.
Social Contract -- -- Incorrect perspective. Analyzing whether adding ads to your site isn't the question we are analyzing here (that might also be unethical). Blocking ads is what we are looking at.
Virtue Ethics -- -- Incorrect perspective. Analyzing whether adding ads to your site isn't the question we are analyzing here (that might also be unethical). Blocking ads is what we are looking at.
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could twitter and random blogs have stopped Vietnam and Nixon too, if they had existed back then? And if there is something unique to journalists that make them more proficient at stopping presidents and wars, why couldn't they stop the Iraq war? Because the powers that be coopted that power. I read the "journalists" in the early 21st century and it was depressing. Then again, the independent bloggers and twitters ha…
> Could twitter and random blogs have stopped Vietnam and Nixon too, if they had existed back then? Go read about Watergate and get back to me (though, ironically, to do that you would need to read the works of investigative journalists...). Today, the equivalent to Deep Throat might be Snowden, and that, too, required journalists like those from The Guardian to get the story out. That kind of journalism requires res…
Could the reduced effectiveness of journalism be because the government has journalists too?
I saw lots of journalists in favor of the war in Iraq. Were there many journalists in favor of war in Vietnam too?
I have only seen journalists as they were already declining, but we saw the decline of independent bloggers as it happened.
What happened to amateur Internet journalism was not a market failure. It was the government's realizing that the Internet is a force multiplier, and they have a lot of force to multiply. Cue astroturfing, surveillance and the 50 cent army...
Could something similar have happened to real journalism too?
Re: The ethics of modern web ad-blocking
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, not to bring ageism into the discussion, but I'm gonna bet that probably just means you were born in, what, the late 90s or later? Journalism serves a vital function. It's called the "fourth estate" for a reason, and should serve to enlighten the public on the goings on of the government and the world. Journalism is one of the forces counteracting government secrecy and surveillance. Hell, journalism is what br…
This is turning into a classic unrecognized theoretical vs practical argument. I propose: "Journalism could, and historically did, serve a vital function." Exactly like horseshoe manufacturing. Just not today. There's space for us both to be correct, in theory journalism, much like western civilization, would be a great idea to try, or maybe we had it in the past, or it would be an interesting goal for the future eve…
>"Journalism could, and historically did, serve a vital function." Just not today.
I agree that journalism isn't serving that function today, but I think that function isn't being served well at all. Not enough cars, so to speak.
What can we do so that the next Snowden doesn't have to teach basic cryptography to some out of touch horseshoe makers?