Is blocking ads from websites immoral?



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    (...) the reality is, you just want the damn free samples 'cause you're a free-sample abusing bastard. You know you shouldn't, and you know that if everyone did it, the whole system would collapse, but as a bastard, you simply don't care.
    Actually... yeah. I don't like advertising, so I block it.



  • @wybl said:

    @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    (...) the reality is, you just want the damn free samples 'cause you're a free-sample abusing bastard. You know you shouldn't, and you know that if everyone did it, the whole system would collapse, but as a bastard, you simply don't care.
    Actually... yeah. I don't like advertising, so I block it.

    I at least admire that you honestly admit it is a matter of self-entitlement and an unwillingness to uphold your end of the agreement between content providers and consumers.  I can't say I like that you do it or agree with you, but at least you aren't turning it into some kind of "ethical" act on your part.  That annoys me as much as the people who try to justify piracy by saying they wouldn't have bought the material in the first place. 



  •  Answer to OP: No.

     

    Thread over.



  • @Pesto said:

     Answer to OP: No.

     

    Thread over.

    Did you read the rest of the thread or did you come up with this moronic opinion all on your own? 



  • @Pesto said:

     Answer to OP: No.

     

    Thread over.

    Well, that sounds like solid reasoning. Why didn't anybody else think of this brilliant argument? Things would be so much simpler if all of our parents had fed us paint chips as a child. Then we could all think* like you!



  • @bstorer said:

    Well, that sounds like solid reasoning. Why didn't anybody else think of this brilliant argument? Things would be so much simpler if all of our parents had fed us paint chips as a child. Then we could all think* like you!

    Wossat?  I 'et me paint chips like mum asked and not a bit of thinking landed in me 'ead!  I do b'lieve your dealin' in a shenanigan, I do!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Pesto said:

     Answer to OP: No.

     

    Thread over.

    Did you read the rest of the thread or did you come up with this moronic opinion all on your own? 

     

    Oh, it's all mine, baby.

    P.S.  You spelled moranic wrong. ;-P

     

    Okay, you can ignore my trolling now.



  • @bstorer said:

    Well, that sounds like solid reasoning.
     

    No, just a joke.

    Here's the thing.  I am not obligated to view the ads on a website any more than I am obligated to watch the commercials on network television.  Similarly, no one is obligated to offer me free services of any kind. 

    When a website offers free services, and wishes to pay for it with ad revenue, they are taking the gamble that enough people will view their ads (or click through or ...) to cover their operating expenses.  I have the choice to oblige them, or not.  If I value the service provided by a web site, and it goes out of business, not only are they deprived of revenue, but I am deprived of a service.  By blocking ads, I run the risk of killing the very service I'm using, but that risk is mine to take.



  • @Pesto said:

    No, just a joke.

    Here's the thing.  I am not obligated to view the ads on a website any more than I am obligated to watch the commercials on network television.  Similarly, no one is obligated to offer me free services of any kind. 

    When a website offers free services, and wishes to pay for it with ad revenue, they are taking the gamble that enough people will view their ads (or click through or ...) to cover their operating expenses.  I have the choice to oblige them, or not.  If I value the service provided by a web site, and it goes out of business, not only are they deprived of revenue, but I am deprived of a service.  By blocking ads, I run the risk of killing the very service I'm using, but that risk is mine to take.

    We're talking morality, not legality.  You are not required to watch ads, but blocking the is immoral since you are violating the implicit agreement between content creator and consumer.  For fuck's sake, read the rest of this thread before you jump in with your first-grade opinions. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    We're talking morality, not legality.
    So am I.@morbiuswilters said:
    You are not required to watch ads, but blocking the is immoral since you are violating the implicit agreement between content creator and consumer.
    I disagree that such an agreement exists.@morbiuswilters said:
    For fuck's sake, read the rest of this thread before you jump in with your first-grade opinions. 
    I did.



  • @Pesto said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    We're talking morality, not legality.
    So am I.

    Then you are full of shit.  You are taking advantage of free content without upholding your end of the agreement.

     

    @Pesto said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    You are not required to watch ads, but blocking the is immoral since you are violating the implicit agreement between content creator and consumer.
    I disagree that such an agreement exists.

    Give me a break.  The content providers are not putting up ads for shits and giggles, there is an implicit social contract that for consuming the content you will watch the ads to provide the content creator with revenue.  You can be an asshole and abuse that, but don't come up with ridiculous justifications for your anti-social behavior.  You know damn well that if everyone blocked ads free content would dry up and we'd be relegated to paying out-of-pocket for it.  It's people who abuse the system that cause the ethical amongst us being inconvenienced by DRM and similar bullshit schemes for protecting paranoid content creators from theives like you.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Then you are full of shit.  You are taking advantage of free content without upholding your end of the agreement.
    But I don't block ads.@morbiuswilters said:
    there is an implicit social contract
    I don't think it's a contract.  I think it's an understanding with no obligation in either direction.  At any time they can start requiring a fee.@morbiuswilters said:
    You know damn well that if everyone blocked ads free content would dry up and we'd be relegated to paying out-of-pocket for it.
    And I have no problem with that.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Pesto said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    there is an implicit social contract
    I don't think it's a contract.  I think it's an understanding with no obligation in either direction.  At any time they can start requiring a fee.

    This all goes back to the free sample analogy. No, there are no signs that say "you need to be a real patron, and you can take one sample," but you know it's wrong to waltz in to the store, stuff your face with free samples, and walk then out. Yes, you can do it, but everyone is going to shake their head in disgust at you. And when you shout back, "show me where it says take only one," you only embarass yourself that much further.

    Fortunately, in real life, you have to have an almost inhumanly low level of shame to do such things... on the web, it's just a matter of downloading adblock. But it's still just as embarssing when you try to justify it.

     

    @Pesto said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    You know damn well that if everyone blocked ads free content would dry up and we'd be relegated to paying out-of-pocket for it.
    And I have no problem with that.

    And hence, this is where the "lousy bastard" part comes in. There's at least one in everything from free samples to driving (like that guy who waits 'till the last second to merge)... or, maybe, it's all just the same guy.



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    No, there are no signs that say "you need to be a real patron, and you can take one sample," but you know it's wrong to waltz in to the store, stuff your face with free samples, and walk then out.
    A store has every right to tell you how to behave on their property.  A web provider has no right to tell me what I can and can't do with data I download from the internet.@Alex Papadimoulis said:
    And hence, this is where the "lousy bastard" part comes in. There's at least one in everything from free samples to driving (like that guy who waits 'till the last second to merge)... or, maybe, it's all just the same guy.
    But even with people blocking ads, free web services are still available.  The guy waiting until the last second to merge will generally snarl traffic and adversely effect the drivers behind him.  If he could do that without causing traffic to back up, then there would be no problem. 

    People block ads all the time, and it doesn't really seem to be hindering people from providing the free web services to you and me.  The free websites still profit, the people who don't mind the ads get to use the site, and the people who do mind the ads also get to use the site.

    If you think it's immoral, don't do it.  I don't think it's immoral, so I don't care what you do.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    And the "goddammit, the sign doesn't say only one free sample, so I'll take what I want" embarassment continues...

    @Pesto said:

    A store has every right to tell you how to behave on their property.  A web provider has no right to tell me what I can and can't do with data I download from the internet.

    Just as stores have the right to restrict free samples, web providers can put their content in a PDF, a GIF file, or some propietary format. They don't, because that would suck for everyone, just as having no free samples sucks for everyone.

     

    @Pesto said:

    The guy waiting until the last second to merge will generally snarl traffic and adversely effect the drivers behind him.  If he could do that without causing traffic to back up, then there would be no problem. 

    People block ads all the time, and it doesn't really seem to be hindering people from providing the free web services to you and me.  The free websites still profit, the people who don't mind the ads get to use the site, and the people who do mind the ads also get to use the site.

    One traffic bastard can sneak into a merge without hurting traffic. In fact, he probably says to himself, "People late-merge all the time, and it doesn't really seem to be hindering people from merging in a timely manner.  The roads flow clear, the people who merge when they're supposed to get to merge, and the late-mergers also get to use to merge, just much quicker."

    But when there are enough traffic bastards, the road is ruined for everyone. Same applies to adblock bastards: when there's enough of 'em, it ruins it for everyone.



  • @Pesto said:

    I am not obligated to view the ads on a website any more than I am obligated to watch the commercials on network television.
    I'm not fond of the analogy to television commercials. Television commercials interrupt the content completely and last a fixed amount of time. Neither of those aspects translates to web ads. Yes, I know places like IGN do the whole "watch this ad for a while before we take you to your page" thing, but they're few and far between. Web ads have much more in common to those in magazines. You don't have your mailman rip out the ads in your magazine subscriptions because you're not obligated to look at them. Just because it's easier to do with web ads doesn't make it any more or less moral.
    @Pesto said:
    When a website offers free services, and wishes to pay for it with ad revenue, they are taking the gamble that enough people will view their ads (or click through or ...) to cover their operating expenses.
    "Free" is an incredibly slippery word, the intricacies of which Richard Stallman would happily talk your ear off about. You mistake the fact that the content is "free as in beer" to mean that it's "free as in freedom." But just because there's no money exchanging hands doesn't mean you aren't bound to social norms.
    @Pesto said:
    I have the choice to oblige them, or not.
    I have the choice of whether or not to gun you down in the street. That doesn't have any bearing on the morality (or legality, for that matter) of the act.
    @Pesto said:
    By blocking ads, I run the risk of killing the very service I'm using, but that risk is mine to take.
    You seem to forget or ignore that there are people on the other end who are being hurt by your actions. Morality is the same even if your victim is in some remote location, unseen by you.



  • @Pesto said:

    A web provider has no right to tell me what I can and can't do with data I download from the internet.
    This is wrong in so many ways.
    @Pesto said:
    But even with people blocking ads, free web services are still available.
    That doesn't hold up once enough people do it. So now you're justifying yourself for doing it before it reached a tipping point. The first straw is just as culpable as the one that broke the camel's back.
    @Pesto said:
    The free websites still profit, the people who don't mind the ads get to use the site, and the people who do mind the ads also get to use the site.
    I think it's fine that people steal from stores. The stores still profit, the people who pay get what they want, and the people who shoplift get what they want.



  • @Pesto said:

    @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    No, there are no signs that say "you need to be a real patron, and you can take one sample," but you know it's wrong to waltz in to the store, stuff your face with free samples, and walk then out.
    A store has every right to tell you how to behave on their property.  A web provider has no right to tell me what I can and can't do with data I download from the internet.
    A web provider can just ask you to pay up-front for a "content subscription" if its ad-based revenue goes low enough as to endanger the site's sustainability.

    BTW, maybe you haven't noticed, but this is Alex, the Master of the TDWTF Universe! ;-D This site has little to no ads served; and the only time it had an invasion of ads, the users spoke up, and Alex promptly dumped the annoying ad servers. While I still might cringe at the RailsKits ad (I don't like the RubyOnRails "platform"), I acknowledge that the ads are actually relevant to IT now.

    I already stated my position some posts ago; I will only block the offensive ad-servers (again, cpxinteractive) though NoScript / Flashblock seems to do the hard work for me. Ad revenue might come from ad views (say, the GET logs for those ads) so using Adblock is effectively hurting the site! If everyone applies a "block 'em all!" stance on this, the site might just disappear for lack of sustainability. Oops!



  • @bstorer said:

    @Pesto said:
    A web provider has no right to tell me what I can and can't do with data I download from the internet.
    This is wrong in so many ways.
    Let me qualify that.  They have no say what I do with it within the confines of my computer.@bstorer said:
    That doesn't hold up once enough people do it. So now you're justifying yourself for doing it before it reached a tipping point.
    Well, of course I am.  And I have no objections to the consequences if it does reach that tipping point.@bstorer said:
    I think it's fine that people steal from stores. The stores still profit, the people who pay get what they want, and the people who shoplift get what they want.
    A store explicitly states, "If you want this widget, you must give me money."  A web provider has every right to do the same thing.



  • @Pesto said:

    Let me qualify that.  They have no say what I do with it within the confines of my computer.
    Still wrong.
    @Pesto said:
    @bstorer said:
    That doesn't hold up once enough people do it. So now you're justifying yourself for doing it before it reached a tipping point.
    Well, of course I am.
    Congratulations. You've just outed yourself as a self-centered elitist.
    @Pesto said:
    And I have no objections to the consequences if it does reach that tipping point.
    "I have no objection to Alex going broke, but since he hasn't yet, I'm gonna keep screwing him."
    @Pesto said:
    A store explicitly states, "If you want this widget, you must give me money."  A web provider has every right to do the same thing.
    While you're in a legal gray area, I'll say this again: we're discussing morality, not legality. The social norms are in place, you just don't think they should apply to you.



  • @Pesto said:

    @bstorer said:
    @Pesto said:
    A web provider has no right to tell me what I can and can't do with data I download from the internet.
    This is wrong in so many ways.
    Let me qualify that.  They have no say what I do with it within the confines of my computer.

    Dear God, are you some kind of hired aggitator for the RIAA?  It's like you are going out of your way to make DRM seem attractive to otherwise sane people.  When you say "they have no say" you are being very vague.  With regard to social customs, you are wrong.  With regard to law, you are wrong.  With regard to technology, you are becoming more wrong with every step forward DRM achieves.  So perhaps within your twisted little moral code what you are doing is permissible.  And for now you certainly are capable of doing it.  Unfortunately, that will probably change as our computers become more and more locked-down.  When it comes to social custom, though, you are just flat-out wrong.  In fact, it's people like you who necessitate law in the first place, since there seems to be no other way to get you to look beyond your own greedy, selfish disregard for others.

     

    @Pesto said:

    @bstorer said:
    That doesn't hold up once enough people do it. So now you're justifying yourself for doing it before it reached a tipping point.
    Well, of course I am.  And I have no objections to the consequences if it does reach that tipping point.

    Your lack of objection is drowned out by the objections of most decent people.  I think Alex's free sample analogy could be improved further: this is more like the honor jar that sits next to the box of donuts at work.  Somebody paid for the donuts with their money and clearly you are supposed to pay for anything you take.  Of course, there is nothing physically stopping you from stealing a donut and the situation is so trivial and informal that there is no legal barrier, either.  However, to everyone else you are clearly being a jerk for taking a donut every morning without paying.  Your defense is "Well, if only I do it the donut buyer stills gets enough from the other contributions to make up for it.  And if other people start doing taking without paying as well, I'm okay with the donuts going away for everybody."  That's the kind of attitude that will result in most people disliking you, even if they are too polite to show it to your face.

     

    @Pesto said:

    @bstorer said:
    I think it's fine that people steal from stores. The stores still profit, the people who pay get what they want, and the people who shoplift get what they want.
    A store explicitly states, "If you want this widget, you must give me money."  A web provider has every right to do the same thing.

    Huh, I've never seen a sign explicitly stating that at a store.  Let's assume with our honor jar analogy that there is no explicit sign and that nobody ever told you what the jar was for, but you still deduced it and knew you were expected to pay.  Unlike a store, you won't even get into legal trouble for taking a donut without paying.  However, there is an implicit social contract that not only do most people immediately recognize, but also respect.  Even if you happen to be the office doofus who takes free donuts for months without knowing you were supposed to pay, as soon as someone informs you of the honor jar's purpose, the only decent response would be to make amends for past donuts and show respect for the jar in the future.



  • @bstorer said:

    While you're in a legal gray area, I'll say this again: we're discussing morality, not legality. The social norms are in place, you just don't think they should apply to you.
    I see it as inherent to the business model of offering free web services, which the providers enter into with their eyes wide open. @bstorer said:
    "I have no objection to Alex going broke, but since he hasn't yet, I'm gonna keep screwing him."
    Maybe he should have chosen a different business model, or provided a different service.@bstorer said:
    Congratulations. You've just outed yourself as a self-centered elitist.
    Did you see the part where I said I don't block ads?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    this is more like the honor jar that sits next to the box of donuts at work.
    And just like NPR.  So what.@morbiuswilters said:
    Huh, I've never seen a sign explicitly stating that at a store.
    They're called price tags.@morbiuswilters said:
    It's like you are going out of your way to make DRM seem attractive to otherwise sane people.
    Wait. WHAT?

    DRM is to stop people from copying and redistributing content.@morbiuswilters said:

    In fact, it's people like you who necessitate law in the first place, since there seems to be no other way to get you to look beyond your own greedy, selfish disregard for others.
    I DON'T FUCKING BLOCK ADS ON MY COMPUTER!



  • @Pesto said:

    @bstorer said:
    "I have no objection to Alex going broke, but since he hasn't yet, I'm gonna keep screwing him."
    Maybe he should have chosen a different business model, or provided a different service.
    That's a near-sighted solution. The other business models are all more expensive to the content consumer.@Pesto said:
    @bstorer said:
    Congratulations. You've just outed yourself as a self-centered elitist.
    Did you see the part where I said I don't block ads?
    Doesn't matter whether you do or not. Your anti-social views are enough evidence.


Log in to reply