No really, another journalist agreed with you. Well then to hell with the rest of us and our opinions. :rolleyes:
Oh my stars. However do you think journalists paid their bills before the internet?
So it’s their own fault for using ads to generate their income, especially the ones who allow the annoying ones nobody ever, ever likes. When sites get a clue and find a way to generate income with either non-invasive, perhaps even clever and witty ads that don’t have potential malware we might come to enjoy them. Then we’ll click.
It’s not the consumers’ fault here at all. That’s ridiculous.
Well then those people are idiots, because most of us realize there’s an easy way to block them. If you’re producing a site you should accept this because it’s not ever going away. And it shouldn’t. It should be our choice to view an ad-- just like when we watch television. Internet ads are no different, despite your most vehement protest. Oh I GET it. You want and expect us to click on your ad, but that’s not our fault. Ya see, when you have someone click on your site you’ve established a contract with them, and that contract assures the consumer that you have a product to view. We accept that contract and view your material. When YOU create new terms, such as the additional links, ads, videos, etc. we are invited to view your ads, links, videos, etc. but we do NOT have to take you up on that offer. We came to your site for a reason and I assure you without a hint of a doubt that it is NOT to view ads.
I find this funny, because YouTube flat out says that, if you skip the ads, they don’t get money. This is intentional, to motivate the advertisers to put up less annoying ads. Granted, this is stupid, as people will skip ads whether they are annoying or not. Wasting time is itself annoying.
People only like ads when they are intentionally trying to see ads. Hence why the Superbowl thing works. If only companies would try to be that entertaining all year, and would stop reshowing the same ads in such a short period.
Also, it was a bad idea to tell us that you are motivated by your own paycheck rather than any actual moral considerations. Moral considerations should not take your personal self-interest into account. Even Objectivism posits that it’s morals are better for society and not the individual making the claim.
If anything, since it’s now clear that you are trying to use shame to motivate people to pay you, I have more of a motivation to make sure you don’t get money from me. The same reason I won’t watch Linkara anymore.
This is a big flaw of mine. I can’t let a debate rest.
You could use the same argument against the 10,000 courtesies that make our society a bearable place to live.
“I feel like taking up three seats on the subway. You don’t like it? Well, I never signed a contract saying I was limited to one seat.”
Yet, everyone here would agree that this is immoral.
Similarly, the ad revenue for content system is a courtesy compact that has played a large role in making the internet function as a community.
I don’t understand. We are talking about content you are viewing. You think it’s worth viewing, you just don’t feel like looking at the ads.
Thank you for being honest. After so many people in this thread pretended they blocked ads because if they didn’t their computer would crash from malware (I’ve never used adblock, and this hasn’t happened to me since the early 2000s when I used IE and Windows 95), someone finally fesses up to the truth behind adblock - people use it because they can’t stand the slight annoyance of ads.
I never said to hell with your opinions. I understand your point of view. Maybe you should try to understand ours.
Let me think. I know I learned it at some point… Hmm…
Oh yeah. People subscribed to newspapers.
Then the internet came along, and newspapers started putting their content up for free (whether this was a mistake or not - whether they should have all adopted the paywall system - is still debated within the industry).
They tried to support themselves with internet ads, and it sort of kind of worked, but now that adblock is becoming the norm this is becoming more and more difficult.
Not so fun fact: the newsroom where I work has a hiring freeze. No new photographers since around 2008. And I think we’re lucky compared to what’s happening elsewhere.
I don’t expect you to click on our ads. I expect you to not interfere with the presentation of our website so the ad simply appears on the screen, and the website makes a little bit of money to support the work you are consuming.
I AM being honest when I say I block ads due to malware? Did you not see the cites earlier in this thread?
No, that’s exactly what it means. Just because you want it to work one way doesn’t make it work that way. If I can choose to not pay without repercussions, and you still offer me your product, then there is no exchange.
Reality doesn’t change just because you view it a certain way. I don’t have to pay; therefore, I don’t have to pay.
You don’t have to pay. You just have to not interfere with the website’s presentation so that the ads appear on your screen, as the people who made the website intend for it to be and as they expect - or, in other words, consider reasonable, courteous, reciprocal, etc. - for you to do.
I could use your guys’ arguments to justify all sorts of selfish and immoral things. What if I decide to park my bike horizontal on the rack, taking up all the spaces? You come up to me and say, “please don’t do that. It’s immoral. You should use one slot so we can all use the rack.” Well, buddy, just because you want it to work that way doesn’t mean it does. I can choose to use the whole rack if I want.
I don’t consider blocking ads to be either selfish or immoral.
We’ve been over this. When you use a bike rack, you’re bound by a social compact. You chose to enter into that compact by living in society and using the bike rack.
No such compact exists between viewers and web content providers.
Further, if you take up all the spaces on a bike rack no one else can use it and that’s your fault.
If I block ads on a website, it does not limit others’ use of the site. Eventually, due to a poor business model, the site may cease operation. But that’s not my fault.
I know, we seem to disagree on this.
Please explain to me why such a compact exists between you and the other users of the bike rack, but not between you and the people who worked to make the content you consume. Fundamentally, the relationships boil down to the same thing: reciprocal courtesies to allow our communities to function.
It does if the website goes out of business because 79% of its users block the ads, the only source of revenue. I base that percentage on the poll in this thread.
The compact of the bike rack was established around the time the modern bike was invented. The details were hammered out long ago.
The web is a new frontier. In many places, society has yet to develop folkways and mores. You insist that a compact exists between viewers and content providers. I say that compact has not yet been created by society.
If you create a business dependent on the viewing of web ads while knowing that %79 of users block those ads, you have a bad business model.
Where? By whom?
You say the web is frontier and its mores haven’t been established. If that’s true, then how could you be certain that your way of doing things is right? Wouldn’t you have to admit you don’t know which is right and which is wrong? Are you admitting you’re neutral on this question, then?
Just because a business model doesn’t work in its present formation doesn’t mean the people contributing to its dysfunction aren’t being immoral. The music industry’s model was failing horribly in the early 2000s due to piracy, before Itunes arrived. Does that mean the people downloading music illegally were moral, and all the fault was in the business model?
Mores and folkways are largely established by the majority, with some help from certain people held to be role models. Volumes could be written about the process, and they have been.
My way of doing things doesn’t violate any social compact. It is also the way of the majority. The second doesn’t make it right, only normal and accepted. The first makes it right. I’m not doing anything wrong. Therefore, it must be right.
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t mean the people contributing to its dysfunction ARE being immoral either.
I wouldn’t say moral so much as they were (and largely continue to be) seen as only minorly immoral. What they were doing was seen as a tiny sin- like sneaking a snack into the movies.
As to where to place the blame, well you can’t put all the blame on the music industry. But if people have the technological capability to pirate music (in a lossless format even), and the society they live in barely considers it theft (note I am speaking of mores and customs here, not legalities), you’d be an idiot not to guard against it.
There have been countless societies in which the mores of the majority have been immoral, including ours in many respects until recent times (arguably, present day).
The argument that you aren’t doing anything immoral because the internet’s majority hasn’t set up the mores, and thus that there isn’t yet a social compact on this issue, is flawed.
Social compacts can exist even if a majority of society has decided to flaunt them.
In my opinion, taking up all the spaces on a bike rack would be wrong in any era, in any society, whether or not the mores for bicycles have been set up. It’s fundamentally selfish. Similarly, taking content from websites while blocking the revenue-generating portion which provides for that content - which they expect you to view in reciprocation - is immoral whether or not it has become included in the mores of the internet.
You keep insisting that we adblockers are violating a social compact. If the internet’s mores are not set up and no social compact exists, how can we violate it?
No, they don’t. Society decides what social compacts exist. If the majority decide a compact does not exist, it doesn’t.
Why exactly is it immoral? True social mores are not the sole determinant of morality. We could both list many that we feel are immoral. But why exactly is ad blocking immoral?
The compact does exist and millions of people participate in it. Maybe participate is the wrong word though, because it implies participating is an active choice whereas not participating is the active choice.
It has allowed for the website’s existence and it is implicit in the consumption of the content itself in the same way that being courteous to other bus riders is implicit in making use of the bus. Millions of others flaunt it because they can’t stomach the slight inconvenience of ads, which has caused real struggles for the websites and for the conscientious people who enjoy them with the ads.
Adblockers are taking advantage of the sacrifices others make for this very reasonable and straightforward compact. In fact, ads would probably be much less intrusive if there were no adblock, because advertisers wouldn’t have to try so hard to get people’s attention. The sacrifice would be spread more evenly, and more thinly.
As I’ve said many, many times in this thread, it is immoral simply because you are manipulating the website in order to take something for nothing, when the website has been set up according to the compact described above. You are blocking the parts that generate revenue to take advantage of the parts that the revenue allowed for. So many of you seem bewildered by my point of view, but trust me, I am equally with yours. I don’t understand how you could think that this is an alright thing to do.