Hacker News Reader

>The argument isn't that it's unethical to not watch ads, it's that it's unethical to not watch the ads but still take what they offer in exchange.

And that argument is completely and utterly bogus. When you broadcast your radio or TV signal over the airwaves, I can watch or listen just to the content and switch it off, mute it, fast forward it, etc. during the ads. I have no obligation to watch or listen to them and I don't.

It's no different when you put a publicly accessible file on an open server. There are no restrictions on anyone downloading that file and not downloading other unrelated files just so you get paid. If you don't want users doing that, find a different way to get paid.

>Does the MPAA doing shitty things mean we should steal movies from them, or that we should boycott them? How is viewing content without seeing ads any different? Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's a complete non-sequitir. None of this is the same as pirating goods from the RIAA and MPAA. Those are not publicly available pieces of content that anyone can access. You have to break encryption and other similar anti-circumvention tools to watch them without paying.

>When you broadcast your radio or TV signal over the airwaves, I can watch or listen just to the content and switch it off, mute it, fast forward it, etc. during the ads. I have no obligation to watch or listen to them and I don't.

He said it was unethical, not impossible. Likewise if there is a public fruit stand on the side of the road with no one around, and the owners expect people to take fruit and leave money - sure theres no restrictions to stop you from stealing all the food and the money, but if you do, just because there are no restrictions doesn't mean its not unethical.

Did you really just make the argument that getting up to go to the bathroom during a broadcast TV commercial is the same thing as stealing fruit?

No, and I don't understand how you can honestly make that conclusion without being purposely obtuse. Intent is a huge factor of this (as is what is ethical), one is being purposely malicious (actively blocking ads, purposely taking money), and the other is just someone using the bathroom.

Did you really just blatantly ignore his valid point with a BS nitpicking about his comparison?

These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?

Unfortunately (for this situation) ad-blockers are starting to enter a war, where they try to remove adverts while keeping websites functional. It would be nice to have an agreed way for websites to say "No ads? Go away", but I imagine most sites would choose to activate it, so ad-blockers would ignore it anyway, similar to do-not-track.

Sometimes I read webpages with /usr/bin/curl. Sorry, but you aren't going to convince anyone that I am somehow morally obligated to copy the <img> URLs to a computer with a graphical web browser to see some ads.

Much like how the "first-sale doctrine" limits a publisher's rights over a work after a copy first changes hands, you do not get to dictate how the client renders your HTML or if they choose to run your javascript after you've voluntarily handed the files over to them in the HTTP request.

If your business suffers because of this, well, that's what happens to business models based on magical thinking and a misunderstanding of copyright.

You are the one who introduced "moral obligation", and "dictating" to the conversation, please don't invent words I did not use.

I simply said it would be nice for website owners to express their opinion on ad-blocking (some are pro, some are anti), and then users could choose to use that information.

If this gets into a war, it won't be hard for website authors to start sending you webpages where you have to call the javascript for the content (with ads) to appear -- some websites already do. I would suspect however those who write ad blockers will be more motivated to block ads, than websites will be to write ad-blocker-blocers.

How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?

Is this a serious question?

Well, if a site displays ads, the expectation is that you will view them, or if not view them, they will at least be presented. I think to say otherwise is disingenuous.

Yes, sites should block users that use ad-block if they care, but the ecosystem isn't to the point that something like that is tenable for most sites. I'm not fighting against ad-blockers here, I'm fighting against the entitlement that I see exhibited. I think it's counter-productive.

> How is viewing content without seeing ads any different?

It's very different, because the MPAA and RIAA do not (and do not claim to) give their content away for free. You can't (claim to) give things away for free and then argue that it was unethical that people didn't quid-pro-quo somehow. To clarify something in my original comment that some people further down the comment chain seem to be misunderstanding, when I said

> If your business model relies on technical tricks whose ethics are in a very dark-grey area, you do not get to play the ethics card when I use a technical trick to protect myself from you.

I am not only referring to the advertising industry. If you are a content publisher and you use any of the vast majority of ad networks to meet your bottom line, then your business model relies on technical tricks whose ethics are in a very dark grey area, and I have no qualms using technical tricks to protect myself from you or those you chose to trust with displaying content on your website.

I respect the opinions of content creators who believe that ad-blockers are unethical, and if you run a site that says "if you use an ad blocker please do not use this site" then I respect that opinion too and will stop using your site. But if you run a website on which you claim to offer your content for free while surreptitiously violating (or allowing others to violate) my security and privacy (especially without even warning me first), then I have no qualms consuming your content for the asking price and not viewing your ads. I have yet to see an argument against this point of view that has any merit, but I am of course willing to change my opinion if and when I do.

Where are you getting this "you claim to offer your content for free" from? Most sites don't make a claim the content is free, but people like to assume it is and take it. It doesn't put the providers in a good light that it's become the norm that there's an unspoken agreement going on that they are benefiting from, but it's not any better on the consumer side, as taking something without confirming it's actually free isn't appropriate either.

What we have here is an unspoken agreement about a transaction taking place, and both sides are interpreting it in their best interests without confirming that's okay for the other side. Everyone's an asshole in this scenario, which I think fairly accurately describes reality.

To put this in relatable terms, it's like walking down a country road and coming upon a crate of apples. While they don't say they are free, they look kind of free, and you're hungry. You take one, and all of a sudden a guy jumps out from behind a tree and demands that you owe him a favor and some info about yourself for eating his apples. He's a scumbag, it's obvious, for trying to engineer a scenario where he can solicit business from people that might otherwise pass him by, but the passerby that partakes without confirming that it's actually free isn't without fault either.

Now, we see that some people are pretty good at just ignoring the shop keeper, and they keep reaping the benefits of free apples. Sure, the owner of the apples is an asshole, but the other people are still stealing his apples, and regardless of how much an asshole he is, that's not okay. At this point, both parties are acting in bad faith. Unfortunately, the problem is muddied by the facts that people decided long ago, primarily due to these shady guys and small favors, that apples just aren't worth paying money for anymore, and rarely the guys that own the apples even sell your info and/or favors to really shady people, so it's often safer to ignore them and give them nothing.

P.S. Yes, this conflates the content creator and the ad network, but that's not really the point of this.

> To put this in relatable terms, it's like walking down a country road and coming upon a crate of apples. While they don't say they are free, they look kind of free, and you're hungry.

This, I think, is where you and I disagree: the web was founded on the free exchange of information, where when you put something online, it's free (and then later, it's free unless you ask money for it via paywall etc). So it's more like deciding that an unspoken transaction is taking place and it should benefit you in some way if I pick up a sofa that you left on the curb. Yes I am benefiting from this furniture, and yes it's something I could have paid for elsewhere and you could have chosen to sell. And if I see you while I'm picking it up I may thank you. But that's as far as my obligation will go, and if you try telling me about how unethical i'm being by cleaning the couch before I use it (and in so doing throwing away the flyers you've stuffed under the cushions without reading them) then I will think you're being a little ridiculous.

I think I'm pulling the metaphor a little far here and I apologize for that, but I stand firm on the opinion that if you put a resource up on the internet, and you do not claim otherwise, then I have no obligation to you for consuming it. And the other thing is I have never seen a site that asks me not to use it if I block ads, a request I fully respect. Only ones that whine about how I should be less unethical and allow unknown third parties to violate my privacy and security and themselves make the lions' share of the profits so that the website can scrabble a few dimes themselves, a request that I do not respect in the least.

> This, I think, is where you and I disagree: the web was founded on the free exchange of information, where when you put something online, it's free

That is definitely where we disagree. The web is a medium. Ascribing freedom to it is a fallacy, regardless of how it was first developed and used. It would not be where it is today without commercial interest at every level, and to me it's obvious that when a business is on the web, their purpose is not to give you free stuff, it's to make money[1]. I think to assume otherwise it to delude oneself. In other words, the internet doesn't have an opinion on whether it should be used for free things or not.

> And the other thing is I have never seen a site that asks me not to use it if I block ads, a request I fully respect.

Depending on how you interpret the message, I have. I've seen messages where the ads would be saying "We support this site with advertising, without thatrevenue we can't continue. Please don't block our ads." You can choose to either interpret that as them whining, or you can choose to interpret it as them expressing their wishes that ads be viewed on the site, and to use it with an ad blocker is against their wishes.

1: For that matter, nothing is free, ever. There is always an intended purpose, and an intended gain for the exchange. That gain may not be directly from the other party, and may not be financially based. For example, the gain could be the opinion of the other party or society in general (social capital, fame), a long play on later financial gain (establishing relationships), or the feeling of doing something useful for society or specific others (personal esteem), etc. If you can't determine why something is being offered, then you should be wary.