Hacker News Reader

Comment by warent | Hacker News Reader

Because businesses conform to customer wants/needs, not vice-versa.

Customer: "I want a hamburger for free. Give it to me for free or I'll just take it and walk away without paying anyway."

Business: "No. It's $2. Please pay for the burger"

Customer: "Why aren't you conforming to my needs?!"

Well, at least it's not a car comparison.

I prefer a classic slashdot car comparison. They don't make me hungry.

There's a difference here - the transaction of physical goods. There's also a big difference between, "You offered me a burger, you have signs saying I could get burgers here, and there are large groups that index you as the best burger." "That was last week. Now you don't get to know about the burger until you pay $2."

On a developer forum devoted to software companies, the main argument is that physical products are by nature more valuable than non-physical products. (As opposed to the argument that non-physical products are easier to take and use without permission, regardless of effort put into it or value extracted).

Yes, that is a primary argument. Information exists and is meant to be free. None of the "software companies" would exist without free access to data. I support public libraries over media retailers 100% of the time, as well.

On top of that, I own my computer. I am responsible for the data which is transferred to my computer. I should have a fully-accessible offline copy of any and all data which is transferred to my computer, and not one bit of data should ever be transferred from my computer without my express consent.

Adblocking comes to be a multifaceted statement. It is anticorporatism, it is privacy advocacy, and it is a declaration of data ownership & responsibility. And for some people, it's accessibility layered on top of one or more of those.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com