this is the weirdest flagellation i have ever seen. do you also believe that alcohol producers must daily consume alcohol? candy manufacturers daily consume candy? how about pharma? the list goes on.
Content producers made a conscious decision to aggregate their screen real estate and outsource ad placement to unrelated third parties. The result is a cesspool of awful, low engagement content. Its so bad that they enter into awful agreements with aggregators to repackage their content for pennies. That's their problem, not mine.
On the flip, I live in a state capital, and when the legislature is in session, interest groups spend 10x what they spend on useless online ad spots to buy full-page or panel ads in the printed newspaper. Presumably they aren't doing that in an effort to set money on fire.
That would depend on you moral theory of choice; applying Kantian (deontological) moral theory, your behavior violates the principle of 'universalizability'.
What does it mean when a entire category of commerce is so toxic that government security officials recommend that civilian agencies preclude employees from seeing it?
>"The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances."
>"For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible."
If everyone were to block ads, the publications that you're reading would not be able to pay for the content they publish. Note that 'universalizability' requires a somewhat static analysis, and usually doesn't look at how systems might adapt to changed circumstances, though this is not a big problem here, as you have voluntarily chosen to interact with ad-supported publishers under the current regime.
The information on the web used to be of much higher quality. Within the first page of search results you'd usually find a no-nonsense website full of painstakingly curated information. Who had the means to access that information is orthogonal to its quality.
Sure, we can say that affording Internet access (gear) is a form of privilege. What bearing does that have on what I said?
You might be arguing that privileged people make better websites, or implying that the other person is saying that, or some variant, or...?
mindslight is not saying we should revert everything back to those days, such as the internet being expensive and exclusive. They want sites to stop using ad revenue. Those two things are not tied together. Unless you're arguing they are tied together, in which case again you need to explain yourself.
In general: Correlation is not causation. As I said, the quality of information was orthogonal to who could access it. And furthermore, even in modern times advertising does not pay for Internet access nor computing devices.
Sounds very convenient. You are allowed to make one logical step (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies go bankrupt) but are not allowed to make the equally sound step of (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies will seek other revenue sources such as paywalls).
But if you say i’m not allowed to argue the second one let’s talk about the first kind.
So universal add blocking puts those companies who keep clinging to add supported operation into bankruptcy. Goodridance. It is not like one must have free-as-in-beer services to have a coherent moral compass. They go bankrupt and we will manage without them. Totally consistent.
Similarly you wouldn’t say that the idea of punishing murderers lacks ‘universability’ just because it would shut down the Assasin’s Guild.
If I extend your (unreasonable) murder analogy, I'd have to say that you were hiring the Assassin's Guild, but refusing to pay because you don't like their terms.
That's not the agreement that ad companies think is being implied, though. The ad companies think the deal is "Looking at this website gives us permission to spy on you across the web".
They are putting stuff out on a server for public consumption. The implied agreement is that I'm allowed to view it, or not view it, in whole or in part. Their business plan is their problem.
Likewise it would be nice for the alcohol producer to experience drinking every day, as well as being the only person at the party not drinking. Even being the allocated driver and seeing the consequences of their product up close. Perhaps they would gain some insight or perspective regarding their product.
But no, they don't need to consume the product daily.
Really? Isn't there a pretty big gulf between "drinks alcohol" and "drinks alcohol and then gets behind the wheel of a car?"
A person can believe alcohol is not harmful to humans health without consuming alcohol, therefore it's morally acceptable if an alcohol producer does not consume alcohol.
But if they don't consume alcohol because they believe alcohol is harmful, while advertising (explicitly or implicitly by helping the alcohol company) that it is not harmful, then that is dishonesty. Because in this case, the person purposefully acts like they believe something for personal benefits, but actually they don't.
I happen to know a handful of people who started pet food companies, albeit boutique ones. (California.) They all taste their pet foods. I've tried some of the treat biscuits, and they aren't half bad, though I wouldn't necessarily reach for them.
I'm not an expert on cat or dog digestion. But I think anything they can eat, humans can, too. (Just not the other way.)
It won't taste good, but it will prevent starvation!
This is false in general, and dangerously misleading at best. In particular, some dog foods contain ingredients (bone meal IIRC, but don't rely on that) that can pretty much destroy a human's intestines (which are much less hardy than most animals's because coevolution with cooked food allowed cost-cutting). Pet food sold in California might (might) be required to be safe, but that's dangerously unreliable at best.
Searching is not suggesting any other particularly dangerous ingredients, other than to say it's not great long term. But on a level like "be careful not to get scurvy", not "will destroy your intestines". And that you should watch out for bad storage and still probably avoid raw meat.
Speaking of the devil, I had to carry somebody's stray dog home (again) when I was on my jog this morning, and man that was a fat dog! Dunno what he eats, felt like krispy kreme and quarter pounders. Maybe I oughta start me a dog food company. Too many fat dogs in this danged town.
Distillery staff will also occasionally test that the caskets being matured are doing okay.
Source: visited 5 out of 7 distilleries on Islay.
Oh that would be _wonderful_. Some day!
jedberg claims he consumed ads every day in order to empathize with this customers. the obvious implication is that everyone at such a company has the obligation to "try their own products".
You haven't presented a single argument as to WHY an employee of a software company shouldn't experience their product as their users do.
I suggest turning off JavaScript for most sites, which keeps the ad blocking tasks to a minimum. Blocking trolling users is another matter entirely.
My mom was a sales clerk for Macy's and one of her friends was a sales clerk there who later became a tobacco company rep who went to convenience stores to manage the marketing displays.
She smoked like a chimney. After my dad died and her friend got divorced, her friend moved in a for a while with my mom and got my mom smoking again. My mom hid it from everybody and we found out only after she died from a cardiovascular event because we found a pack of cigarettes, one half-finished, in the cupboard.