Comment by twiceaday | Hacker News Reader

Comment by twiceaday | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Would you take fruit from an unmanned fruit stand that just has a sign of how much money to put into the box / venmo? They have no security and no way to "enforce" that you pay! It's not about stealing at all, it's about me doing anything I want and am not physically prevented from doing! If they don't like it they should hire staff!

Not every proper behavior is enforced. You are always free to be a jerk. And it's pretty goofy to tie that to arguments about total personal freedom. Get outa here. You're violating the social contract. You're using a loophole to get much better treatment than "normal" people and in fact you make their experience worse as they have to watch more ads to make up the cost of serving stuff to you.

Also, would the internet be better if everyone acted like you? I think it would be in a significantly worse place if it was never possible to show an ad on the internet, if everyone was as free as you. So you get a massive benefit from others not using their "freedoms?"

"Screw 'em. If they put a fruit stand in my town, I get to take anything I want from it. It's my town. I don't have to follow their "please pay me" signs. I've always been able to take anything I want in my town. Even back when nobody would bring anything over for 'sale.'"

Cringe

I think it's ridiculous to try to paint Google as a little fruit stand asking to "please pay me". Google has more money than god. They are an awful abusive company, and they do break all social contracts and abuse every loophole they can get away with.

If you're trying to use morality to defend your argument, then yeah, we just have different values. If Google wants to give me something for free and then, as you said, put a sign asking to please give them my money, I'm sorry, but I don't make donations to trillion dollars companies.

But again, I don't think any of that really matters. As I said, they are using the open web, they're free to stop anytime they want, but not to change the rules the web is based on.

I think it's ridiculous to frame what I said like this.

1) Answer the question. Would you ever steal physical goods from an unmanned fruit stand merely asking for money? If not, would you do it if the company owning the fruit stand was rich enough? Did enough bad things? If the fruit stand was _really_ big?

If you answer yes to any of those questions I no longer wish to talk. We truly do have different values.

2) The fruit stand is an analogy for building a business on the open web. You seem to have missed that. Do you think that the internet, that these companies, got to their importance in our lives because everyone is free to modify their packets? That is delusional. It's a quirk most people aren't even aware of, and the internet is as good as you think it is today in large part because they aren't. It's why the fruit stand keeps coming to your town and is the size that it is. It's why you spend so much time stealing from it. Framing your position as exercising inalienable internet rights is ridiculous.

3) Something else you seem to have missed is the parts where I highlight the implications of your philosophy. I'm starting to think that you are arguing in bad faith. What if everyone acted like you? You think that would lead to a better world? Specifically talk about the impact on your favorite YouTube creators. You think it's fine that you don't pay them anything for their effort? That they probably get paid a hair less when you watch their videos because you take the bandwidth without paying for it by watching ads? Why do you only mention the impact on Big Bad Google? Because its easier to launder your conscience that way?

To be clear, my stance is that blocking ads is theft but petty theft; a few cents. Getting all high and mighty about it, and especially getting _anywhere near_ sounding entitled, is ridiculous. Continue to steal a little but be humble about it.

Hit the nail on the head. Adblock is morally equivalent to theft and always has been. Unfortunately, it has often been conflated with this noble idea of privacy, but it is generally understood the purpose of privacy tools is violate social contracts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com