9 ms·

That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dol

That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dollars. I suppose a stark, diametric alternative to being forced to view targeted ads would be Facebook as a paid subscription service. It's the age old issue of 'Someone has to pay for this party.'

natrius 10y ago
Facebook's profitability is not your problem. It's their job to figure out how to get paid. It's your job to protect your mind. Targeted ads are worse than gambling. We made sure everyone's aware of the dangers of gambling, but everyone's in the dark about targeted ads. These companies know what they're doing. If people want to portray ad blocking as stealing, so be it. Steal from them. They deserve it.
- hsod 10y ago
  > Facebook's profitability is not your problem. No, but acting with honesty and fairness is. Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads. I think it's obvious that the "right" thing to do is to respect their wishes, not sneeringly defy them while using their resources and giving nothing in return.
  - facetube 10y ago
    There is absolutely nothing dishonest about only downloading and rendering the web content you want to view.
    - hsod 10y ago
      IMO, the technical mechanisms are irrelevant. the ethical questions easily map to a face-to-face interaction.
      - Nursie 10y ago
        I don't believe they do map that easily - in a face to face interaction I'm not enabling your advertising with my bandwidth and my rendering device.
      - Falkon1313 10y ago
        Yes. In a face-to-face interaction, if the other party is sneezing and coughing and spraying mucus on your face, it is not unethical to wear a surgical mask. There is no moral or ethical requirement to inhale someone else's possibly virus-laden mucus just because you want to have a conversation.
  - _RPM 10y ago
    > Giving them nothing in return. You're giving them a lot, even if you don't click on ads or see ads. Is it not clear that your data is valuable? You're giving them personal information. Not that people that aren't developers care.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Facebook is a social-media advertising company. Their model, boiled down, is to extract the maximum possible value out of me in return for the minimum possible effort from them. Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? And given how often the above describes the way businesses will treat me, why shouldn't I generalize that position?
    - hsod 10y ago
      > Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? Practically: because it leads to a race to the bottom, lowering to their level, the world just gets worse and worse Philosophically: because ethics are a fundamental part of who you are, and strangers acting unethically does not relieve you of their burdens
      - ubernostrum 10y ago
        OK, so how far would you like to take that? Facebook will try to track me and my behavior, and tailor ads based on it, regardless of whether I'm a Facebook user and regardless of whether I'm logged in. In theory any link someone sends me might end up trying to connect to Facebook's advertising network and record information about my behavior. At what point do I "agree" to this? What do I get "in return" for this? What if it's a crappy article that I close right away? Or the page load takes too long and I close it before it finishes (but, in true form, the ad code would already have run)? Since I don't know until I've loaded the page -- at which point you think I have an ethical duty to let Facebook serve ads -- whether it will have ads at all, or whether they'll be Facebook ads, at what point do I find that out and have an opportunity, in your model, to decide I don't want to be a party to that? (in case you're wondering, the correct answer is "use an ad-blocker to pre-emptively ensure nobody can force ads on you without your agreement")
        hsod 10y ago
        This is an overly specific distraction. Accidentally or unwillingly loading FB resources doesn't come with any ethical obligations, obviously. I'm talking about being a Facebook user, as in maintaining a profile and logging on and using the site. My contention is that by affirmatively choosing to use their resources, an ethical obligation is created.
  - joosters 10y ago
    Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads. No they aren't (at least, not yet). Where do you think it says this in their terms & conditions?
  - Kalium 10y ago
    Facebook, in a spirit of honesty and fairness, asks me nicely to look at ads when they send me HTML. I, also in a spirit of honesty and fairness, have the option of deciding what of that HTML I want to look at. There is nothing honest or fair about dictating what happens on someone else's computer without user input. That's what malware does. Are you pro-malware?
colmvp 10y ago
I'm honestly surprised Facebook cares. They make billions per year. Are adblock users really a significant amount of users on the social network (I can't view the article at work)? Furthermore, it's not as if adblock users don't already help FB by using the platform, which increases content generation for other social network users to view.
r_smart 10y ago
I think you've overlooked the middle-ground: Stop engaging in tracking and spying and instead just show me adds. Many people who run ad-blockers (myself included) don't mind the ads, we mind the invasion of privacy.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Their shareholders mind ;)
beefield 10y ago
I would be perfectly happy to pay Facebook a decent markup on their services I want to use (Assuming that I do not have to receive services I do not want. For following my friends' status, some groups and private messaging, on the Facebook scale, I would expect a few dollars per year to give Facebook a _very_ decent markup). Obviously, Facebook is not interested in this deal, but prefers keeping me their product instead of their customer. Which, in my opinion, gives me every moral right to game their advertisement machinery to maximize my personal wellbeing (or to be more precise, minimize the damage their machinery makes to my wellbeing.)
Yhippa 10y ago
I do pay for Internet access, devices, and power to use Facebook. I take time out of my day to post content that users might go to Facebook to see.
ominous 10y ago
But the party has no justification to exist other than someone wants to be paid for it. Close it down, if you can't force me to pay. Keep trying.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  Are you against businesses being able to set their prices? They're asking you to pay the market price. If you're not fine with it, doing some unilateral haggling isn't exactly how exchanges work, just don't use their product. Using Facebook is not a right. The fact of the matter is, most people waxing poetic here about ads infringing on their rights, will still use Facebook when their adblockers don't work. They are willing to pay, they just want to pay less. This is a very hard position to justify ethically.
  - dragandj 10y ago
    The problem is also that the content they serve is displayed on the consumer's property (computer). The owner of the computer has the right to select what portion of the crap he's been served will be displayed. If Facebook (or any other company that relies on targeted ads as a business model) do not like that, they have the right to not send their content to the consumer's property. But, once they send it, they do not have right to force me to look at it. (Not a legal opinion, I'm just giving my perspective)
  - ominous 10y ago
    I am against business trying to make me agree the price is fair. And the price of having ads displayed on my computer is too high. Ads are like a donation box, not like a price tag. Am I being forced to donate?
    - fragola 10y ago
      >Ads are a donation box, not a price tag Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. But realistically, we all consume content that is ad-supported that we might be paying for otherwise. The fact that so many ad-or-pay services exist is proof of this (Youtube with ads, Hulu with ads, etc.) The are both business models. If you don't like the service at the price, don't buy it. Honestly, no one is forcing you and tons of people get on perfectly fine without Facebook (some people would even say they are better off without it).
dingaling 10y ago
> but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure Here's my perspective: I would pay for an ad-free subscription, but they don't offer one. They literally will not take the money I have to offer. Imagine walking into Stabucks and having them refuse to take your money but instead handing you a coffee and a booklet of ads. Is it bad to throw the ads in the bin? Would the barista become angry and start shouting ads at you too? Or, more likely, ask you not to come back? Note: I don't use Facebook on the principle that they want to commoditise me instead of taking my money, but I see nothing wrong with blocking their ads should someone not hold that principle.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Grishnakh 10y ago
The real-world analogy I use is that of a brick-and-mortar business like Walmart. Walmart is free to open a business and allow people off the street to shop there, browse their wares, and buy stuff if they want. They cannot force people to buy something for the privilege of visiting, and while they could require a "cover charge" to enter, they're probably going to lose most of their customers if they do this. It's Walmart's job to attract people into the store, and then attempt to convince them to buy stuff when they're in there. Other shops are the same, and small shops are probably an even better example: while most people will probably buy something in a Walmart if they take the time to go in there, if you check out some weird little specialty shop you happen to walk by in a shopping district, it's quite likely you're not going to buy anything in there. Someone has to pay for that little shop's rent and utilities and salaries, but that's the concern of the shopkeeper, not the customers. If the shopkeeper wants to stay in business, he'll figure out how to get enough customers to buy stuff to keep the doors open. If he fails, too bad so sad. It's not the customers' fault for not buying enough stuff, it's his fault for not having good enough stuff to buy, having too-high prices, having crappy service, having a poor location or operating hours, having an ugly or dirty shop, having annoying workers, etc. It's no different with websites. It's their job to figure out how to make money on the site, not yours. If they want to show annoying ads, that's their right. If you want to block those ads (just like refusing to look at aisle displays in Walmart), that's your right. If they don't like that, they can ask you to leave, just like a shopkeeper can ask you to leave. But if your browser makes a request, and their website services that request, then they are not asking you to leave, they're inviting you in. As long as sites don't turn away my browser requests, I consider myself welcome at their sites, even with my ad-blocking. If they (like Forbes) refuse to show me the site/article because of my ad-blocker, then I either leave or disable the blocker, depending on my whim (usually I just leave).
- ars 10y ago
  Contrast: A small shop has a sign, and a bucket. "Put $1 in the bucket and test how good you are at some_game." There is no one there - it's an unmonitored booth. Do you try your hand at the game and not put in money? They lose nothing, it's a repeatable game with no consumables. There is no one watching you, and there is no line behind you either.

natrius 10y ago

Facebook's profitability is not your problem. It's their job to figure out how to get paid. It's your job to protect your mind. Targeted ads are worse than gambling. We made sure everyone's aware of the dangers of gambling, but everyone's in the dark about targeted ads. These companies know what they're doing. If people want to portray ad blocking as stealing, so be it. Steal from them. They deserve it.

hsod 10y ago
> Facebook's profitability is not your problem. No, but acting with honesty and fairness is. Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads. I think it's obvious that the "right" thing to do is to respect their wishes, not sneeringly defy them while using their resources and giving nothing in return.
- facetube 10y ago
  There is absolutely nothing dishonest about only downloading and rendering the web content you want to view.
  - hsod 10y ago
    IMO, the technical mechanisms are irrelevant. the ethical questions easily map to a face-to-face interaction.
    - Nursie 10y ago
      I don't believe they do map that easily - in a face to face interaction I'm not enabling your advertising with my bandwidth and my rendering device.
    - Falkon1313 10y ago
      Yes. In a face-to-face interaction, if the other party is sneezing and coughing and spraying mucus on your face, it is not unethical to wear a surgical mask. There is no moral or ethical requirement to inhale someone else's possibly virus-laden mucus just because you want to have a conversation.
- _RPM 10y ago
  > Giving them nothing in return. You're giving them a lot, even if you don't click on ads or see ads. Is it not clear that your data is valuable? You're giving them personal information. Not that people that aren't developers care.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Facebook is a social-media advertising company. Their model, boiled down, is to extract the maximum possible value out of me in return for the minimum possible effort from them. Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? And given how often the above describes the way businesses will treat me, why shouldn't I generalize that position?
  - hsod 10y ago
    > Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? Practically: because it leads to a race to the bottom, lowering to their level, the world just gets worse and worse Philosophically: because ethics are a fundamental part of who you are, and strangers acting unethically does not relieve you of their burdens
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      OK, so how far would you like to take that? Facebook will try to track me and my behavior, and tailor ads based on it, regardless of whether I'm a Facebook user and regardless of whether I'm logged in. In theory any link someone sends me might end up trying to connect to Facebook's advertising network and record information about my behavior. At what point do I "agree" to this? What do I get "in return" for this? What if it's a crappy article that I close right away? Or the page load takes too long and I close it before it finishes (but, in true form, the ad code would already have run)? Since I don't know until I've loaded the page -- at which point you think I have an ethical duty to let Facebook serve ads -- whether it will have ads at all, or whether they'll be Facebook ads, at what point do I find that out and have an opportunity, in your model, to decide I don't want to be a party to that? (in case you're wondering, the correct answer is "use an ad-blocker to pre-emptively ensure nobody can force ads on you without your agreement")
      - hsod 10y ago
        This is an overly specific distraction. Accidentally or unwillingly loading FB resources doesn't come with any ethical obligations, obviously. I'm talking about being a Facebook user, as in maintaining a profile and logging on and using the site. My contention is that by affirmatively choosing to use their resources, an ethical obligation is created.
- joosters 10y ago
  Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads. No they aren't (at least, not yet). Where do you think it says this in their terms & conditions?
- Kalium 10y ago
  Facebook, in a spirit of honesty and fairness, asks me nicely to look at ads when they send me HTML. I, also in a spirit of honesty and fairness, have the option of deciding what of that HTML I want to look at. There is nothing honest or fair about dictating what happens on someone else's computer without user input. That's what malware does. Are you pro-malware?

colmvp 10y ago

I'm honestly surprised Facebook cares. They make billions per year. Are adblock users really a significant amount of users on the social network (I can't view the article at work)? Furthermore, it's not as if adblock users don't already help FB by using the platform, which increases content generation for other social network users to view.

r_smart 10y ago

I think you've overlooked the middle-ground: Stop engaging in tracking and spying and instead just show me adds. Many people who run ad-blockers (myself included) don't mind the ads, we mind the invasion of privacy.

ethanbond 10y ago
Their shareholders mind ;)

beefield 10y ago

I would be perfectly happy to pay Facebook a decent markup on their services I want to use (Assuming that I do not have to receive services I do not want. For following my friends' status, some groups and private messaging, on the Facebook scale, I would expect a few dollars per year to give Facebook a _very_ decent markup). Obviously, Facebook is not interested in this deal, but prefers keeping me their product instead of their customer. Which, in my opinion, gives me every moral right to game their advertisement machinery to maximize my personal wellbeing (or to be more precise, minimize the damage their machinery makes to my wellbeing.)

Yhippa 10y ago

I do pay for Internet access, devices, and power to use Facebook. I take time out of my day to post content that users might go to Facebook to see.

ominous 10y ago

But the party has no justification to exist other than someone wants to be paid for it. Close it down, if you can't force me to pay. Keep trying.

nostrebored 10y ago
Are you against businesses being able to set their prices? They're asking you to pay the market price. If you're not fine with it, doing some unilateral haggling isn't exactly how exchanges work, just don't use their product. Using Facebook is not a right. The fact of the matter is, most people waxing poetic here about ads infringing on their rights, will still use Facebook when their adblockers don't work. They are willing to pay, they just want to pay less. This is a very hard position to justify ethically.
- dragandj 10y ago
  The problem is also that the content they serve is displayed on the consumer's property (computer). The owner of the computer has the right to select what portion of the crap he's been served will be displayed. If Facebook (or any other company that relies on targeted ads as a business model) do not like that, they have the right to not send their content to the consumer's property. But, once they send it, they do not have right to force me to look at it. (Not a legal opinion, I'm just giving my perspective)
- ominous 10y ago
  I am against business trying to make me agree the price is fair. And the price of having ads displayed on my computer is too high. Ads are like a donation box, not like a price tag. Am I being forced to donate?
  - fragola 10y ago
    >Ads are a donation box, not a price tag Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. But realistically, we all consume content that is ad-supported that we might be paying for otherwise. The fact that so many ad-or-pay services exist is proof of this (Youtube with ads, Hulu with ads, etc.) The are both business models. If you don't like the service at the price, don't buy it. Honestly, no one is forcing you and tons of people get on perfectly fine without Facebook (some people would even say they are better off without it).

dingaling 10y ago

> but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure Here's my perspective: I would pay for an ad-free subscription, but they don't offer one. They literally will not take the money I have to offer. Imagine walking into Stabucks and having them refuse to take your money but instead handing you a coffee and a booklet of ads. Is it bad to throw the ads in the bin? Would the barista become angry and start shouting ads at you too? Or, more likely, ask you not to come back? Note: I don't use Facebook on the principle that they want to commoditise me instead of taking my money, but I see nothing wrong with blocking their ads should someone not hold that principle.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Grishnakh 10y ago

The real-world analogy I use is that of a brick-and-mortar business like Walmart. Walmart is free to open a business and allow people off the street to shop there, browse their wares, and buy stuff if they want. They cannot force people to buy something for the privilege of visiting, and while they could require a "cover charge" to enter, they're probably going to lose most of their customers if they do this. It's Walmart's job to attract people into the store, and then attempt to convince them to buy stuff when they're in there. Other shops are the same, and small shops are probably an even better example: while most people will probably buy something in a Walmart if they take the time to go in there, if you check out some weird little specialty shop you happen to walk by in a shopping district, it's quite likely you're not going to buy anything in there. Someone has to pay for that little shop's rent and utilities and salaries, but that's the concern of the shopkeeper, not the customers. If the shopkeeper wants to stay in business, he'll figure out how to get enough customers to buy stuff to keep the doors open. If he fails, too bad so sad. It's not the customers' fault for not buying enough stuff, it's his fault for not having good enough stuff to buy, having too-high prices, having crappy service, having a poor location or operating hours, having an ugly or dirty shop, having annoying workers, etc. It's no different with websites. It's their job to figure out how to make money on the site, not yours. If they want to show annoying ads, that's their right. If you want to block those ads (just like refusing to look at aisle displays in Walmart), that's your right. If they don't like that, they can ask you to leave, just like a shopkeeper can ask you to leave. But if your browser makes a request, and their website services that request, then they are not asking you to leave, they're inviting you in. As long as sites don't turn away my browser requests, I consider myself welcome at their sites, even with my ad-blocking. If they (like Forbes) refuse to show me the site/article because of my ad-blocker, then I either leave or disable the blocker, depending on my whim (usually I just leave).

ars 10y ago
Contrast: A small shop has a sign, and a bucket. "Put $1 in the bucket and test how good you are at some_game." There is no one there - it's an unmonitored booth. Do you try your hand at the game and not put in money? They lose nothing, it's a repeatable game with no consumables. There is no one watching you, and there is no line behind you either.