6 ms·

People are publishing content on the internet without putting it behind a login/password/restricted access. Not only are they publishing it, they're announcing

People are publishing content on the internet without putting it behind a login/password/restricted access. Not only are they publishing it, they're announcing its presence on social media, performing "search engine optimizations", and cross-promoting it on other non-web technologies (radio, tv, printed media, etc.). ... At no point, as a consumer of this content, did I get presented with so much as a simple "In return for consuming this content, you agree that you will look at the ads being shown here". I also haven't agreed to such things for cable tv or radio - but guess what? I don't generally consume those media products, in large part because the formats are linear and full of "unskippable" ads. Nothing is stopping the web from moving to this format. There are many sites out there that present an interstitial of some sort before moving onto the main content. And every time I end up on one of those sites, if my ad blocker isn't dealing with it somehow, I generally remember and avoid visiting the next time. If you want me to pay for the web content that you're publishing because that's the business model you've decided on, be up front and attempt to get a paid agreement from me. Or deal with the fact that I'm part of the audience that doesn't look at the ads in print media, mutes or skips channels on TV, and installs ad blockers for the web.

vacri 11y ago
Sounds like you would not consider it unethical to exploit a flaw in a website that allowed you to order products without paying. After all, the website is public, and you weren't asked not to exploit the flaw...
- pudquick 11y ago
  Nice strawman. Nowhere did I imply that. Everything I mentioned was webpage reading/viewing content that the publishers themselves announced across the world, hoping to get readers - who in turn would view their ads.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    You claim that you were never presented with an agreement that the content is provided in return for you viewing the ads, and yet you're very clearly aware that's the deal being offered, as you state here.
  - vacri 11y ago
    My point is that your argument is ludicrous. "What, these people that have been promoting their stuff everywhere have advertising on their site?". It's not like it's unexpected. The idea that each website would have to get your consent to show you ads is outright silly. I don't have a problem with people using adblockers (I use NoScript myself, which has a similar effect), but let's not pretend that it's some kind of ethical action you're taking; that because a website hasn't entered into a formal contract to show you ads, that it's ethically fair that you block them. And while you didn't imply the situation I described, that situation is using the same arguments you are using - "it's public" and "I wasn't asked not to".
    - rosser 11y ago
      I'm not a party to the contract between the advertiser and the content provider. In principle, I don't necessarily even have an expectation that a given content provider uses advertising revenue to support the provision of their content — they may use a subscription-based revenue model, and offer some number of "free" page views per day/week/month/whatever, as a teaser to encourage new subscriptions. They may just have stupendously deep pockets and like providing that content out of the goodness of their hearts. Whatever; doesn't matter. To make the leap from "I chose to view that page" to "I chose to view the ads on that page" is specious and unsupported, and I'm under no obligation whatsoever to enter into an agreement between two other parties on the basis that they happen to have a standing agreement. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that because I chose to walk down a specific street at a specific time, I somehow also chose to see a specific dude taking a specific dump. I can promise you, I didn't. Just as with ads on the web, however, my consent is apparently not a factor in this equation. (Why, yes, I do live in San Francisco. How ever did you guess?) EDIT: And, yes, before you judge or jump to conclusions: I do have paid, auto-renewing subscriptions on subscription-model websites, and I use ad and tracker blocking plugins. It's not my fault that some of the sites I view have chosen (what I think are) shitty revenue models.
      - cdcarter 11y ago
        Actually, I don't think it's a fair point to say that "I chose to view the ads on that page" is specious and unsupported at all. Those ads are part of the markup and makeup of that page.
- c22 11y ago
  If the company ships your order then I'd say the ethical onus is quite low on your part. This is a company that has made not one, but two errors that seem to reinforce each other. How could a reasonable person tell if the company intended to give away their products or not?
waterlesscloud 11y ago
The ironic thing is that many of the same people who complain about ads also complain about paywalls.
- nfoz 11y ago
  This is not necessarily ironic. For example, most of the content producers that I fund are the ones which make their media available as open to the public (e.g. wikipedia, democracynow.org, tvo.org). This is a model that I encourage.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
alecdbrooks 11y ago
>... At no point, as a consumer of this content, did I get presented with so much as a simple "In return for consuming this content, you agree that you will look at the ads being shown here". Isn't it common knowledge that many sites rely on ads for their revenue? Sit-down restaurants in the U.S. don't tell you as you walk in that you're expected to tip, but it's common knowledge that wait staff aren't paid minimum wage because customers are expected to tip. Yet, it's generally considered rude to not tip even though it's even easier than installing an ad blocker and restaurants won't refuse you service, whereas some websites try to block ad blockers. Edit: Added last sentence.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  > Sit-down restaurants in the U.S. don't tell you as you walk in that you're expected to tip, but it's common knowledge that wait staff aren't paid minimum wage because customers are expected to tip. That's also something the rest of the world scratches its head about. I'm not sure the best way to make your point is to use an example of how absurd the US is.
  - alecdbrooks 11y ago
    American tipping isn't a particularly good system, but it's unkind to not tip if it means cheating the wait staff out of their wages. Similarly, ads have issues, but blocking them is not fair to the creator, who reasonably expected ad impressions in exchange for creating the content and paying for visitors' traffic.
    - godzilla82 11y ago
      Then why dont you lobby for the government to raise minimum wages for waiters.
      - rhino369 11y ago
        We don't tip because their min wage is so low, their minimum wage is so low because we tip. Tipping is a cultural thing. And practically wait staff make much more from tips than they would if they were paid hourly by their employers.
matteotom 11y ago
If an ad comes on the radio, I usually change the station. During TV commercials, I mute and do something else. There's nothing that compels me to sit through the ads to listen to the music or watch the television show. Similarly, I have no problem with "skipping", or blocking, ads.
- anilgulecha 11y ago
  Some may not want to deal with the bandwidth required to keep an ad-blocking loop running at all times. They get a default penalty of having to suffer ads, without actively having signed on for it.

vacri 11y ago

Sounds like you would not consider it unethical to exploit a flaw in a website that allowed you to order products without paying. After all, the website is public, and you weren't asked not to exploit the flaw...

pudquick 11y ago
Nice strawman. Nowhere did I imply that. Everything I mentioned was webpage reading/viewing content that the publishers themselves announced across the world, hoping to get readers - who in turn would view their ads.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  You claim that you were never presented with an agreement that the content is provided in return for you viewing the ads, and yet you're very clearly aware that's the deal being offered, as you state here.
- vacri 11y ago
  My point is that your argument is ludicrous. "What, these people that have been promoting their stuff everywhere have advertising on their site?". It's not like it's unexpected. The idea that each website would have to get your consent to show you ads is outright silly. I don't have a problem with people using adblockers (I use NoScript myself, which has a similar effect), but let's not pretend that it's some kind of ethical action you're taking; that because a website hasn't entered into a formal contract to show you ads, that it's ethically fair that you block them. And while you didn't imply the situation I described, that situation is using the same arguments you are using - "it's public" and "I wasn't asked not to".
  - rosser 11y ago
    I'm not a party to the contract between the advertiser and the content provider. In principle, I don't necessarily even have an expectation that a given content provider uses advertising revenue to support the provision of their content — they may use a subscription-based revenue model, and offer some number of "free" page views per day/week/month/whatever, as a teaser to encourage new subscriptions. They may just have stupendously deep pockets and like providing that content out of the goodness of their hearts. Whatever; doesn't matter. To make the leap from "I chose to view that page" to "I chose to view the ads on that page" is specious and unsupported, and I'm under no obligation whatsoever to enter into an agreement between two other parties on the basis that they happen to have a standing agreement. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that because I chose to walk down a specific street at a specific time, I somehow also chose to see a specific dude taking a specific dump. I can promise you, I didn't. Just as with ads on the web, however, my consent is apparently not a factor in this equation. (Why, yes, I do live in San Francisco. How ever did you guess?) EDIT: And, yes, before you judge or jump to conclusions: I do have paid, auto-renewing subscriptions on subscription-model websites, and I use ad and tracker blocking plugins. It's not my fault that some of the sites I view have chosen (what I think are) shitty revenue models.
    - cdcarter 11y ago
      Actually, I don't think it's a fair point to say that "I chose to view the ads on that page" is specious and unsupported at all. Those ads are part of the markup and makeup of that page.
c22 11y ago
If the company ships your order then I'd say the ethical onus is quite low on your part. This is a company that has made not one, but two errors that seem to reinforce each other. How could a reasonable person tell if the company intended to give away their products or not?

waterlesscloud 11y ago

The ironic thing is that many of the same people who complain about ads also complain about paywalls.

nfoz 11y ago
This is not necessarily ironic. For example, most of the content producers that I fund are the ones which make their media available as open to the public (e.g. wikipedia, democracynow.org, tvo.org). This is a model that I encourage.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

alecdbrooks 11y ago

>... At no point, as a consumer of this content, did I get presented with so much as a simple "In return for consuming this content, you agree that you will look at the ads being shown here". Isn't it common knowledge that many sites rely on ads for their revenue? Sit-down restaurants in the U.S. don't tell you as you walk in that you're expected to tip, but it's common knowledge that wait staff aren't paid minimum wage because customers are expected to tip. Yet, it's generally considered rude to not tip even though it's even easier than installing an ad blocker and restaurants won't refuse you service, whereas some websites try to block ad blockers. Edit: Added last sentence.

scrollaway 11y ago
> Sit-down restaurants in the U.S. don't tell you as you walk in that you're expected to tip, but it's common knowledge that wait staff aren't paid minimum wage because customers are expected to tip. That's also something the rest of the world scratches its head about. I'm not sure the best way to make your point is to use an example of how absurd the US is.
- alecdbrooks 11y ago
  American tipping isn't a particularly good system, but it's unkind to not tip if it means cheating the wait staff out of their wages. Similarly, ads have issues, but blocking them is not fair to the creator, who reasonably expected ad impressions in exchange for creating the content and paying for visitors' traffic.
  - godzilla82 11y ago
    Then why dont you lobby for the government to raise minimum wages for waiters.
    - rhino369 11y ago
      We don't tip because their min wage is so low, their minimum wage is so low because we tip. Tipping is a cultural thing. And practically wait staff make much more from tips than they would if they were paid hourly by their employers.

matteotom 11y ago

If an ad comes on the radio, I usually change the station. During TV commercials, I mute and do something else. There's nothing that compels me to sit through the ads to listen to the music or watch the television show. Similarly, I have no problem with "skipping", or blocking, ads.

anilgulecha 11y ago
Some may not want to deal with the bandwidth required to keep an ad-blocking loop running at all times. They get a default penalty of having to suffer ads, without actively having signed on for it.