Corth wrote:This is the dumbest thread ever.
Couldn't agree more. I would also like to add that I find it amazing people still dignify the ramblings of Sarvis with a response.
avak wrote:I heard an ethicist on NPR the other day talking about how blocking ads online is technically theft! Next thing you know the corporate gov't will install 1981-style cameras in your house to make sure you are paying attention to the ads on TV.
Sarvis wrote:avak wrote:Why should I have to view them?
Because it is the conditions under which the proprietor allows you entry to the site. Are you arguing that a private business owner dows not have the right to enforce rules about how you utilize their services? Interesting.
Sarvis wrote:Maybe next you'll be asking Corth to defend you in court for free?
avak wrote:Just because your revenue model doesn't work doesn't give you the right to change the rules. Charge a membership to your site. LOL! Charge people to play this mud!
Sarvis wrote:You've missed the point entirely. If the owner of a site decides you should view ads along with his content then you should. (I use the term content very loosely in regards to my site, btw.) You offer free wi-fi as an amenity, which is fine. Those are the terms you decided on. If you decided you SHOULD charge for it, would you be as lax with people breaking into the network and using it for free?
Maybe, but it still wouldn't make it right. You'll never see a 7-11 owner being ok with people grabbing a slushie and running!
As for interstitials, many sites DO use those to increase ad revenue. Gamespy comes to mind off hand. I don't because I don't like it, simple as that. I still want people viewing the ads. (Of course, I need to get some actual content up there for that to happen... )
EDIT: In any case, would you continue to spend time maintaining and pay hosting fees if the site generated no revenue instead of $50/month?
Sarvis wrote:avak wrote:I am arguing that I feel no obligation to view someone's passive advertisement.
Most shoplifters probably feel the same way.
What creates an obligation to "pay" for a service you use?
Jaznolg wrote:Corth wrote:This is the dumbest thread ever.
Couldn't agree more. I would also like to add that I find it amazing people still dignify the ramblings of Sarvis with a response.
teflor the ranger wrote: rather than simply on the side of 'the little guy'),
First of all, it would be <b>illegal</b> to charge people to play this mud.
moritheil wrote:Oh, this is getting amusing. See, context matters here. You are the one who asked for a moral framework within which it is OK to block google ads. For the sake of the discussion, I provided one. (There are others; I just provided the first one that came to mind.) Rather than continuing this discussion by either acknowledging the validity of that framework or providing a nuanced analysis, your response was to reject it out of hand without examining it and to equate blocking google ads to serial murder. Then you tried to reprove me for bringing up other moral frameworks when in fact you were the one who asked for them in the first place.
Regarding #1, the issue is topicality. Refer to your argument that a free google search would be costing google itself revenue. I pointed out that blocking ads here on the BBS doesn't cost google itself any revenue, so your argument is not valid for this discussion.
teflor the ranger wrote:In what must be a rare moment of clarity for Sarvis (coming down on the side of reason, rather than simply on the side of 'the little guy'), I must point out that Sarvis is absolutely correct. (when accepting banner ads is actually a condition)
Ragorn wrote:neither one come to an argument with a rational sense of what they're arguing,
Ambar wrote:Hey guys
This was fixed the NEXT day .. it was caused Internet Explorer caching .. He has NO choice what browser he uses, we do not have administrative rights to our laptops .. Why does EVERYTHING devolve into an argument?
"I saw a RED house"
...
"there are no red houses on my street, you must be WRONG, and it is your political affiliation that makes you WRONG!!"
Don't worry... be happy :)
Sarvis wrote:Yeah, you're far more akin to Teffie than I.
Ragorn wrote:teflor the ranger wrote:In what must be a rare moment of clarity for Sarvis (coming down on the side of reason, rather than simply on the side of 'the little guy'), I must point out that Sarvis is absolutely correct. (when accepting banner ads is actually a condition)
Precisely why I left the thread 30 posts ago. It became apparent to me that arguing with Sarvis is fundamentally no different than arguing with teflor... neither one come to an argument with a rational sense of what they're arguing, they both just take the contrary position for the purpose of sustaining an argument thread for as long as humanly possible.
Mental ignore list for both of you, then.
Ragorn wrote:Sarvis wrote:Yeah, you're far more akin to Teffie than I.
Like I said, you just want to draw out the argument by taking the contrary position.
And the thread wouldn't be complete without Ambar coming in and Ambaring the thread. Thanks for that :)
Sarvis wrote:teflor the ranger wrote: rather than simply on the side of 'the little guy'),
In many cases webmasters ARE the little guy. Or do you think Shevy and I are large corporations?
teflor the ranger wrote:So you came back after 30 posts to comment on my post because you're an .. ass? So nothing new, huh?
Sarvis wrote:Mori, you really need to try and be more clear. I didn't realize you were trying to "provide a moral framework." Part if that is because I didn't ask for one, I simply stated that it didn't exist, and another part of that is because you didn't present it in the same argument. You didn't point out anything at all about Google ads being blocked in this site, you said that the sponsored results couldn't be blocked. For that matter, blocking ads on this site DOES cost Google money, because they get a cut of the advertising fee when they are clicked.
Now, while you're right that you provided a moral framework in which stealing is ok it isn't really what I meant when I was saying such behavior isn't moral. See, I meant "good by the views and ideals of our society" not "define random code of behavior then say this matches it." Saying that it is Good to do anything you "get away with" hardly fits within our societal mores.
moritheil wrote:Your argument was that searching google with the ad blockers up would cost google money - not that blocking individual site ads would cost google money. Your response, while valid, is a slightly different argument.
So, your morality is automatically everyone's morality, or should be? I seem to recall you railing against evangelical Christianity a few years back for making precisely that assumption.
Furthermore, it is not good "to do anything you get away with." That is a misrepresentation of that system.
Sarvis wrote:moritheil wrote:Your argument was that searching google with the ad blockers up would cost google money - not that blocking individual site ads would cost google money. Your response, while valid, is a slightly different argument.
You are seriously reading things into my posts that were never there. You brought up Google, saying you could do a free search on it... I simply stated that those searches are paid for with advertisements. I never mentioned anything at all about the effects of ad blockers on Google's revenue, and was simply pointing it out as an example of an incredibly popular service funded by advertising.
Guess I don't know how to reply here. At a point where we just accept anyone's personal morality as being ok we only invite anarchy. Is anyone here comfortable with that?
Maybe we should backtrack a bit. I didn't understand what you meant by "property is theft" and assumed it was a typo...
Return to “General Discussion Archive”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests