Ad's at the bottom of the screen?

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Kegor
Sojourner
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Contact:

Postby Kegor » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:45 am

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
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:57 am

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.


Hmm. Ad blocking can technically be theft if you are reading content owned by an individual or corporation that wishes to control how their content is being presented.

The only issue is, how do you prosecute theft of what must be an average value of one tenth of a penny?

I suppose you might be able to go after the ad blocking software companies, but that would be like going after companies that make tools that make it possible for you to open a locked car door.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:00 am

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.


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)

Sarvis wrote:Maybe next you'll be asking Corth to defend you in court for free?


We could give him a shirt with an ad banner to wear into court, and then he'll have to ask Corth to cover it up with duct tape!
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:04 am

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!


Ah, I now see Avak's argument.

First of all, it would be interesting to charge people to play this mud. All the broke people would be gone, would be interesting to see who would actually fork over cash for this place.

Also, I would like to point out that adding google banner ads hardly causes the 'client' any inconvenience. Who even pays attention to this stuff anymore? If you're getting NSFW ads on a SFW page, you've probably got some sort of crapware installed that's messing with you or you've dragged someone else's ad frame with you to the page you're looking at.

Run IE in safe mode or Firefox in No Scripts mode and it'll probably go away.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:06 am

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?


Well Sarvis, I don't think Avak is arguing the legality, but the basis of the business model. It's always a right for consumers to complain about how they are getting their product.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:07 am

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?


Most people would feel the same way. Few people would feel obligated to look at a passive advertisement.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:14 pm

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.


Ass.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:20 pm

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?

First of all, it would be <b>illegal</b> to charge people to play this mud.


Fixed.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:38 pm

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.


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.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:51 pm

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
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:07 pm

Ragorn wrote:neither one come to an argument with a rational sense of what they're arguing,



Yes, because your "I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway" is so very, very rational.

You've completely failed to provide any rational argument in favor of blocking ads, but made it perfectly clear that you will do so no matter what.

You haven't shown that ads don't fund the websites you visit, you've shown that you don't care if they are funded.

You haven't shown that using a service without paying for it isn't theft, you've shown that you are ok with it.

When I asked how ads actually harm you, you drew out a straw man and accused me of arguing personal preference. Sorry, but if you're going to say something causes harm you should be able to quantify how.

I merely point out that ads provide income for the people who work to provide us with these sites, and that's irrational?

Yeah, you're far more akin to Teffie than I.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:37 pm

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 :)
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:57 pm

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 :)


*comfort Ambar*

It's because people are interested in things and like to discuss them. Besides, not everything becomes an argument... we left that Hybrid thread alone when it was just <b>begging</b> for an argument!

Now is it ok if we have our fun?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:31 pm

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 :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:34 pm

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.


So you came back after 30 posts to comment on my post because you're an .. ass? So nothing new, huh?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:48 pm

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 :)


Sorry if I can't agree with a position mentally equivalent to a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum...

Though, hopefully with less crying.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:33 pm

Yeah, I think the thread is pretty interesting. I happen to also think that Sarvis started getting pretty circular in his reasoning, but hey, he brought up some interesting gray areas.

Even the "this is lame" stuff is fine by me. Got me to start thinking about the fact that we probably hit a point of greatly diminishing returns.

Wow, the thread has turned back on itself and is analyzing its own existence. I love that.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:50 pm

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?


You said: " private business owner "

When it comes to business, what applies to the small ones applies to the big ones. So basically, yes. You are coming down on the side of business as a whole.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:11 pm

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?

Yes.
No.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:45 pm

Ragorn wrote:
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?

Yes.
No.


:D
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:18 pm

I think this could all be solved in a TF2 deathmatch...
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:38 pm

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.


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.

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.


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.

Anyhow, it's not my intent to drag you into a discussion of the nuances of ethics if that's not what you wanted. Perhaps we both could have been a little more clear.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:12 am

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.

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.


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?

Furthermore, it is not good "to do anything you get away with." That is a misrepresentation of that system.


Maybe we should backtrack a bit. I didn't understand what you meant by "property is theft" and assumed it was a typo...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:24 am

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.


My argument touches on the precise mechanism whereby google is paid. My point was that google itself still gets paid. Since you went into specifics in your last post to me, it shouldn't be too confusing to you to very clearly and precisely state things.

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?


I'm not asking you to justify some abstract idea of an absolute morality; I'm pointing out that you are assuming that the absolute and correct one is YOURS. This at the very least is surprising considering your statements in the past.

Also, it is an oversimplification to assume that more than one viewpoint in use leads to anarchy - which I note you assume is negative. (Would you say we are in a state of anarchy now? I don't think the Russians, the Chinese, and the USA have the same outlook and moral system. How do you propose to deal with that - would you like them all to adopt your ideals and beliefs?) There also exist many arguments that anarchy is positive or ideal. I gather that you are unlikely to appreciate them.

Maybe we should backtrack a bit. I didn't understand what you meant by "property is theft" and assumed it was a typo...


No, "property is theft" refers to the inherent potential for exploitation in any system wherein things belong to one and not to all. If you'll look at my earlier post I stated that it was tired and old, and that everyone should know about it. The only reason I could see someone not posting it was because the entire line of argument over its validity has been done to death. Apparently I should never assume that people know things even if they tend to be common knowledge to most people I deal with.

Basically you need to examine the fundamental assumptions behind ownership of property and what exactly the ramifications are. If you are capable of seriously considering the assertion that ownership is, itself, exploitative of people who are consequently deprived of the ability to use resources that you may not be using, the line "property is theft" will start to make sense.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'

Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'

Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 am

I was referring to the term 'theft' according to American legal standards.

Copyright owners generally have the right to control the way their content is presented.

If you infringe upon those rights in an unlawful manner, you are indeed committing an act of theft.

Much like you would if you took someone else's property without their permission.

I don't know what you all were talking about if you weren't referring to the same.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests