←back to thread

990 points smitop | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
tlogan ◴[] No.44333733[source]
Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute?

We often rationalize using ad blockers because ads can be intrusive or annoying. But let’s asking ourselves: Why do we feel entitled to get this for free?

This isn’t a moral judgment. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning.

replies(49): >>44333779 #>>44333788 #>>44333809 #>>44333847 #>>44333851 #>>44333917 #>>44333925 #>>44333935 #>>44333977 #>>44333979 #>>44334008 #>>44334026 #>>44334039 #>>44334057 #>>44334068 #>>44334120 #>>44334256 #>>44334258 #>>44334326 #>>44334366 #>>44334430 #>>44334456 #>>44334488 #>>44334625 #>>44334645 #>>44334677 #>>44334690 #>>44334714 #>>44334842 #>>44334900 #>>44334969 #>>44334990 #>>44335255 #>>44335327 #>>44335367 #>>44335440 #>>44335725 #>>44335854 #>>44336166 #>>44336167 #>>44336232 #>>44336588 #>>44336691 #>>44336977 #>>44337218 #>>44337527 #>>44339047 #>>44340657 #>>44374533 #
whatshisface ◴[] No.44334026[source]
You're asking the question in a way that's unreflective of how people think. They can do it and want to do it and would need a reason to not do it. So the question is, what would make someone feel like they were ethically compelled to watch an advertisement? It sounds impossible to me, maybe someone with a very unique perspective could chime in about themselves.

Here's an attempt at a double-negative answer: you can't be ethically compelled into an unethical contract, and since advertisements are manipulative, voyeuristic and seek to take advantage of the limitations of human attentional control, it's a priori impossible for watching an ad or downloading a tracker to ever be ethically compulsory.

replies(3): >>44334053 #>>44334074 #>>44334457 #
zdragnar ◴[] No.44334074[source]
There's a very simple answer.

You want to watch some content. The content provider offers you two options: pay and get no ads, or watch for free and also sit through some ads.

You are not obligated to watch ads. You are opting to watch them in exchange for the free content, then skipping out on a commitment you volunteered for while still taking the free content.

The "unethical contact" argument is bullshit, because you made a choice but didn't live up to it. Instead of either paying or not watching, you watched anyway.

replies(7): >>44334131 #>>44334135 #>>44334174 #>>44334263 #>>44334719 #>>44335421 #>>44335653 #
eviks ◴[] No.44334263[source]
> The content provider offers you two options: pay and get no ads, or watch for free and also sit through some ads.

You're wrong in both parts.

1. There is no way to pay to only remove all ads. YT premium bundles some music nonsense and also doesn't remove ads added by creators.

2. "Watching" isn't part of the contract, only "injected ads" are. Do you read every billboard in exchange for the benefit of better roads financed with ad revenue?

replies(3): >>44334441 #>>44335450 #>>44366454 #
kalleboo ◴[] No.44334441[source]
The music nonsense is bundled because YouTube is full of music videos and music in the backgrounds of videos and they have to pay the record labels to play the music in. They have "YouTube Premium Lite" that doesn't include music, but then you get ads on videos that have music in them.
replies(1): >>44334565 #
1. eviks ◴[] No.44334565[source]
This makes no sense, it's not hard to filter out music videos, and music in regular videos wouldn't cost the same as the whole music premium, also Lite isn't just about music:

> Ads however may appear on ... Shorts, and when you search or browse.

So again, you can't pay just to replace ads. (By the way, there is another huge difference - premium is a subscription, so not tied to ad time replaced)