re the milk analogy:
They can just make a rule that you can only get the milk and sugar if you purchase the coffee? Which, seems like is basically the case?
They can include a contract thingy before showing the content for the first time if they want. If I intentionally agree to not block ads, I don't think I'm going to violate that agreement.
But I haven't made an agreement like that, so my choice to allow ads to run is not due to any obligation.
I choose not to block ads, indeed, partially so that the websites receive payment. (perhaps partially also due to laziness though) But I also "defend" (insofar as my comments on the internet can do so) the right to block ads if one so chooses, and has not explicitly made an agreement not to.
In the same way that a person who views a donation funded website is not obligated to donate, hoping instead that it will be funded by other people who donate, a person who views a website which is ad supported is not obligated to view the ads, hoping instead that other people (such as myself) will view the ads.
I vehemently disagree. Ads subsidize the content you consume. Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story. Most of the web is directly or indirectly funded by ads. Just like local radio stations and public/local TV stations have their programs/content funded by advertisers. It's the exact same thing. If everyone (100% of the population) was able to skip watching or listening to those ads, then advertisers would no longer advertise and there would be no content because nobody is paying for it, or footing the bill.
And people wonder why they call our generation (millennials) "the entitled generation". This is exactly the reason. You truly and honestly believe we're entitled to consume all that content for free. As if that wasn't enough, you have the gall to act like you're doing the content creators a favor by disabling your adblock! I'm actually shocked...
That's one thing the gen-xers and boomers have over us - they understand that nothing is ever free and they never feel entitled to it all. When my grandmother was first shown the internet, I showed her some of her online versions of favorite magazines and sites like youtube. She kept asking me how much it cost to go to those sites and consume that content, and for 2-3 months, she really thought there was some hidden catch, and she expected a bill to arrive in her mailbox. That's the correct mentality to have. She understands the value of the content she's consuming and realizes that nothing is free.
> *in the absence of a contract
The contract is there in play already. Ads are up on a website right along side the content. You have to install software on your own computer to hide or remove those ads. You're actively going out of your way to alter the website's owners property - you made the first move. It's not like the content was already there, then the creator decided one day to put up ads after the fact. It doesn't work like that.
It's just like ads on a TV. In order to watch a TV program, say Fox's Elementary, (just picking a popular show), you have to sit through the ads to watch the full show. If you make an effort to not watch the ads (get up and walk away, shut your eyes, change the channel), you have that right and are free to do it, but don't pretend you're not breaking your "consumer contract" with those shows. They put those ads there in good faith that they'll be seen by the people watching them.
People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future. When there is no money in content subsidization, the content will disappear. And some naive & ignorant people will say that's a good thing, since they'll purchase content à La Carte, but trust me. It's not a good thing. It obliterates innovation and destroys creativity.
Most content producing companies/websites will be swallowed up by consolidation (you can already see this happening as "networks" of websites have been forming, like the Gawker network, etc) while the little guys, bloggers and startups completely disappear as they can no longer pay their hosting bills. Only the Walmarts of web content will be left standing (companies that can afford to run a subscription model). That's a bleak future I want no part of. I'll keep the ads, thank you very much.
If you have to make up a lot of points to make your argument, maybe you don't have an argument? Ranting about "entitled generation", a supposed contract and small bloggers having a huge hosting bill doesn't do you much good. To top it off, "people like you". Blergh!
The problem with ads is that they slow down the internet significantly, various try to trick you to install malware (e.g. on sourceforge), often make sites unusable (big huge banners), affect e.g. clicking on text (I have this habit) and moreover they track you personally.
You make it sound "it is just an advertisement" while ignoring all the reasons people block this stuff. It's not about the advertisement; it also includes all the stuff that comes with it!
An adblocker makes for way less malware on a machine and a way speedier browser. That's the reason I install it; not because there's some ads. This is _hugely_ different from "ads on TV". Yet even for TV you have Netflix which seems to be pretty popular.
> If you have to make up a lot of points to make your argument, maybe you don't have an argument?
Wow, I thought this was hackernews, where longer, in-depth comments were welcomed, not insulted. And certainly not used against the person. It's like I'm in the youtube comment section...
> The problem with ads is that they slow down the internet significantly
Irrelevant. Again, without ads, there simply would be no internet at all. You completely underestimate just how much innovation has been the result of ads. Hell, the entire first internet bubble was due to the promise of advertiser money. I suggest you read up a bit on the history of the internet, specifically from 1995-2002.
> You make it sound "it is just an advertisement" while ignoring all the reasons people block this stuff.
That's because OP didn't mention that in their prior comment. The conversation wasn't about that. Otherwise I would have. It was irrelevant to the direction the conversation was headed.
> An adblocker makes for way less malware on a machine and a way speedier browser.
That doesn't change the fact that ads fund the internet. As more and more people use ad blockers, you're going to get to a point where you won't need ad blockers anymore. Think about it. :)
read up a bit on the history of the internet, specifically from 1995-2002
I was there. I rememeber it. I also remember that a large amount of it was fundamentally amateur content, produced with no funding at all. I remember when advertising arrived on USENET, and the subsequent attempts to contain it.
I remember the collapse of the first internet bubble, because I was made redundant then. It was all predicated on "owning" traffic, that every company thought they would be the one to be the default portal (like CIX or AOL) that steered everyone's purchasing. This was a bad idea then and it's still a bad idea now.
Seriously, talk to a lawyer on this - they will laugh at this idea that putting up ads next to your content somehow creates a contract.
> People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future.
First, good - a lot of so-called "content" is junk and isn't worth anything.
Second, if anybody bears the responsibility for "content" disappearing, it's the people that chose a business model based on a misunderstanding of the law.
> Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story.
Sorry, I was using the web (and the rest of the internet) before the plague of ads, and it was not only still full of content, it had a much better signal/noise ratio.
The idea that people only make "web content" with ads is patently incorrect. You know this, because I'm sure you've seen websites without ads. I'm sure you even know about sites like wikipedia that use alternative funding models.
The moment you went to the website. It's like going to someone's house and knocking on the door.
> ) When was the understanding of what the contract was about made? (aka "meeting of the minds")
It is inherent. Just like when you tune-in to watch the Big Bang Theory on TV, you understand that the ads that get played during the show subsidize (sponsor) the content. The internet has been around a long time, pretending this is something new and unknown is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
> ) Was there a proper exchange of consideration only after the offer and acceptance of that offer was negotiated?
You are the solicitor (the website didn't contact you, you went to it) so such an offer and/or acceptance isn't required.
Putting all of that aside, are you suggesting that all websites now put up a landing page which says "You must view the following ad to enter this website. Click yes to continue, click No to go back to google"? Because that's pretty much what you're suggesting. Also, as far as your "contract" is concerned, how do you deal with it when TV programs show you ads? They subsidize the content there in the exact same way. Do you feel entitled to watching the latest episode of Agents of Shield without watching any ads?
Again, you didn't create the content, it's not yours. Why do so many people feel entitled to consume it all for free? It's like if the internet didn't exist, and I walk into a book store and just start piling magazines into my backpack then walk out. Only, instead of the articles being on a piece of paper, they're on my monitor.
> Sorry, I was using the web (and the rest of the internet) before the plague of ads
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. I've been using the internet since 1996 and ads have always been here. The dot.com internet bubble began in 1996. Half the bubble was predicated on the (speculative) popularity and rise of ads. In a way (albeit indirectly), the first internet bubble was due to ads (See here: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Dot-com-ads-make-a-co...).
> full of content
You're either being dishonest or you're deluding yourself if you think there is anywhere near the same amount of content there is today. That's laughable - it's not even comparable. Especially when you consider high speed internet wasn't even a thing yet. It took 3-10 minutes just to download a picture of a naked woman.
The internet back then was a barren wasteland. You forget, there was no youtube, there was no hackernews, there was no facebook ...these are companies that 100% relied on advertisements for their growth. Hell, they still do to this day.
> are you suggesting that all websites now put up a landing page which says "You must view the following ad to enter this website. Click yes to continue, click No to go back to google"?
In order for users to be /obligated/ to not block the ads, yeah, basically, but only for the first time the person visits the site, because of cookies and such. Having a single page "do you agree to not block ads displayed on this website?" (but with more precise terms) when going to a website for the first time really isn't that much of an inconvenience I don't think. And if someone wanted to automatically agree to all such agreements of some standard format, I figure something could be worked out there. And, it's not like all sites with ads would have to have a page like this. Only if they wanted users to be /obligated/ to not block ads. A fair number of people (such as myself) will choose not to block ads as their own choice on websites that do not make such an agreement.
> The moment you went to the website. It's like going to someone's house and knocking on the door.
Knocking on someone's door does not constitute an offer to buy a product from them? Not sure what sort of agreement would be made by finding an address of a piece of paper on the ground, and then knocking on the door there. I don't see any reason to expect that a person doing this would be obligated to then go next door to receive a pamphlet if the person who opened the door told them to.
> Not sure what sort of agreement would be made by finding an address of a piece of paper on the ground, and then knocking on the door there.
As usual, these problems have already been addressed in contract law. What you are describing is an "invitation to treat", which is specifically not a contract.
> If everyone (100% of the population) was able to skip watching or listening to those ads, then advertisers would no longer advertise and there would be no content because nobody is paying for it, or footing the bill.
And if everyone decided not to donate to wikipedia during their donation drives, then wikipedia would no longer remain free and free of ads in the way it is today.
I realize this might kind of go against a Kantian categorical imperative type thing, but I think there are some cases where theres an action where a) persons are generally not obligated to take it, and b)if no one took it, it would be against the interests of all those people.
But, if one assumes the opposite, in order to conclude that it is obligatory to look at ads on pages one views, one has to also conclude that it is obligatory to make donations to wikipedia, if one uses wikipedia. But I don't think one is /obligated/ to do that.
I'm not sure what the point of bringing "generation" stuff into this.
I'd like to mention again that I personally do not block ads, and that this is motivated by allowing the websites to run. I acknowledge that if no one viewed ads (e.g. if no one requested the ad content), that many websites would go out of business or w/e. That is part of my reason for not blocking ads. But the same line of reasoning applies to someone donating to wikipedia. They recognize that without donation, wikipedia would not continue, and that is part of their reason for donating to wikipedia. But their donations to wikipedia are not obligatory. Neither is my decision to not block ads.
I'm not sure what you mean by "people like you". Like I said, I don't block ads, I just argue that it is one's right to do so. Do you mean because of people who block ads, or because of people who say it is ok to block ads? (I've seen some people say that they don't think it is ok to block ads but that they don't care and do it anyway. I think this is kinda terrible. If one act is not obligatory, and one believes that it is immoral, then one shouldn't do it, even if one is incorrect. If it is morally obligatory and one believes it is immoral, then one should do it I guess.)
In the picture of the future that you paint, you leave out donation funded websites, which I think are important.
Again, I'm not saying "everyone should block ads", I'm saying everyone /may/ choose to block ads. This is consistent with the claim that it is important that some people choose to not block ads.
In the same way that it is important that some people donate to sites. No one is obligated to donate to websites they use. It is important that enough people donate to the websites for the website to stay up (provided that it is important that the website stays up).
And, due to my desire that ad-supported websites remain feasible, I choose to not block ads.
Yes, things generally have to be paid for.
No, it doesn't always have to be paid for by the person receiving it.
They can include a contract thingy before showing the content for the first time if they want. If I intentionally agree to not block ads, I don't think I'm going to violate that agreement.
But I haven't made an agreement like that, so my choice to allow ads to run is not due to any obligation.
I choose not to block ads, indeed, partially so that the websites receive payment. (perhaps partially also due to laziness though) But I also "defend" (insofar as my comments on the internet can do so) the right to block ads if one so chooses, and has not explicitly made an agreement not to.
In the same way that a person who views a donation funded website is not obligated to donate, hoping instead that it will be funded by other people who donate, a person who views a website which is ad supported is not obligated to view the ads, hoping instead that other people (such as myself) will view the ads.
Ads are* a donation, not a purchase.
*in the absence of a contract
edit: also I disable 3rd party cookies