yet, downloading software and music for free, without compensating the author/creator, is seen around here as 'moral'. So is using Adblock on websites, depriving that company of revenue.
I like how you frame the argument as if advertising has the moral high ground.
> If we're going to use ad blockers, at least let's admit to what we're doing and not claim a moral high ground.
If we are going to use psychological warfare to part people from the fruits of their labour in exchange for cheap crap they don't need by exploiting human weaknesses and insecurities, just so we can keep an unsustainable and highly damaging model of growth going; and also serve malicious software to those people, then let's not pretend we have any moral standing at all.
Adblocking is has a hell of a lot more moral substance to it than advertsing does.
No problem at all. Spotify has every right to do this.
The original comment seems to argue that ad-blockers are morally wrong, which I disagree with. Ad-blockers are a morally neutral technology, even if they hurt some company's bottom line. Companies that dislike this reality can deploy technical countermeasures, like Spotify is doing.
Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago in which you compared adblocking to theft. If I'm remembering that correctly, you and I have no common ground upon which to have a civil discussion.
Considering the damage caused by advertising in general, I would argue adblockers to be plenty moral.
But that moral argument is not the issue here.
Subscription services distill the marketplace for content that you can pay for. They make diverse media production prohibitively expensive, because customers can't afford to pay for a diverse collection of media when that collection is distributed across many subscriptions.
Another angle: ads are pollution. Blocking ads and reducing ad revenue will expedite the creation of an alternative business model that doesn't pollute my entertainment. Giving in to the ads only validates the polluting business model.
I honestly don't consider this particularly relevant, especially in the case of Spotify which has a paid ad-free option (as opposed to something like cnn.com, where you don't have a choice).
If you want to boycott Spotify for endangering people's computers, go ahead. Heck, if you want to attempt to use Spotify with an ad-blocker, go ahead. I don't feel morally comfortable using ad-blockers, but I won't fault others for using them.
You do not get to use Spotify's free tier, block their only potential revenue stream for that tier, and then turn around and cry fowl when Spotify notices and bans you.
Given that advertising pays for a lot of the services we all use, the use of Adblock and similar programs constitutes defection in game theory terms - the more people who do it, the worse off we all are - which means even if you choose to do it yourself (I personally don't), it is against your interests to encourage other people to do it.
Also, given that computing is one of very few areas of technology in which our species is still making substantial progress, and that progress is driven by market demand, even if you want to make your workload computationally cheaper for yourself, it is very much against your interests to encourage other people to follow suit; if every web browser starts using less memory, everyone is worse off.
I'm not going to start trying to persuade you personally to cooperate rather than defect - that's a value judgment you have to make - but please at least appreciate that it's a bad idea to encourage other people to defect!
So, if I block advertising, I'm indirectly wasting the money these companies spend on me, and are paying more for products without any benefit? That's a funny thought.
> It's not really a problem to lose money on some users if they are making money over all.
Both sides of this argument are laden with assumptions. It’s a more opinion-based discussion than most. It’s a philosophical wormhole with no clear answer.
(Not saying I agree with this.) It’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion that using an ad blocker is morally wrong.
reply