Making a profit doesn't mean that their costs aren't so high that adblocking isn't compatible.
Walmart has profits of $157B in 2024, but their business model isn't compatible with people just walking in and grabbing stuff without paying - and doesn't make it ethical to do so even if "they'll be just fine even if I do that"
The biggest difference is still the difference between physical stuff that only exist once and information, that just needs to be copied without loosing any value.
There are companies that make money by placing ("out of home") ads in the public space. Not looking at those would then also be unethical? Priests sermoning on "thou shalt not hide thy eyes from the fancy displays in the bus stop"? An ad-police, the Conscious Ethical Viewing Effort Force Edict? That's some low-key dystopian thought.
It would be like attending a time-share dinner and putting in earplugs during their speech. I definitely think it's permissible to do it, but it's also permissible for them to kick you out for doing it.
The implicit contract is that you see the content while letting the ads that support it play. If you disagree with ads, the ethical choice is to not watch the video, not to leech.
It's also ethical to change browser tabs or leave the room while the ad plays, but blocking it and costing the provider money while not contributing back is not.
Making a profit doesn't mean that their costs aren't so high that adblocking isn't compatible.
Walmart has profits of $157B in 2024, but their business model isn't compatible with people just walking in and grabbing stuff without paying - and doesn't make it ethical to do so even if "they'll be just fine even if I do that"
The biggest difference is still the difference between physical stuff that only exist once and information, that just needs to be copied without loosing any value.
This isn't a piracy argument, it's a "leeching infrastructure that has real costs without contributing" problem.
Tapping into your neighbor's cable TV for free channels may not physically deprive anyone of something but it's still wrong.
I don't see how ad-blocking is unethical.
There are companies that make money by placing ("out of home") ads in the public space. Not looking at those would then also be unethical? Priests sermoning on "thou shalt not hide thy eyes from the fancy displays in the bus stop"? An ad-police, the Conscious Ethical Viewing Effort Force Edict? That's some low-key dystopian thought.
It would be like attending a time-share dinner and putting in earplugs during their speech. I definitely think it's permissible to do it, but it's also permissible for them to kick you out for doing it.
6 replies →
The implicit contract is that you see the content while letting the ads that support it play. If you disagree with ads, the ethical choice is to not watch the video, not to leech.
It's also ethical to change browser tabs or leave the room while the ad plays, but blocking it and costing the provider money while not contributing back is not.