Comment by drdeca
3 days ago
I think saying that it is morally piracy is a little bit of an overstatement.
I think one does have the right to block ads on one’s machine if one chooses.
However, personally, because of the “if ad blocking was universalized, the services I appreciate would likely not exist” reasoning, I choose not to block ads.
As for other things like “muting/covering ads on screen”, yeah, that does seem a bit fuzzy. Sometimes I’ll even use a browser extension to fast forward an ad somewhat.
I do think this is something for the individual to decide how they will deal with ads. When I mute an ad, I don’t think I’m really free riding? For one thing, I don’t think it is contrary to the expectations of those being sold the ad slot. Me fast forwarding the ads a bit probably is contrary to their expectations, so I don’t have as good justification for it, but I don’t feel like I’m cheating when I do it. (Or, if I do, it is because the particular ad is objectionable enough that I’m willing to stick it to the advertiser)
Kants Categorical Imperative is a terrible way to model reality. People are too stocastic.
It's the same mistake libertarians make when they assume a fully informed and rational society.
I didn’t say others are obligated to do the same. I said the opposite , actually. Rather, for the services to remain viable, some people have to not block ads, and for this reason, I have chosen to be one of those some.
How how-well-things-work depends on the number of people doing a thing, varies from thing to thing. For some things, as long as one or more people behave in a particular way, a thing goes well. For other things, if even one person does a particular thing, things go badly. And there are plenty of situations in between.
These different situations call for different responses, I think.
> Kants Categorical Imperative is a terrible way to model reality.
It's not a way to model reality, terrible or otherwise. That’s not what it purports to do.