Hacker News Reader

Comment by neves | Hacker News Reader

I really love to be called anti-ethical by advertisers. Last time I watched TV I saw ads that told me: to drink unhealthy sugar beverages, that my son would be ashamed if I have an old and cheap car, that I should use a financial service that would give a terrible return on investment, that happiness is the same than buying things, alcohol is to only way to have fun.

Sure, I have no ethics because I want to control what my computer executes and display.

View on HN

Not to be that guy, but I cut the cord, and it's seriously like a breath of fresh air. It's like discovering ad-blockers in the era of incessant pop-ups and flash ads.

Netflix was TV ad-blocking for me. I hated TV and stopped watching it for many years. Then when Netflix came around, I discovered that TV production had greatly improved, and it's the ad interruptions that was poisoning the art, making me feel sick to watch it. Without the ads, I could binge watch a multiple-year series of a television show, and not feel sick.

Meh, today's cable doesn't feel that different; I just start watching the show a bit later and fast-forward the ads at 32x.

Small reminder that cable's main selling point when starting out was the removal of ads.

Not around here (non-US country), it already came with ads. The point was always the extra content, since we only had four OTA channels.

It's always a good advice, but you're ignoring GP's point that I believe the discussion around ads should be focused on: that a lot of advertisers are malicious actors. They are bunch of liars who want to profit by hurting people, and this is somehow not only totally legal, but a respectable occupation.

I wouldn't say advertisers are malicious actors: they are amoral ones. They want maximum short-term profit, and they don't care if they hurt people or not in the process.

My argument is the opposite. This isn't a respectable occupation. The respectable ones are exceptions. The main goal is to reduce all humans to just consumers.

Have ever you seen ads for kids? They must buy that toy! Happiness is eating unhealthy thing in McDonalds! And don't forget Camel: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/11/us/smoking-among-children-...

You know, I cut the cord years ago and felt the same way, but increasingly, every video on the internet has forced pre-roll ads I can't escape from (especially when watching YouTube on iOS), and it feels WAY worse than TV ads ever did. There is no free lunch...

If you used Android, you could run Firefox with uBlock Origin, which blocks those ads.

OK, hyperbole aside, if you really want or care enough to solve this problem, you should refuse to visit/watch content with ads. Support people who use alternate business models. Content creators are people who want to get paid; if you show them an alternate way to succeed, they're going to want it.

Indeed, it's quite easy to shake one's head at the message of ads and stop there. Where does the demand come from? Where does the money go? Why does this system have this outcome? It's too hard to think about that, let's just condemn the ads and move on.

I can't imagine feeling so entitled that I would argue that people owe me web and TV content. I think that your option if you don't like the advertising that is supporting a service is to not use that service. If you feel strongly about it you could even tell the station/site the reason you are no longer using their service.

I really don't understand the argument that "I don't like how they want me to pay for this service; therefore it is ok to steal it"

I don't understand that argument either; but no one is making it. First, filtering ads is not stealing. Secondly, nobody says content is owed - those companies are free not to provide it.

So you like watch ads when they come on? You never change the channel?

It would be anti-ethical! You shouldn't even go to the bathroom:-)

>I can't imagine feeling so entitled that I would argue that people owe me web and TV content.

I can't (ok, really I can, but I don't like to) imagine feeling so entitled that I would not only force someone else's computer to execute code at their detriment for my benefit, but then argue them selfish for deciding to limit what code I can get their computer to execute.

no one is 'stealing' anything and elevating the notion of adblocking from 'unethical' (it isn't) to 'theft' (which it definitely isn't) is exactly the sort of language-twisting that corporations attempt to employ and legitimise to where we don't even think about it.

as many others will explain on HN: i own my hardware; the code i choose to run or not run on my machine is my choice. got a problem with that? feel free to shut down your web site or put it behind a paywall. i have a whole shelf of books that i should be reading anyway rather than surfing the web. i won't miss your web site one bit. i promise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com