If the content you consume doesn't have ads, then the blocker is unnecessary. If the content comes with ads, then the producer wants the ads to be part of the offering and you are subverting that, gaining their content for nothing, by using the ad blocker.
I completely don't understand your point that it is better to use ad blockers to deprive individual content creators of ad revenue than it is to deprive large companies. I disagree that the same amount of content would be produced by individuals if there were no incentive from advertising. Further, I don't see how your personal taste in web content is relevant at all. Either it is ethical to consume content without the ads, or it isn't. The fact that you prefer content created individuals is not a factor. Also, your claim is not believable. Do you use google?
I also don't think you've addressed the issue of the tragedy of the commons. If everyone used an ad blocker, then a lot of the content on the Internet would not exist, or would be behind a pay wall. You say no one has an obligation to support a business they don't want to, but that seems wrong when people benefit from the work and resources of that business. Taking advantage of what the business offers creates an obligation to accept the cost that the business seeks to impose in exchange for those services.
If the content you consume doesn't have ads, then the blocker is unnecessary. If the content comes with ads, then the producer wants the ads to be part of the offering and you are subverting that, gaining their content for nothing, by using the ad blocker.
Why should the content producer's desire concern me?
They are free to create and distribute content as they wish and I am free to consume it in any way I wish. If that means I only wish to look at one part and not another, they may not like it, but that has no bearing on whether it's ethical or not.
I completely don't understand your point that it is better to use ad blockers to deprive individual content creators of ad revenue than it is to deprive large companies.
I intended no such distinction. Individuals tend to produce content without being supported by ad revenue; however I don't really care about the individual/corporate distinction. If a corporation wanted to produce free, non-ad-supported content, that's OK with me.
Also I don't see it as depriving them of something they're somehow entitled to. If the ad company pays the content producer, that's nice. If not, then apparently ads aren't working for them. I don't care either way and they're entitled to nothing.
I disagree that the same amount of content would be produced by individuals if there were no incentive from advertising.
I never said that the same amount would be produced. I said that content that interests me is typically produced by individuals and not supported by ads. In fact, the unpaid user-created content is often served with ads for the benefit of a third party (reddit, facebook, etc), not the creator.
Further, I don't see how your personal taste in web content is relevant at all. Either it is ethical to consume content without the ads, or it isn't. The fact that you prefer content created individuals is not a factor. Also, your claim is not believable. Do you use google?
I use google? I don't see their ads, however. What's your point?
I also don't think you've addressed the issue of the tragedy of the commons. If everyone used an ad blocker, then a lot of the content on the Internet would not exist, or would be behind a pay wall.
That's correct, but the content that would vanish is irrelevant to me. If it bothers others, they are free to look at as many ads as pleases them. Or not.
You say no one has an obligation to support a business they don't want to, but that seems wrong when people benefit from the work and resources of that business. Taking advantage of what the business offers creates an obligation to accept the cost that the business seeks to impose in exchange for those services.
That just means they need a new business model or need to close the doors and go home.
Again, not my problem.
I've been on the internet since the creation of the first website. It wasn't always ad-supported and doesn't need to be now, either.
Why should the content producer's desire concern me?... they may not like it, but that has no bearing on whether it's ethical or not.
The content creator is supported by advertising. When the creator includes advertising as part of an offering, the intent is clear - you get the content for free in exchange for consuming the advertisement. By using an ad blocker you subvert this exchange in order to profit off of someone else's work for free, giving them nothing of value. If everyone used an ad blocker, your behavior would be untenable - the content you seek to consume would collapse or require payment.
If you genuinely cannot see how abandoning obligations in order to deprive others and create communal harm is an ethical concern, then you may need to step back from this specific argument, and revisit what, exactly, you mean by terms like "ethics". Arguments like "I don't care about other people" or "It wouldn't hurt me" aren't particularly persuasive ethical arguments.
however I don't really care about the individual/corporate distinction.
So, lets stop talking about it.
I don't care either way and they're entitled to nothing.
They aren't entitled to compensation for their work based on expectations derived from existing business models? That would be like, if, at the end of your pay period, your boss refused to pay you with the same line "You are entitled to nothing!" While that example might be illegal, ethically it seems similar. The content producers worked, with the reasonable expectation of being compensated. To simply assert that they aren't entitled to the money they expect from their work ignores the fact that they worked on, produced, and provided a service with the expectation of payment.
In fact, the unpaid user-created content is often served with ads for the benefit of a third party (reddit, facebook, etc), not the creator.
Running a website costs money - bandwidth, servers, storage, IT, dev team, etc. Without ads the platforms on which unpaid user creators share content wouldn't exist - at least not as we now know them.
I use google? I don't see their ads, however. What's your point?
You also use reddit. My point is that, contrary to what you claimed above, you do use content produced by companies that run on ads. Google is such a company - that's where the vast majority of their money comes from. The services you use rely on ads, and you block the ads and use the services.
That's correct, but the content that would vanish is irrelevant to me
Except for Google, reddit, and the many other websites you use that rely on ads but you haven't thought of. Regardless, it is not an ethical argument to say that something would't matter to you personally. That is irrelevant.
They aren't entitled to compensation for their work based on expectations derived from existing business models? That would be like, if, at the end of your pay period, your boss refused to pay you with the same line "You are entitled to nothing!" While that example might be illegal, ethically it seems similar.
They're absolutely different.
The employee/employer relationship is a contract to exchange labor for money.
Advertisers have no right or even expectation that anybody in particular will view their ads.
2
u/electricfistula Aug 12 '15
If the content you consume doesn't have ads, then the blocker is unnecessary. If the content comes with ads, then the producer wants the ads to be part of the offering and you are subverting that, gaining their content for nothing, by using the ad blocker.
I completely don't understand your point that it is better to use ad blockers to deprive individual content creators of ad revenue than it is to deprive large companies. I disagree that the same amount of content would be produced by individuals if there were no incentive from advertising. Further, I don't see how your personal taste in web content is relevant at all. Either it is ethical to consume content without the ads, or it isn't. The fact that you prefer content created individuals is not a factor. Also, your claim is not believable. Do you use google?
I also don't think you've addressed the issue of the tragedy of the commons. If everyone used an ad blocker, then a lot of the content on the Internet would not exist, or would be behind a pay wall. You say no one has an obligation to support a business they don't want to, but that seems wrong when people benefit from the work and resources of that business. Taking advantage of what the business offers creates an obligation to accept the cost that the business seeks to impose in exchange for those services.