|
|
|
|
|
|
by Spivak
3889 days ago
|
|
|
I assume you would take the same position in regards to internet advertising which is quite a bit more controversial. Sure, you could argue that you've agreed to be advertised to by using whatever service, going out in public, or whatever, but you could make the same case for cold calls or since you've agreed that anyone is able to call you. I think it's interesting how telemarketers, door-to-door salespeople, and certain forms of direct mail are universally hated but creepy, manipulative, tracking, and malware infested internet ads are "supporting creators." There seems to be quite a lot of, "well the scummy way I make money is ethical" whenever the debate come up. Do you see a meaningful difference between the two? I honestly want to understand. |
|
|
I do take the same position. If I visit a website looking for one type of content, I want to see that type of content, not ads.
> Do you see a meaningful difference between the two? I honestly want to understand.
Ethically, yes, I think there's a difference: I think internet ads are actually worse because in addition to wasting your time and mental energy like other forms of advertising, they contribute to nearly omnipresent surveillance, which is actually more harmful than wasted time and mental energy, IMHO.
As ad blocking and anti-tracking software becomes more common, hopefully these businesses will die out. The prevailing opinion on Hacker News seems to be that the death of the advertising industry would be a bad thing, but that's entirely selfishly motivated: advertising is driving the tech bubble by keeping afloat thousands of startups which provide no value, and a lot of the Hacker News crowd is coasting on that easy money. But if you can't find an ethical way to make money, you don't deserve the money. My advice to these people is to get a real job: I've worked in software for over a decade and have never worked for a business which was supported by advertising.