[rwjwjuwjudf]

> For me, the arguments that fall along the lines of "once it's been sent I can do what I want" don't sit well because they feel anti-social in nature.

For me, guilt trips are anti-social in nature. And from a business perspective, they're a losing proposition, because over time people just stop feeling guilty.

[kbenson]

I'm not really sure how that applies. You'll have to define what you think is the guilt-trip, and how it's different than social pressure.that provides a positive effect. I see a loose social contract, but that's the same effect that prevents a lot of negative selfish behavior, so I see it as mostly positive. There are of course cases where you are pressured to conform for conformity's sake, and there is little or no benefit in much of that, but I don't think that applies here

[rwjwjuwjudf]

I think it's pretty simple, any time you're admonishing someone and telling them how they should behave, rather than how they have to behave, it's basically a guilt trip. It makes people feel guilt. This guilt is supposed to motivate actions you desire from the individual.

It's fine if you have your morals, but your morals are not my morals. And it's a more effective argument to talk about yourself anyway: "I view ads because I believe it's a fair exchange for the publisher's content."

So, while I'm kind of a hypocrite for saying you shouldn't guilt trip people, what I really mean is that I've found it's better to talk about my own morals than to tell people that I think they should have them.

[kbenson]

> any time you're admonishing someone and telling them how they should behave

I tried very hard specifically to not do this. The only case where I put a specific label on someone else's behavior was in an example in which one party is not acting in good faith. Specifically, much of the comment was about the dichotomy of views, and whether you think that example even applies to the situation we are discussing. To be clear, I don't think someone who uses an ad-blocker is immoral unless they themselves believe what they are doing is wrong, because I don't believe it's possible to be be accidentally immoral (and if you believe what you are doing is fully justifiable, it's moral, regardless of whether it's seen as social acceptable or not).

> It's fine if you have your morals, but your morals are not my morals. And it's a more effective argument to talk about yourself anyway: "I view ads because I believe it's a fair exchange for the publisher's content."

That is exactly what I did. The portion of the comment where I actually examine a stance is prefixed with "For me", and is about my relation to that specific viewpoint, which itself isn't meant to be inclusive of the entire other side of the argument.

I suspect you formed an initial impression of what I was trying to convey, and that colored your interpretation of my words. I urge you to go back and read my comment again, but keep in mind that my goal was firstly to provide what I thought was an accurate, non-accusatory assessment of the sides of the argument, and present them in a way where rational people could see the merits of each (and I may have fully failed in this), and then provide my own personal reasoning why one interpretation does not work for me. I guess that's why I was honestly confused when you started talking about a guilt trip, because that wasn't my intention at all (so I may have failed horribly in that respect).

[rwjwjuwjudf]

Alright, these are the statements that made me feel guilt / anger, along with the message I interpreted:

> If you walk up to me and ask for my newspaper without offering compensation, and I say "sure, but you have to first look at this pamphlet I'll hand you with it", then I think in this example it is clear that throwing the pamphlet away prior to reading the paper is morally wrong.

"You shouldn't accept my gift without reciprocating."

> For me, the arguments that fall along the lines of "once it's been sent I can do what I want" don't sit well because they feel anti-social in nature.

"Your arguments are uncivil, you should make different arguments."

I get your point about "For me".

> We don't act that way with the people around us, why should be expect it to be entirely different just because we can't see their face?

"You should not treat your property like it's yours alone."

> Unaccountability for poor behavior is a downside of anonymity, and something to to by mitigated, not accepted.

"Your behavior is bad, you shouldn't behave like that."

I hope this helps, and I understand that I may have misread you, it's just my reaction / perspective.

[kbenson]

> "You shouldn't accept my gift without reciprocating."

That example was set up specifically to not be a gifting. If someone sets terms before giving you something it's not a gift, it's clearly transactional. In my mind, the newspaper is being given by someone at a stand, it's being "sold", but not for money.

It was set up this way specifically to show one particular way of thinking about it, not to imply that is the only way it can be seen, which is what I was getting at when I said "Where I think most people differ on this subject is how accurate that analogy is for consuming internet content." Some people believe it's a clear transaction, others seem (I assume, not being of this group) to believe it's not.

> "Your arguments are uncivil, you should make different arguments."

I can see why you think that, and it's due to a poor word choice on my part. What I was thinking when I wrote "anti-social" is "anti-societal". That is, anti-social but not in the colloquial sense. Specifically, since I think the exchange is transactional, ignoring my own part of the transaction on purpose is selfish in the singular, and society breaking when accepted by the masses. Almost nobody does this (that's sociopathy), but I think people have convinced themselves that it doesn't apply in this case (i.e. it's not a transaction, which is the root of my cognitive dissonance assertion in my original comment). This is nothing special, people behave in anti-social (anti-societal) ways all the time (lane hopping on the freeway, cutting in line, etc). It happens when we convince ourselves that the negative consequences, or the chance of them occurring, are small, but our need is great. The individual effects of this as small, but in aggregate it would be unsustainable.

But this is all couched in why I can't subscribe to that view, not why I think someone else should be ashamed, or feel guilty. If you don't think it's transactional, there's nothing to feel guilty about, as you aren't doing anything wrong in your own eyes. I happen to think people of that view are wrong, but I don't think they have anything to be ashamed of.

> "You should not treat your property like it's yours alone."

That's the point in question. If you believe the relationship is transactional, it's not fully your property until you've fulfilled your side of the bargain. I've been trying to show both sides of the argument, but you seem stuck on ignoring mine; It's not about controlling your property, it's about whether the transaction that makes it your property has even been fulfilled. If there were money involved (I sell you a paper for $1, but hand it to you before collecting the dollar. You walk away without paying), I doubt there would even be anything to discuss. The question is whether, and how, it's different if I expect something besides money from you. This is ambiguous in most cases, but when a site has a banner that explicitly outlines their views on ad-blockers, it's much less so.

> "Your behavior is bad, you shouldn't behave like that."

Should be viewed in light of my "anti-societal" meaning above. In my examples I use a person-to-person situation because I think people are much less likely to think certain behavior is acceptable then. If it's not acceptable then, why is it acceptable when you are anonymous, or the other side is not a person? That is, anonymity does seem to encourage some bad behavior because of lack of accountability, so is some of what we're seeing he attributable to that, or is it entirely separate?

> I hope this helps, and I understand that I may have misread you, it's just my reaction / perspective.

It does, and I hope what I was trying to express, is a bit more clear. That is, explicitly, "there is a disconnect between the sides of the argument, this is what I think it is, and here's my reason for choosing my side in light of that information".

[rwjwjuwjudf]

I think there's two things here.

The first is the implicit or explicit contract to view ads in exchange for getting to view content. Entering into a contract in bad faith or breaching a contract is both a legal and moral issue. When the terms of a contract are repulsive to me, I have no moral problem breaking them or lying about my intentions. I would let you pay me any amount of money to eat shit without proof and not follow through. You could always try and sue if that ended up being a problem. Generally though I won't enter into such contracts if there's a viable alternative.

The second thing is ownership of the property that's used to view the content. The argument here is that since it's my computer, I can control what my computer displays to me. I know that you have the copyright on the content and the ads, but copyright doesn't stop me from doing what I want with my own private copy so long as I don't distribute it.

So in the end, if you distribute content to me without verifying that I've viewed the ads first, you're putting yourself at risk for breach of contract on my part, and since I find ads repulsive it's a really high risk because it's my computer and I'm going to program it the way I want.

I'll readily agree that the content/ads thing is a problem, and that people deserve to make money for making things. But any fix to this problem is going to be systemic, not based on convincing people to play by the rules when they can easily get away with breaking them.