[CivBase]

> Honestly I find an adblock for podcasts a total dick move

If you expect payment for a service, give your "customers" an opportunity to support you directly. It can be a premium account, merchandise, or even a simple donation service. Don't force your "customers" to become the product.

I don't see why podcasts should get a pass.

[umvi]

> If you expect payment for a service, give your "customers" an opportunity to support you directly.

...but if that option isn't available, that makes stealing ok? "Hmm, I like this podcast but I don't like the ads. There's no premium support option. Therefore... I will consume the content of the podcast without the ads."

I find this line of thinking a bit immoral, to be honest. The moral option is to not listen to the podcast. And before you jump on me asking if its immoral to go to the bathroom during a TV ad break, I'm talking strictly about algorithmic ad-blocking.

It would be like if I had a place setup where you can get a copy of one of my indie video games I've been privately developing after watching an ad. My place has no option to flat out pay for copies of my indie games. But... you really like my indie games so you decide it's okay to just walk in and steal copies of my indie games until I provide you with an option to pay for them.

[yoavm]

Not listening to the ads is so far from stealing, I am almost not sure if you're serious. It's my right to decide whether to rewind a minute, to lower the volume, to skip a whole boring episode etc'. It's also my right to process the content with an app that modifies it, for my own use.

[umvi]

It's not the act of not listening to them that's stealing, it's the act of algorithmically excising them that's stealing, especially (but not exclusively) if there is a premium option available.

For example, watching non-premium crunchyroll with an ad-blocker enabled is dishonest, IMO.

[nikk1]

I agree. IMO, using an adblock is not very different from online piracy. The consumer is robbing the content creator of any kind of profit from their creative work. What is so hard about manually skipping the first 1 minute of the podcast? Or turning down the volume for a while?

If we all start using audio adblockers, advertisers will then develop adblock detectors for podcasts. Then, it is likely we will get completely unskippable ads.

The only moral options are to 1) Power through the ads (or fast forward through them) so that you may listen to the podcast for free 2) Become a premium user to skip the ads (unfortunately this isn't always an option) 3) Don't listen to the podcast

[jorosp]

I don't understand. Why is manually fast-forwarding through ads morally okay, but using an automated adblock is not?

[CivBase]

I find it strange that you draw the line with the introduction of algorithms. It's somehow less immoral to skip ads if the user has to put some kind of manual effort into it each time? It has the same effect on the content creator.

The content creator is not rewarded by your extra effort. A lost view is a lost view.

[umvi]

> It's somehow less immoral to skip ads if the user has to put some kind of manual effort into it each time?

It's morally grey, in my opinion.

If we can agree that:

1. Using an adblocker on services that offer premium versions (such as Crunchyroll) is dishonest

2. Going to the bathroom/looking away from the TV during an ad playing on Crunchyroll free is not dishonest

Then the morality line is somewhere in between there.

My philosophy is to always support the content creator in some way. To consume content while robbing the creator of their source of income (even if it's pennies) is dishonest, in my opinion. I don't have qualms manually skipping an ad I've already seen 5 times, and can quote buy heart, however.

[the_watcher]

Many podcasts actually do offer this, either via a Patreon or something like Stitcher Premium. One podcast I listen to (and subscribe to their Patreon) has mentioned that only ~10% of their listeners subscribe and that ads are a much larger source of revenue for them (even doubling subscribers wouldn't make up for this gap).

[Marsymars]

> One podcast I listen to (and subscribe to their Patreon) has mentioned that only ~10% of their listeners subscribe and that ads are a much larger source of revenue for them (even doubling subscribers wouldn't make up for this gap).

This is interesting, but isn't be an argument against offering a pay-for option. I expect the paying subscribers are more valuable per user, so any user you convert to paying increases your revenue.

[the_watcher]

I agree, I like that they offer a paid option. I just also understand why they're not eliminating the ad supported version.

[smilesnd]

Their is a difference between ads and forcing someone to be a product. The tracking software in JS ads is what turns someone into a product in my opinion.

[drewg123]

The annoying thing is that I like NPR podcasts, and donate to NPR. However, they don't have any premium option AFAIK.