[js2]

Does the clothing you wear sport a logo? That's an advertisement, right?

Does your computer have an Intel Inside sticker on it? An Apple maybe? Perhaps it's emblazoned with Lenovo.

How about the car you drive? Does it not proudly display the manufacturer's logo? Did you ask the dealer to remove their stickers and plate surround?

As I look around my house, all I see are ads! For things I paid for!

[evandale]

> Does the clothing you wear sport a logo?

Yeah but it's not against their TOS to buy the clothes and cut the logo out.

> Does your computer have an Intel Inside sticker on it?

Yeah but it's not against their TOS buy an Intel processor and take the sticker off.

> An Apple maybe?

Yeah but it's not against their TOS to buy an Apple laptop and put a sticker with a 4 pane window on top of the Apple sticker.

> Perhaps it's emblazoned with Lenovo.

Perhaps it is, but it's not against their TOS to put an IBM sticker over the Lenovo sticker.

> How about the car you drive? Does it not proudly display the manufacturer's logo? Did you ask the dealer to remove their stickers and plate surround?

Yeah but it's not against the TOS to..

Hopefully the point is clear.

[js2]

I was being cheeky and besides, the person I was replying to didn't mention Terms of Service. So this is a new argument. But it's not against the TOS to block ads on WSJ, FT, or NYT either. Here's NYT:

https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014893428

I didn't check the others.

[evandale]

Why are you being cheeky and muddying the waters in a serious discussion?

We're discussing more than if the WSJ, FT, and NYT allows ad blockers or not. We're discussing how stupid it is that a service shows ads in the first place for premium service people pay for. WSJ and NYT are only two examples.

We're discussing how there's precedent to pay for a service and still see ads and how it wouldn't be a shock if Google pulled the same stunt.

We're discussing concepts and ideas, not specific companies and their policies.

Furthermore, the link you provided has a section "4. PROHIBITED USE OF THE SERVICES" which is an overly broad section that reads exactly like Google's TOS and could be interpreted as banning ad blockers if NYT wanted to say that's its purpose.

[aendruk]

If left uncontested, yes, yes, yes, and yes. All of those are ads, offensively and intolerably on things I paid for.

I don’t understand how everyone else seems to be okay with this norm. I dyed the advertisement on my rain jacket black to make it invisible. I disassembled my phone dock and ripped out the glowing advertisement. I sought out a foil-backed sticker to fully block the illuminated advertisement on the lid of my laptop. I ordered custom printed stickers to cover the advertisement on the frame of my bicycle. I ripped out the advertisements embroidered onto my shoes.

As I look around my house, I see sanctuary from our dystopia.

[Given_47]

Slightly expanding on my previous comment, the only “individual billboard” logos that would seem justifiable in principle would b certain foss projects since the overall community benefits from greater awareness. With anything else, the increased brand awareness only serves to further enrich that company.

Is at least my quick assessment. Interested in your thoughts

[aendruk]

Agreed, there’s a distinction between absentmindedly promoting commercial schemes and deliberately promoting causes that you think are worthwhile. I’m certainly not without agenda and several of the commercial ads I’ve covered are replaced by designs with socio-political purpose.

[Given_47]

Good to make that distinction of intentionality (tho the people buying a good solely to purport “status” is a whole different topic lol)

[Given_47]

Now I’m thinking about a world where the architect’s name/logo is massively and obnoxiously engraved on the front of everyone’s home.

Anyway rlly enjoy your comment you’ve given me some great inspiration

[HWR_14]

I've seen brass plaques set in the concrete advertising for driveway companies.

[0xffff2]

No, no and yes but also yes for me. I won't say it's particularly common, but there are absolutely some of us out there that will go out of our way to be a free walking billboard. For me personally, a manufacturer identifying their product is fine but anything else I will aggressively squash (e.g. My car manufacturer's logo is fine, but I absolutely make the dealer remove anything they've added with their name/logo on it for every car I buy).

[8note]

I sure wouldnt be caught dead in a shirt that says Nike on it.

I buy things with the least amount of logos and adverts as possible.

Unless I explicitly choose something with a logo, it's gonna be plain, or even a pretend logo, advertising nothing

[Given_47]

Specifically that car point struck me the other day when I was walking on the street and took in how blatantly car manufacturer logos are plastered about. The subconscious brand awareness is a hell of a thing