"Ethical advertising" is an oxymoron

@nimblejack even ads which have no spyware at all are unethical. No one wants to see an ad, and sticking an ad in their face anyway is causing them grief. This is unethical.

@sir I want to see ads. I prefer it to the alternative, which is no ads and no free stuff.

@sir Cool. We disagree. So I guess not all people dislike ads, or agree with you for that matter.

@nimblejack no, I think you're wrong, I don't submit that you hold a valid worldview and thus we disagree

@sir The validity of my personal preferences are determined by me.
I like ads, and that's a "worldview" which is valid because it's my opinion. It's my preference.

I also like vanilla ice cream. Is that a valid "worldview"? Am I allowed to have my own opinion, or do I have to ask for your validation first?

@nimblejack it's not your opinion that makes your worldview valid. Some people are of the opinion that humans have never been to the Moon.

@sir Okay, so we are back where we started. I have an opinion, and you disagree. You don't think I am correct, you don't consider my opinion (or my "worldview") to be valid.

And that's fine :D We disagree. So, not all people "dislike ads". If you don't want to be proven wrong, then perhaps you shouldn't post extreme views about the "everybody".

@sir @nimblejack People on the Moon is a fact therefore not influenced by opinions. on the other hand how you stand on ads is by all means subject to your opinions

@nimblejack let me elaborate. You don't want to see ads. You *tolerate* ads because it'll get you free shit. You would rather have the free shit without the ads, if given the choice, no? The ads are unethical regardless of whether or not you're willing to tolerate them, because you're doing just that - tolerating it, not asking for it.

@sir Yes, you are correct. However, I also like receiving some ads from vendors that I know will likely interest me.
For example, I receive weekly emails from clothing companies etc. I don't get free stuff. I am simply informed about what they sell.

But let's suppose that I hate ads. So what? My hate isn't a metric for morality.
For example, I hate having to clean my room. So what? The alternative is to live in a dirty room. Everything in life is choices, and consequences.

@nimblejack did you opt in to those emails? I've said elsewhere that opt-in, or pull ads, are fine.

Knowingly giving people an unpleasant experience, such as unsolicited advertising, is pretty morally unambiguous.

@sir Yes, I made the decision to receive the ads.

I also made the decision to watch an ad on my youtube phone app, even though most of the time I am not interested. Why? Because the alternative is not using the app.

I also made the decision to pay for my food. Why? Because the alternative is that I don't have food, or that I steal food, which means violating somebody else fundamental right to property.

Morality is not determined by my feelings. I'm not alone in this world.

@nimblejack roll it back. We agree that opt-in advertising is fine. Do you stick by the idea that opt-out advertising is not unethical?

Also, you could use NewPipe for YouTube, and I suggest you do.

@sir Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't know about NewPipe, but I don't really use youtube or phone apps. It was just an example. Thanks for the info though.

Yes, making a decision based on the least harmful outcome is moral. Opt-out advertising falls into that category.
A platform is somebody else's property. Using it is not a right; it's a privilege.

@nimblejack platforms should just ask people for money, and users should cough it up. That's how everything else works. I don't buy my groceries by agreeing to look at an ad at the register.

@sir But why?

Property means ownership. It means "doing whatever I want with something". It means being able to give it away, gift it away, sell it, destroy it, rent it.
Selling it is just one of my options.

When it comes to *my* platform, the same "rules" apply. I can destroy a platform, or make it freely accessible, or sell it, or rent it, or pretty much anything else.

Google, Facebook and others are not really opt-out. There is a big social pressure to use their services as well as loss of opportunity if you don't. Ads are basically means of mass manipulation. It should not be the case that you are forced to not use this services to avoid being manipulated (not to mention privacy aspects). We should not be fine with this tradeoff.

@brombek @sir
You say that Facebook and Google are not opt-out, but the justification you give me is inadequate.
Facebook and Google are opt-out. I don't use them, and neither should you.

Look guys, it's extremely simple. Imagine that you have a big scale in your mind. You put all the positives on one side, and all negatives on the other. And then you make a decision. If losing the "opportunities" that FB provides is too much to bear, then you just opt-in. Otherwise, you stop using FB.

@sir "I've said elsewhere that opt-in, or pull ads, are fine."

"posting to e.g. HN is a form of push advertising. When you do, your content shows up in /new, not on the main page. People who go to /new to browse and upvote posts have explicitly consented to viewing content unreviewed by the community, and then decide to push it upwards for broader consumption by giving it their upvote."

Are HN push ads fine or not? What was your justification for push advertising

@interserver you're misquoting me. HN is pull advertising.

@interserver my mistake, then. But the mistake was before, not now - it's clearly a form of pull advertising. Read the context. The user is consenting to read those posts and is explicitly going to HN to read them.

@sir "The user is consenting to read those posts and is explicitly going to HN to read them."

Interesting, you consider implicit consent to be enough for the ad to qualify as opt-in. I'm pretty sure all sites that use ad revenue have a relevant TOS clause. If, according to you, consent is all it takes for the ad to pass the acceptance test, nothing of what you said about ads applies to the Web. You visit ad-supported sites of your own volition. Perhaps you mean traditional advertising + email?

@sir is it though? Should the EFF, FSF, etc not advertise? Or rather, is their advertising unethical?

@slylax they should focus on pull advertising, where users explicitly agree to view the ads (e.g. an opt-in newsletter), and on getting press coverage for doing good by their mission.

@sir It's just not called an advertising, when ethical. But ethical things still benefit from a promotion, usually unpaid and voluntary though.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!