This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Looks like the war against advertising is continuing to fail, predictably. Google Chrome is now
banningrestricting ad blockers starting as early as next year. (1) I am not convinced this model of: create a free, ad-free service to get users --> slowly pull in ads for $$$ --> eventually become an ad-riddled hell is the best model. I often balk at paying for services up front, but if a service as essential as google is now bowing to the pressure, when will it end?Advertising definitely has some uses in connecting buyers to sellers, and informing consumers about the market, but I'm convinced it's a bit of a 'tamed demon.' If we don't want to devolve into a horrid anarcho-capitalist future, we need to get serious about restricting what advertisers can do, and where they can advertise. I predict advertising will become far more ubiquitous with the rise of Dall-E and similar image producing AIs. The cost of creating extremely compelling, beautiful ads will plummet, and more and more of our daily visual space will become filled with non stop advertising.
On top of this, we have Meta and other tech oligarchs attempting to push us all into the Metaverse. I am no detractor of AR/VR, in fact I think utilized correctly it could solve many of our current problems. However if the Powers That Be take over the metaverse, we will soon have ads that engage all of our sense - not just vision and hearing.
Given how powerful advertising already is, can we really afford to let it run rampant in an age where we have such powerful technologies?
1 - https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/
Using ad-blockers is antisocial behavior and should be discouraged or banned wherever possible. If you don't want to consume content that contains ads, don't consume the content if it contains ads. Simple as.
Advertiser supported content makes it possible for a much broader array of content creators to make a living producing commercially viable products. A world without advertising is a world with more paywalls and fewer creators making a living. See the decline of the newspaper for what content creation looks like without advertising dollars: fewer writers making a decent living, higher prices for less content, increasingly desperate catering to a tiny demographic target.
If you don't want advertising on your TV, don't watch OTA TV, limit your viewing to paid streaming services that don't show ads. If you don't like youtube ads, subscribe to premium. If you don't like reading essays with pop up ads, pay for a newspaper subscription, or if you're too cheap for that go to the library and read it for free. If you expect to google "How to fix my sink when it gurgles" and find the answer for free, you have to expect that the ads on the side of the page are paying the guy to make it.
If you think that putting advertising in your face is wrong, vote with your feet/wallet/eyeballs: reward content producers that offer alternative models. If content producers find that they're losing customers when they put up obnoxious ads, they'll stop doing it.
Can anyone offer me an argument in favor of ad-blockers that doesn't amount to some kind of misanthropic "The system, man, it's broken; so whatever I do against the system is a-ok"? I really can't even create a steelman for the ad-block position. I can understand the logic of not liking to be tracked, sure, and I find that a somewhat reasonable ask; but not viewing any ads that pay for the content you consume is just expecting the world to provide you with something free of charge.
I know plenty of folks that use the classic technique of changing the channel when commercials come on OTA/cable TV and radio. I suspect the same is true for skipping over ads within YouTube videos and podcasts (which seems like a serious fraction of runtime for even the NPR podcasts these days). Is this technique unethical? What about automating it?
If you think you're not going to get gaze detection ads in the future that make sure you're watching them, you are sorely mistaken. I'm sure there are already sites where your ad timer doesn't tick down if the tab isn't currently active or your device is muted.
People will find a way to game it. Ads are just one of the many cat/mouse games.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't find the action particularly unethical because it's within the standard controls of the medium, but if a podcast host announced that from here on out he would only release content on a specially made app that would make skipping impossible, I don't see where one would have an argument against him that it was one's right to skip the ads and that he was doing something wrong by changing the rules. The content creator/owner has the right to set the terms as to how that content can be consumed.
If the content creator explicitly makes it pay-to-play, okay, we all know where we stand.
If a newspaper online site asks me to subscribe to read the rest of this article, then I skip that and go find another source for the same story that lets me read for free. Am I obligated to take out a subscription for a year just to read one or three stories? I don't feel that I am.
If the content-creator wants money for views, then I have to assess; is this something I enjoy or value enough to pay for, or can I do without it? If I can do without it, then I'm not paying by unskippable ads, I'm skipping the entire channel.
More options
Context Copy link
That's a tricky line because they don't own or control the equipment being used to enjoy their product, the end-user/consumer does.
I've heard it said that the internet, as it currently exists, is a 'pull' medium, not a 'push' one. Which is to say, the user requests the content they want, can 'pull' it to them, and are able to filter out which parts of said content they receive and which they don't. Contrast this to, say, broadcast TV or even cable, where the content is mostly dictated by the provider and 'pushed' out to the consumers, who can select from the options that are on offer but can't specifically request what they want when they want it.
So the 'rules' of the internet are that the end-user doesn't have to receive any data they don't consent to receiving, under any conditions. And I think you'd dislike it if that rule were changed. Sure, the content provider can also decline to make their data available, can hide it behind paywalls, etc. etc., but there is simply no way they can control the end-user's environment enough to ensure that the ads are served.
So talking of rights in this context is implying that the end-user is supposed to, from the goodness of their heart, choose to receive ads or other content that they feel is wasteful, distracting, or even harmful in order to receive the content that they actually want?
Why would an end-user/consumer do this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability
Because if all consumers/end-users use ad-block or skip ads, we don't get ad-supported content anymore. You can probably make an argument regarding rent-seeking with respect to, say, sports leagues. But to block ads from an ad-supported website and expect the content to stay up would be, well, silly.
If the site really, really needs ad revenue and will sink without it, and I use an adblocker, and it has to shut down because everyone is using adblockers, okay: we then have the choice of "if you want this content, you have to pay, at least by attention".
If it's still up and running even though I use an adblocker, then I'm presuming it's doing okay enough to pay its own way. Not everyone is using adblockers, or it's getting revenue some other way. So I don't feel guilty or obligated.
And if we take your argument to the logical conclusion: simply watching ads is not enough. If the business running the ads which give revenue to the site aren't selling products, then they go out of business, and can't pay the content creator, who then has to shut down. So I should buy their goods in order to prevent that. Which means I end up with expensive sneakers I don't want, or some other goods. Because if I don't purchase purchase purchase, then how will they stay in business? How will they pay the revenue to the content creator to keep their site operating?
The fact that not every single person buys something advertised rather undercuts the argument about "but you have to uninstall your adblockers!" If not everybody who watches an ad buys goods, or if people skip ads on TV by channel-surfing, or other methods of avoiding ads (not reading them in magazines, etc.) then adblockers are just one more way of not transacting due to advertisements. If I am not morally obliged to buy the goods after watching the ad, I don't see how I am morally obliged to watch the ad in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
Most people don't use ad blockers and many don't even understand ad blockers. Universalizing "should one person use ad blockers" into "should everyone use ad blockers" is like universalizing "should I move to Vermont" with "what would happen if everyone moved to Vermont".
More options
Context Copy link
And if you let advertisers have free reign, we end up with sites which make you view the content through a tiny little window in the ads, frequently interrupted by an interstitial. (Check out accuweather.com or northjersey.com for some bad but not maximal examples). For a short while in the early 2000s there was a bit of a detente where the ads weren't terrible and people paid attention to them, but the race to the bottom inevitable continued. Demanding the targets of the race unilaterally disarm is not the answer.
At least random pop-up ads that make noise seem to have been roundly rejected.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sounds moral to me. Ad supported content is itself antisocial and has terrible externalities as the downfall of journalism should be enough to show.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. But I don't think that's really bugs people who use ad blockers. It sure doesn't bother me. The VAST majority of sites out there, including Facebook and Twitter, aren't really very valuable to me such that my life would be heavily disrupted if they were to close down. Therefore, I don't feel much need to support them via watching ads or anything else. I have so many things I can spend my time on online that any site that doesn't offer a truly unique service or experience, or a really useful function, never really strikes me as worth paying more than a nominal amount to access. Sorry not sorry, thems the breaks. Its a hypercompetitive market.
And we have proof by existence that not everybody does use adblock. In fact, last I checked it was still a fair majority who don't.
I mean, economics still apply. If the site doesn't produce enough revenue to pay its own expenses, and the owners aren't keeping it alive through charity or some alternate revenue stream, then the site goes down. If people value the content on the site enough, they will be sad about this and may seek to support the site monetarily. That just leaves a question of how this monetary support will be structured.
So if ad-support isn't a viable model, then people will seek workable models. And again, we have a proof by existence with Patreon, Substack, Onlyfans, and Kickstarter that there are viable methods of getting paid for content and NOT having to serve ads to the users.
So I don't see why you're implying (and please correct me if I misinterpret you) that our choices are either accept an ad-supported web environment or accept that nobody will be willing to produce or host content.
Exactly this. If the site is dependent on revenue, and it's not making revenue via ads, then it will seek some other means of raising revenue. If enough people like it and want the content, they'll pay for it in some way. If they don't want to pay, then it goes belly-up.
I might be vaguely sorry if your artisan cookie shop goes under due to lack of traffic even though it's on the high street, but that does not mean I feel obliged to buy your cookies just to keep you in business. If I want cookies, and your cookies are good, I'll buy them. I'm happy to support local business, but I do not take that to mean "every business that opens up in the locality".
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think I even implied that. Rather I stated directly, if you don't like ads (or certain forms of ads) don't go on sites that use those ads. It's perfectly possible to avoid them.
I haven't used Facebook in years now (though I'll confess, my wife uses FB marketplace a lot and I pick up the furniture), because I didn't like the website. So I stopped using it. Yeah, Yeah I'm only one man Zuck didn't notice I was gone yadda yadda; but by that same logic it doesn't matter who you vote for or if anyone deserts from the army, there are so many other people your decision won't matter. Be the change you want to see. If you don't like the content, stop using the service.
Once again, this trivially justifies something like looting or turnstile jumping. "Not everyone will do it. Old people aren't athletic enough, others are squares or need to worry about getting arrested."
And that's what I do in the majority of cases. To conflate this with looting is absurd. The plethora of ads shoved into people's faces is a form of assault, if we're going to pearl-clutch about crimes. Why am I at fault if I use a burglar alarm so that my experience is safer online?
More options
Context Copy link
It is indeed. It is also perfectly possible to manipulate my experience on the web to be very different than the ones the creators intended.
That's actually the lovely thing about the internet, I can format the incoming information any way I want to suit my preferences. I'm doing it right now with custom CSS for this website. The website I'm viewing is probably quite different than the one you are, in aesthetic ways, even if we read the same words.
So here's a question. If I'm accessing a given website and I'm running scripts to change the way the information is presented to me, why can't I do the same with the ads?
Would it be acceptable to, instead of blocking the ads, to reformat them so they are shrunk down to a 50x50 pixel square and shunted off to the right side of the screen so they don't interfere with my viewing the content? What if instead it saves every single ad that would have loaded, and then when I am ready to view them, I request that it play all of them at once for me so I can consume them more quickly in one sitting?
Both of these are fundamentally possible. How much can I screw around with the ads being served to me before it becomes an ethical breach?
I'm not trying to be a dick with this, I'm genuinely trying to see where you draw your line, because the internet, as a pull medium, lets me walk RIGHT UP to the line you draw and tickle it gently without going over it.
Am I obligated to accept every ad that is served to me in the exact format it is served? And if so, does this also apply to the rest of the content?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it can be argued that being able to install an ad blocker is within the standard controls of a web browser as a medium.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link