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 -
The argument for adblock is the same as the argument for internet piracy, that our current system of intellectual property is non functional now that making copies is arbitrarily cheap.
I think a big part of your issue with this is the assumption that using adblock is something someone "does against the system". When infinite copies of a work can be made for no cost, taking a copy and not paying causes no harm to the system. If your worldview is strongly rooted in the old world where copies cost money to make, and taking one meant stealing a physical object from someone that they would then have to pay to replace, I can see where you would take issue, but that is no longer the case.
It is true that money needs to be made however. The current system does mean that the creator can make money, and if you use adblock to get around that without looking for some other way to supply money to the creator, their creations will stagnate. It will no longer be worthwhile to make things if nobody pays for them. If disabling adblock is your way of doing that, good for you. You should understand how little your attention is worth to advertisers, but if you are ok with that then I see no problem with that transaction. There are a great deal of reasons one might not be ok with that however, and denying people other payment options, while not immoral, is generally not a good idea if you want their money. So, in this situation, as a consumer; if you can't pay anyways, and taking a copy despite not paying does no harm to the creator, why not? It's not that you are owed the content, but more so that abstaining from consuming it does no good. If you would do so on principle, because you don't like taking things you feel you haven't earned, I can respect that. But don't force that ideal on everyone.
In addition, I would like to add that there are more reasons to use an adblocker than blocking ads and privacy. Adblockers allow you to easily create filters for any element on a webpage, not just ads. In fact, this is the primary use case for me, and I suspect a non-trivial amount of other people. Have you noticed when browsing the internet how many terrible, broken websites there are; with arbitrary content break up, excessive whitespace, autoplaying videos, and countless other obnoxious design elements made for the general audience using mobile phones? I can make the worst offenders usable with a few clicks, at no expense to the website. They can keep their awful design that caters to a general audience, and I can have a functional website, and everyone is happy. It is really just impossible to design a website that caters to everyone, and adding options takes development time, and can confuse less computer savvy users, so having a system where experienced users can customize the site with no input needed from the developer is ideal.
Do you assume that historically, books and newspapers were priced at the printing/distribution cost? Because you're not budgeting anything for the actual creators of the content.
As opposed to the constitutions view of the issue:
The current system violates the "limited times" part of that, even if the Supreme Court doesn't think so.
We arguably don't even need to look at the "limited times" part, we could even argue that it sure as hell isn't promoting "the progress of science and useful arts" now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like I addressed this, but to reiterate; yes, the creator deserves pay, he will not work without it. However, when the only payment method is objectionable, there is no harm in taking a copy that is free to produce.
Also, why are you quoting the constitution? The founding fathers would have zero understanding of this unique, modern problem.
I don't think this is true, for reasons you yourself pointed out. Because by going around the only payment method, you are denying the creator the pay that he deserves (and produced the work under the expectation he would get). I am not embracing the position that ad blocking is immoral, but I think that to say there's no harm is also not true. The truth is more like: there is harm, but it's also harm that is partly caused by the creator's refusal to make their work available on reasonable terms. In other words, both parties are really kind of in the wrong here.
More options
Context Copy link
But this isn’t sufficiently different from the given example of turnstile jumping, are you also okay with that? After all, the marginal cost of supporting one more person on the subway is negligible, likewise with hosting web content.
You know, I think I am, given equivalent circumstances. If the train is running anyway, and it's empty or nearly empty so you aren't taking space from paying customers, and the turnstile won't take your money.
Something tells me that there might be some other factor that makes these situations inequivalent, but I don't see what that is at the moment.
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