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.
My partial-view is that since there is no coordination mechanism/incentive, then there's little reason to start watching ads that outweighs the individual harm.
A classic free-rider problem, and my solution is that you either need to make a coordination mechanism or accept that people will defect.
A coordination mechanism like ''outlaw adblockers" seems to have a bunch of potential negative effects (especially as we get better/more-adversarially-optimized advertisements), and so isn't satisfactory. The proper mechanism is donating.
I would stop using YouTube for music entirely if I wasn't able to block ads. They're a waste of time. They take up time, and they also distract you from whatever you were doing (if you mute them then that's just another distraction, and if muting them was common then you'd eventually lose that ability). I also don't value having my mind adversarially messed with, even if we're not that great yet we are also getting better. The amount of negative value I get from YouTube ads is greater than the average benefit I get from a lot of YouTube (I think this is even more true for other people, because a lot of YouTube's content is bad).
However, I do agree that the better/more-ethical action is to then just not use the service. Download the music locally and listen to it locally, and so then I only have to pay a one-time advertisement/payment cost to the service I downloaded it from. Or nothing at all, because hosting a bunch of relatively small files is pretty cheap. The issue with this is that services like YouTube very much want you to stay on their service and continually watch advertisements. You can download from YouTube locally, but only through something like youtube-dl. This is a sort of platform lock-in. It isn't a hardcore one (though television/movie platforms use hardcore ones), but it is enough of an inconvenience to stop most people from bothering notably. I typically do bother downloading my music, especially since it allows me to listen to it offline, but it is also probably technically against their TOS or something (should I be respecting that?)
Most normal sites have this sort of light platform lock-in, partially just because it is the default but also because they want you to see their advertisements. Most sites don't allow me to easily download an article for local reading, though some do.
I think, also, that advertisements are the wrong method. They encourage making sites filled with garbage, of which there is an absolutely massive number, and putting ads on it. Sometimes this is actually useful content, but you could have gotten it from a less disgusting site. Sometimes it is just stuff they scraped from elsewhere. The best sites are ones where they care about the topic, and those are best incentivized by donating.
If I could 'reset' the internet and disallow advertising, then I would. This would kill off a ton of useful sites, but it would also make it easier for us to have a bunch of disparate smaller sites (which are then cheaper than a massive site like Reddit, and thus able to be ran by someone with some extra cash) which are ran by people who actually care about them. They can, if they get big enough, accept donations to allow their services to continue running. The best sites are those ran by people who actually care about them, and would try running them whether or not they were gaining a sizable profit.
So, I guess a summary of my view: I agree that it is defecting to use an adblocker. However without a coordination mechanism, there isn't a great reason to not defect. The best coordination mechanism is donation/patreon-like-donations, and it also has notable benefits over advertisement since it encourages less spam/garbage. We'll lose a bunch if advertisements disappear, but I think we can also gain a lot.
(I could mess with my argument to say it is actually moral to use an adblocker, since it means ads will be killed off faster, but I don't think I 100% believe that)
So, you're literally just going to ignore the idea of paying a fairly minor fee for Youtube premium?
I didn't even know it existed until earlier this year, so I was primarily capturing what I felt before it existed/was-common/they-started-advertising-it. It was also meant as describing the problem in general. I have been tempted by YouTube premium, though not overly much compared to other sources of media and I've been listening locally a lot. They apparently provide downloading (which I did not know until I looked it up), but it is limited downloading where you have to keep up your subscription otherwise you can't listen to it anymore. More platform lock-in, which I dislike.
Overall, I do actually agree it would be more ethical to buy YouTube premium if I'm going to continue using their service without advertisements. They don't provide all the value I want and they're google (I feel more intrinsically obligated - to move past automatic selfishness - to donate to smaller services where the individual contribution is more important, but that's basically the classic problem that voting has) so I'm unsure if I want to support them at all, but I do agree that it would be more ethical.
More options
Context Copy link
I visit Youtube on my desktop PC, I very very rarely use it on my phone, precisely because of the ads and because I don't want to pay yet another subscription to yet another service for something I use occasionally. I don't use Spotify or similar items for music. I listen to music the dinosaur way, on the radio, and if I'm working on my computer, via the national broadcasting service streaming which I already pay for through the TV licence. So yeah, I am outside the mainstream of modern life, and Youtube can just go whistle if they want money out of me. Google owns 'em now, and Google gets its money's worth out of all the data it collects on me and sells on,
More options
Context Copy link
If broadcast TV creators told you "give us an extra $5 a month and we'll agree that it's okay for you to skip the ads" it would still be okay to skip the ads without sending them $5 a month.
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