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 -
"Antisocial behaviour" needs to be operationalized. What is the ill effect that you expect to come about as a result of this behaviour? If I say that littering is anti-social, I mean that if everyone litters, than there will be shit covering the ground, and everyone will be worse off. In the case of ad-blocking, there are limits that prevent horrific outcomes.
For one, most of the ad supported content I consume is not at all necessary, and arguably makes me worse off, in that my time would be better spent doing other things. This is largely why such content is ad supported, rather than paid: they know that people won't feel like they can justify paying money for it. If everyone ad blocked and the service died, I wouldn't be worse off.
Second, there are many people willing to spend their own money providing many of the services I use for free. Examples include this website, and several others of its ilk. Often such websites rely on donations, or the purchase of cosmetic or other non-gating features to generate revenue. So if advertising based websites were to go down, there would likely be many websites to replace them. Such websites would often be improvements over their predecessors; content websites that are funded by advertising often have poorly researched and written articles, and use SEO to push out better articles which don't profit from advertising or from gating payments.
Third, platforms make enough profit off of the people that do look at ads to support some number of users that don't. This may sound trite: someone littering might reasonably argue that there are enough people picking up litter to make up for their actions. The key difference is that advertising as a service model relies on a small number of profitable users to keep things afloat. If I never or rarely purchase anything as a result of being advertised to, than I am a net negative to the advertiser. Therefore, I am no different, at an ecosystem level, from someone who blocks ads. Since the system already requires others to make up for my behaviour, it makes no difference whether I also happen to block ads.
Fourth, suppose that all of the above wasn't true. That is, the content was necessary, or at least strongly desirable, there was no way to fund it via donations, and an advertising model would successfully derive revenue from an most every users (at a system level). In that case, if I weren't to block ads, I would be (by assumption) sacrificing some portion of my income to in order to fund the advertising, but I would also have to look at ads whenever I used the service. I dislike looking at ads, and would prefer, all else being equal (which, by assumption, they are), to pay for the service instead. So if the service stopped being supported by advertising, and moved to being a paid subscription, then I would be no worse off, and in fact better off than were I to have begun looking at ads instead.
More options
Context Copy link