Under what conditions would you be OK with ads on your lemmy instance?
Under what conditions would you be OK with ads on your lemmy instance?
I'll start:
- Some significant portion of funds go towards development of the Lemmy software. 80%? Rest goes to lemmy instance hosting.
- Ads are reasonable and non-intrusive (no popups etc)
- People can still browse w/ an adblocker
I personally would gladly turn off my adblocker if I knew the ads were supporting development. Hell, I might even click a few!
You're viewing part of a thread.
Suppose you encounter a property. It says "no trespassing" on it. However, it has no security, and you realize under no circumstances will there be consequences if you snuck in and did whatever you want, not even disappointment, even though a sign specifies it would be frowned upon. Would that make it moral?
When people modify an experience like this, they're always thinking of themselves. If people could cover billboards along a road with toilet paper, I'm sure they'd do it, even though there's a reason they're there. It might be a weird place to redirect to, but someone explains perfectly here towards the end. A place's choice of maintenance is a part of its boundaries. Being courteous is the least one can do.
That’s a faulty comparison for so many reasons it’s hard to pick where to begin tbh.
It says in the TOS that ads are a thing and will remain a thing. If they gave me a button that makes them poof, it wouldn't change that.
There is a lot of nuance here you seem to be glossing over or maybe aren’t aware of. I don’t go out of my way to block YouTube ads as-displayed (usually videos) because the relationship with the actual ad is very clear. However, I do use a VPN, little snitch mini, and other extension/software when I am browsing YouTube. Just because I clicked on your website does not mean I willingly consented to your vacuuming every little detail about me to then package and sell to other parties or leverage to “better serve me ads.”
ToS aren’t a moral imperative, they aren’t even legal one. Companies are welcome to try within the bounds of the law (which they regularly break mind you) to learn info about me. And I am within my rights to make that information as opaque as possible. It is not a moral duty to let Google figure out someone’s menstrual cycle or who you plan to vote for simply because you looked up a cocktail recipe or something.
Why do you think most websites today come with a "this website uses cookies" agreement at the top or bottom of the screen even before you sign up? By pressing "I agree", one could say you're saying you agree. You might argue "but I didn't sign up for the website", but it's not like someone out there can gatekeep what is considered "signing up". A TOS in any form is a contract, and what goes on within a website is up to its creators who made it. To use another semi-analogy, you might notice a certain place has a video camera recording its surroundings, and you might say it's wrong they think they can record you willy-nilly, although on the other hand, if you know it's there, it can also be asked what you're doing there if you don't want to be recorded.
Hjsjdhejisj
In what way is it a law? I haven't heard of this, unless we're interpreting a certain law differently.
asfasfd
Those laws don't completely outlaw usage of cookies though, they just say courtesy has to be followed when doing so.