• Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well you’re not forced. You don’t actually have to go to their website at all.

    They seem to be making the argument that if you want some of their content, you have to accept all of it (ads included). Of course, that’s absurd. I can pick up a printed newspaper (if those still exist) and skip right to the comics if I want, and bypass the sports and classifieds entirely if I wish. I can pick up a book or album and only enjoy a single chapter or track. You get the idea.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree with you in principle, I’m not sure the newspaper example supports your position, although it is an apt analogy.

      I would imagine that the counter argument would take the form of something like, “Yes, you don’t have to read the whole paper, but you can’t just buy the comics. You buy the whole paper, get access to the whole thing, and the ads come with it. Similarly, with our web presence, in order to access everything, whether you choose to consume it all or not, the ads must come as a part of it.”

      Personally, I don’t fully agree with either that argument or yours, can see the merits and flaws of both, and fall somewhere in the middle.

      I’d argue that while they’re within their rights to create, distribute, bundle, and price their content as they see fit, just like the current debate with social media companies, your monitor is your own personal, privately owned platform, and you shouldn’t/can’t be forced to offer a platform to any content you don’t wish to publish (to your audience of one). So you’re perfectly within your rights to want and attempt to only view the content you wish to see, while they’re also perfectly within their rights to want and attempt to package their content in such a way that links their articles with the advertisements of their sponsors.

      So at that point, it’s just an arms race between the producer doing their best to force ads onto screens and consumers doing their best to avoid same. Neither side is morally right or wrong, and while there likely is a middle ground that wild be acceptable to both parties, there’s zero good faith between the two sides which would be necessary to establish that middle ground.

    • dick_stitches@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think they’re arguing that the ads are part of the free speech, I think they’re arguing the ads are a revenue source that allows them to fund free speech. Blocking ads in this case is more akin to sitting down at the newsstand for two hours while you read the paper, then putting the paper back without having paid for anything. Yes online advertising has become a massive breach of privacy, but they have no obligation to give away their product for free, and looking at ads is how you pay for it.

      Free speech ≠ free beer.

      • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I intentionally wasn’t touching the financial side of it, that’s a whole other mess. But yeah I know it’s inseparable these days and agree with your points.