undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSpivak3y ago0 comments

I think the only real response is that isn't my problem to figure out. I'm sure you could come up with 10 highly unethical or outright illegal monetization methods off the top of your head, and the argument against them isn't "well here's an alternative" but instead "these are bad and shouldn't be done full stop." And this is how people view ads, it's a values based judgement rather than a utilitarian one.

0 comments

zamadatix3y ago

A values based judgement goes both ways though - you shouldn't be using such a service in the first place if you knowingly can't conceive of an ethical way for it to operate. And that's a fair stance but few seem to actually care about values based judgement enough to actually stop using the services.

That said this case isn't much of a moral mystery. YouTube offers a reasonable paid plan, most people just prefer ads.

SpivakOP3y ago

Oh trust me I can conceive many ethical ways businesses could operate without ads. I think what you mean is that you shouldn’t use a service you know is unethical. But there are problems with that as a general rule.

First being that there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism so that makes things difficult.

Second, “voting with your wallet” is pointless, you’re much better off voting with your votes and ad blockers if you want to see real change. If anything by your logic buying YouTube Premium is worse ethically since you’re directly supporting a company that makes money on unethical ads. Giving them more money won’t make ads go away.

And to that, third, demanding self-flagellation to prove that one is sincere in their beliefs is puritanical nonsense. You are absolutely allowed to both buy Nike shoes and fight for legislation that forbids them from treating their factory workers poorly.

zamadatix3y ago

I'm not going to comment on capitalism as a whole or the like as that seems neither here nor there for this thread but I can see how someone with those views would have problems with pretty much any service anywhere in the current environment.

I'm not quite sure I follow how opting for the business model one doesn't find unethical is supporting unethical business models. It may not be attacking the business model they find unethical but that's a different claim. Unless of course we allow any connection with a service to taint the entire lot in which case I can again see how someone with those views would have problems with pretty much any service anywhere.

As for the conversation on shoes when you have a basic need sure, don't let people's ability to source needs get in the way of people bettering their working conditions. After all they don't really have a choice in forgoing either. That's not really relevant to people's desires to consume entertainment services though. Particularly when people are given their own agency on deciding what is the right way to fund it already or even to be able to not consume the want should there be nowhere to do so. In the end it may come down to whether you think it should be alright for people to operate on different morals than you so long as their choice is mostly limited to impacting them or if there is only one true set of morals everyone must be forced to follow by law.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

zamadatix3y ago

That said this case isn't much of a moral mystery. YouTube offers a reasonable paid plan, most people just prefer ads.

SpivakOP3y ago

First being that there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism so that makes things difficult.

zamadatix3y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse