It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Secondly, suggesting that great ad blockers are available on the "dark net" is setting unknowing people up for a great fall, you really should not download stuff from the "dark net" especially if you are not savvy about it.
So now it is law, not ethics the debate?
Ethics, like Law, are moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. They are often predecessors to Law. Hence, it makes sense to discuss the ethics of ad blockers, anti-ad blockers and anti-anti-ad blockers; we are breaking new grounds here. We might even see a number of camps that apply differing sets of ethics, but eventually we will get to the point where ethics will be tested by Courts.
originally posted by: JonjonjHowever, I think that one of the main points of your OP was whether you should provide url's for ad block software, wasn't it? That is what I mean when I say offering a way around the T&C's.
originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
You might try to read the thread again, it seems you missed my posts.
Edit: I take your comments about "playing in the thread" as an insult. The points I made are valid, you however have made no points at all.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Very good point. Who's paying for these ads? And why don't they mind if you clip out the - say - spiders?
Well, there is a big difference between a commercial site and a non-profit site. The "business model" of a non-profit site relies on contributions and voluntury work. As non-profit organisations and their volunteers are mostly deeply respected by societies, many ISP's offer free web hosting for non-profit sites, many volunteers offer free expertise etc. - Actually, part of the problem may well lie with the fact that this site is largely driven by unpaid volunteers, suggesting it is some kind of non-profit, open discussion forum, where in reality it's a (semi?)commercial organisation.
So, let's assume for now that I can and would be able to set up a "free ATS", no ads.
Suppose I'd do that - would that be ethical in your opinion?
originally posted by: Hecate666IMO advertisers are the new gods. They don't just want to chance it by plastering their annoying 'buy this' crap everywhere but now we are FORCED to actually look at it...or else. For some strange reason, there were millions of interesting websites to spent hours reading on in the early 2000 and only a handful had adverts. It was a delight, because they existed because people didn't make them to make money but because they liked doing them.
it is completely wrong to forcefully make adblock users stop their adblocking. My one is on and it stays on. If I even get banned, so be it, this isn't the only website on the net and I'll live fine without it.
originally posted by: kaylaluvNo, ATS is not a non-profit in the sense that they don't feed the homeless or provide shelter for battered women.
So they aren't offered free web hosting. You are assuming that the management of this site makes a profit off of it that they keep in their own pockets. Are you certain that is the case?
The Wikimedia Foundation is funded primarily through donations from millions of individuals around the world. The average donation is quite small, but the sheer number of donations we receive have allowed us to continue to serve our mission. We also receive donations through institutional grants and gifts (see benefactors).
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
originally posted by: ForteanOrgAlso: given that we are all virtual persons here and TTBOMK currently the Law does not provide any provisions to allow VIRTUAL entities to sign a contract or agreement, and in as far as I know I, as a physical being, have NOT really signed anything, am I bound to the T&C? I don't think so.