| ▲ | _Algernon_ 2 days ago |
| Stealing a physical thing = the previous owner can't use it. Copying a thing or accessing a platform = the previous owner can still use or sell it. Even if you consider it unethical access, the comparison to stealing really misses the mark. |
|
| ▲ | jpadkins 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| ok, call it theft of services. You used the service but blocked how the creator makes money on the service. Is it really different from someone who runs out of a barber or restaurant? |
| |
| ▲ | ehnto 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, the restaurant is not tracking me across the city, and it does not contain malware (although I guess you could get food poisoning). It would be amorale if these services were not exploiting everyone they can, including the creators. The better analogy would be, is it okay to walk out on a barber who is spying on your phone, coughing in your face, and won't stop trying to convince you to buy his buddies shampoo or vote for their political party. | |
| ▲ | snapcaster 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | yes, the barber doesn't wield enormous power over society duh | |
| ▲ | fragilerock 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | the restaurant spends resources (both physical and human) cooking and serving you the meal, likewise for the barber. a better example would be showing up late for a cinema showing so that you deliberately avoid watching the adverts and trailers... which i would guess most people would agree is morally fine? | | |
| ▲ | jpadkins 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The more direct cinema example would be sneaking into the theater and there were empty seats (so you did not deny anyone else access to the movie). Is that morally fine? You watched the movie, the creator doesn't get paid. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > the comparison to stealing really misses the mark I know this always triggers a hard-coded response based on regex, but the comparison doesn't rely on the specifics of stealing, so it's not a valid criticism. The logic is: people offer things in exchange for a price. You can take the things in exchange for the price, or you can leave the things. You shouldn't take the things without paying the price. |
| |
| ▲ | gessha 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I make a GET request and I get a response back. It’s the server’s choice/logic how to respond. What I do with the string response is my own business. | |
| ▲ | snapcaster 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why? I truly believe I have no moral obligation to any of these entities and I see them as amoral organizations _at best_ who can't possibly reciprocate | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Can you tell me the moral difference between that and saying that you don't believe you have a moral obligation to Porsche dealerships? | | |
| ▲ | snapcaster 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Porsche dealerships aren't trying to brainwash me. I see advertising companies as an adversary and I don't owe enemies anything | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 days ago | parent [-] | | But it's not the advertising company you're denying revenue from. It's the website you're visiting, who've chosen to pay for the content you're happy to take via advertising. | | |
| |
| ▲ | fragmede 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You do! In fact, I have a boxter and a 911, and I'm about to take out a mortgage for a Carerra GT. Why aren't you doing your part!? Are you gasp poor, or worse, lazy??? Am I going to have to report you to DepHomeSec? | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, I can't figure out what point you're trying to make. Can you speak plainly? |
|
|
|
|
