If you don't consume ads, please do not use any ad-supported service, that's the easiest thing to do.

No.

No.

lol no

“Consume” ads? That is a quaint 1960’s take that is long dead.

Ad companies have been tilting the agreement attention for content ever more in their favor in aggressive and privacy harming ways. They long ago broke any moral standing.

The content creators need to seek a better deal, they’re getting screwed by Google too.

I'd rather use their services and block their ads, if I'm honest.

Ad supporters talk like blocking ads is literal theft, which is absolutely laughable. It's further away from theft than piracy, which is also in no way literal theft.

If I'm watching traditional non-demand television, and I go to the bathroom or change the channel during an ad, am I stealing from the network or the show? Hell no, that's ridiculous.

Theft? Of course it's theft, if I reduce to what is happening - you're using their services for free with no compensation. That is the definition of theft.

I would agree with you it's ok if there was no way to _otherwise_ pay for the service. If they push a only ads-supported version, and I have no choice but see ads, and I don't consent to the impact of ads on my brain, it makes a case for blocking ads being ethically correct.

But since there is a choice on how to pay, I find reasoning is no longer ethically right. You can choice to pay with your attention and brain, or to pay with hard cold cash, so the argument of ads being shoved down your brain no longer holds. You can choose to not see ads and pay for the service, and you chose to steal.

And you can make the argument that stealing is ok since you steal from the bad guys, but then you don't get to complain when others may steal from you - we're all "the bad guy" for somebody else

That is not literally not the definition of theft.

No. Theft would mean they no longer have the service once I've taken it.

Me taking a copy of Shrek 2 at the local store and not paying for it is theft: the store can no longer benefit from Shrek 2.

Google can re-send the exact same bytes to someone else. All I've costed them is what it costs to send those bytes over. But then, would you consider going into a store, loitering for two hours, taking the sellers attention (therefore, costing them time that they cannot use to sell things to other customers) then leaving without buying anything theft ? Most reasonable people would say no. We'd all agree it's a dick move, but since corporations are not people, it doesn't matter.

Would you go into a restaurant, occupy a table, spend server's time to bring you only tap water, loiter for a couple of hours, and leaving without paying anything OK? if that's what you want, go to a public library.

I think the sooner we move from ads-supported models to pay-per-use like Netflix, the better we are - those that can afford will consume the best content, and the rest will stick to public domain.

Hear hear. I'm beyond tired of all these self-proclaimed hackers with their lips so far up Google's ass that they can taste what Sundar had for breakfast.

The ad industry is a scourge on humanity, and its gormless defenders are willing accomplices.