> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding

While it would be a convenient reality, the people on HN are not even close to representative of the general population, and you can't generalize their tendencies. How many Kagi and Fastmail users are there compared to Google and Microsoft? Look at Google Play reviews for apps that front paid services: even for astonishingly cheap ones, a considerable percentage essentially say "not free: uninstalled! Those conniving bastards!"

And if you're willing to pay for services instead of using ad-supported platforms, you must pay all of your music and other content, then? You don't even have to stomach the DRM from Apple Music, Amazon, e-reader platforms, et al with music shops, book stores, movie theaters, Bandcamp, Patreon, Substack -- there are so many services through which you can exercise your principles and pay for content directly.

It's pretty common for the tech crowd to wag their finger at people who feel entitled to free commercial software and services (e.g. Kagi, Fastmail,) yet do the same exact thing with arts and entertainment. Getting access to content on ad-supported services isn't your right. There are alternatives.

I'm not saying you must uninstall your ad blocker-- there are many unavoidable and essential things-- e.g., things for work-- that contain ads even when they really shouldn't. But you can't just assume that since you pay for some stuff, then everybody else is paying for some stuff, and since the distributors are real jerks, you have ethical carte blanche to take people's work without any payment. Creators don't have a choice to use these systems because people won't pay (directly) for things.

I am quite sure I do not have the ethical card in any of these discussions. I also pay way less than the combined sum of the value I receive from the internet.

But there is a marketplace. And the content of YouTube is not worth the price of YouTubes premium offerings because they embed ads. Ie. I pay to remove YouTube's ads, but not video sponsorships.

That would be like paying for Kagi and still only be presented SEO-optimized worthless content – I pay for Kagi because I feel like they can filter away that content much better than Google.

I am saying that a product you pay for is not the same as an ad-supported product. It is not just about stripping the product of ads after the user has paid.

So everybody not willing to pay for a Gmail offering without ads, I completely understand them.

> I am quite sure I do not have the ethical card in any of these discussions.

Realizing that you’re doing something unethical is philosophically better than denying the obvious. However, as a commercial artist, I’m not really interested in any gussied-up justification beyond that statement.

as a commercial artist you should not tinker in ethics but try to sell and make some. money staying within the law.

tbh,i hate moralization over what I decide to consume. If I should consume less travel for the sake of the environment, make it more expensive by taxing it.

if you want to earn more money as a commercial artist, don't morally trip me into something I am not legally obligated to (watching ads), but deliver a product that is more valuable.

I actually make plenty of money as a very technical commercial artist coming from a dev background, but thanks for your condescending and presumptuous concern. Believe it or not, I actually care enough about people who aren’t even me to point out when people are doing something materially unfair just because they can. If you hate people commenting on your admittedly unethical behavior, you might consider not publicly discussing it.

Your opinion represents everything that stops progress: The idea that we can use moral instead of sane legislation.

I never said I was morally wrong. I merely said that I did not have a moral upper hand. I think I am morally indifferent.

> you must pay all of your music and other content, then

I do in fact pay for my music. I do in fact have news paper subscriptions. I don't think you got my point: I don't both want to pay for my cake on not eat it.

If I pay for content, it should not have sponsorships.

But then again, I did not grow up with paying for satellite TV while also being fed ads 20% of the time watching shows riddled with product placement. In Denmark we have proper public service offerings (that people pay for). In Denmark indie artists regularly receive grants to work on their art.

On the point of supporting artists, by virtue of being a European, I probably have the moral upper hand.

Where did I say these ideas shouldn’t be legislated?

You can’t be “morally indifferent” if you’re engaging in activities that aren’t morally neutral. You’re just being indifferent to the fact that your actions aren’t moral. This isn’t complicated.

Your paying something to someone else doesn’t absolve you from not paying someone.

People generally see themselves as good people, and they use who they are, and other things they do to justify wrongdoing. This is a great example of that.

PS: I also specifically noted that I wasn’t suggesting getting rid of your ad blocker. I think the ad-driven surveillance capitalism model is a scourge on humanity, and I hope, for your sake, that you never have to see another ad, or be tracked by some creepy spy network ever again. But you, like many other people in tech, conveniently ignore the practically limitless sources of entertainment you can pay for directly and use your distaste of ad-driven platforms to not pay artists at all. And then, people usually talk about it like is some kind of activism rather than pure entitlement. Is especially great when people cite how poorly those platforms pay artists to justify not paying artists at all. lol

I live in a country where more than 80% of my salary goes to redistribution. That redistribution also finances artists through grants, education.

I do not believe in your rather narrow sighted way of thinking about how one pays for the artists - that is has to be private, directly for the service, and on commercial terms.

Especially since "me and many people in tech" has probably supported artists way more than you ever will by watching a Sneakers ad.

I don’t think those payments should be private either, but they are. You can’t stop paying people because you think they should be publicly paid, if they’re not going to be publicly paid instead. And unless the content you consume is all made by artists that live under that system, what your system does is irrelevant. As convenient as it would be for our circumstances or identities to relieve us from our duty to deal fairly with other people, it doesn’t. In fact, it’s the first defense we reflexively cite when justifying something we do wrong.

The fact that you’re using your residence in a country with more humane economic policy as justification for treating people with the exact opposite principles exemplifies that.

Stop the mental gymnastics. You feel entitled to people’s art, and your self-image of being a good person with the right political ideals absolves you from what you consider to be a minor indiscretion in simply taking it. You’re wrong.

I actually don't mind ads. They're fine. The classified section of newspapers used to fund journalism in the US. Someone's got to pay Clark Kent, after all.

What I do mind is algorithmic targeting. On the ad serving front, it funds an entire industry that does nothing but violate people's basic human right to privacy. On the personalized recommendation front, it provides a strong incentive for publishers to produce click-bait.

There's one commercially viable corner of the internet that hasn't been ruined by this: Podcasts.

Spotify is trying to ruin that too. Screw them.

Also, if you're looking for a decent music service, consider something privacy preserving like Apple Music, or (better) something that uses metadata-based targeting, like Tidal.

I find most of my music by following hyperlinks in album / band reviews that were written by actual humans. There's a button for that in Tidal. I've heard Amazon Music has such a button as well. I've also found listening to high-quality (local) radio stations with good DJ's is a goldmine, as are music podcasts.

I've also found that non-tailored recommendations (people who like album X like album Y, grouping of opening acts with bands, and, when done right, old-fashioned display ads) also provide a decent signal, since they're typically curated or use the things I just mentioned as signal (instead of using your cookware preferences, or sexual orientation, or whatever).

In addition to being the ethical alternative, it turns out that having bands and critics list things that influenced an album or were influenced by an album is a much better way to explore the space of modern music than via payola with a dollop of high-dimensional clustering.

So, in addition to the ad blocker, I'm not paying for anything that tries to spoon-feed me payola or clickbait.

> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding... That said: I am never going to pay for YouTube... I am going to keep on my ad-blocker.

So let me get this straight: you proudly claim that you pay for services which provide you value. But you don't think its hypocritical that you use YouTube with an ad-blocker and avoid paying for the subscription?

If you keep going back and using it, then it IS providing you with value. You might argue that the value is very small, but it's also not a big inconvenience to watch a few ads. You're still consuming content without contributing anything back.