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.