Jeremy Stangroom

Third concern overrides: advertising on the net is horribly invasive.

Stating it overrides doesn't make it override. If you're using an adblocker, how do you expect content providers to get paid?

I expect them to arrive at production models that balance my needs as a consumer with their need to be paid.

And in the meantime, how do you expect them to be paid?

I don't. I expect them to be paid when they figure out the model. I think they ought to be paid. I think they ought to not be

If you don't expect content providers to be paid, then there's no inconsistency. I think I misunderstood your first tweet.

I have three ought statements I support that I can't reconcile.

is the same true if I mute commercials on tv?

It has certainly been argued that watching commercial tv, and opting out of all adverts, is ethically problematic.

is there any obligation to patronize vendors who advertise on shows I like?

can't you disagree with implementations? Ad networks are a very real threat vector

Sure, but it still means there's no way to pay content providers. If you adblock, then you deprive a site of its income...

I totally understand that, yet it doesn't outweigh my risk/convenience trade-off. Direct micropay ftw

Okay, but it means you benefit because other people are willing to bear the risk. Kant might have problems with that! :)