michael_nielsen

6/ Topic doesn't seem amenable to clear rules, as far as I can see.

@patrickc I'm not sure there is a line. Content providers don't have a right to my undivided attention.

@michael_nielsen Is there even a framework for expressing approximate degrees of immorality?

@michael_nielsen (Implicit argument made for yes: https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/644680131739435008 ….)

@patrickc So "Ad blocking means the people whose content you read make less money than if you don't use an ad blocker".

@michael_nielsen So, yes, but I think that falls short of moral imperative. Deciding to not subscribe also costs publisher money.

@patrickc That's an unreasonable imposition on individual freedom. Consumers have no responsibility to make s'one else's business model work

@michael_nielsen Right, exactly. And yet it feels like there is indeed *some* moral consequence/substance to these actions...