Do you think this is unethical?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2012, 09:22 PM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
(06-08-2012 07:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-08-2012 06:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Bullshit, I disable cookies out of principle to protect my own privacy and my machinery from maliciousness. If that interferes with your attempt to "monetize" my behavior too fucking bad. No skin off my scrotum and I don't see a damn thing unethical about it. Kinda like saying putting a "No Soliciting" sign on my front door is unethical because the door-to-door salesman are deprived of the opportunity to rip me off.

No, it's like stealing his sample case then slamming the door in his face.

No, just no. Fuckers send me unsolicited bullshit every day. They already made sure I got his sample case without me even asking for it and if fucker showed up at my door I'd probably be more interested in slamming his face in the door than slamming the door in his face. ...

well, seems like my testosterone dose has finally kicked in.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2012, 10:45 PM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
(06-08-2012 06:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(05-08-2012 11:38 PM)Thomas Wrote:  This is like the fight that left the bar into the street, went down the road to the park and into the river.

It's simply called "monitizing" a service. It's what Google does and Facebook is moving to. If you want to work around it you are stealing.

Bullshit, I disable cookies out of principle to protect my own privacy and my machinery from maliciousness. If that interferes with your attempt to "monetize" my behavior too fucking bad. No skin off my scrotum and I don't see a damn thing unethical about it. Kinda like saying putting a "No Soliciting" sign on my front door is unethical because the door-to-door salesman are deprived of the opportunity to rip me off.

Unfortunatly, its not just the cookies, its stated in plain english that you get 10 free views. So maybe you read 12 - 15 without being aware, but at some point you'll know your way past the 10. So given you know the conditions, if you break them you know your "stealing". As for monetizing your behaviour, thats not what theyre doing they distributing product, and charging you for its use you as the consumer get to choose if your money is well spent on their product. Lastly its not at all like putting up a no soliciting sign, you have to visit there site theyre not spamming you. What it is like is you going to the supermarket taking a piece of freebie cheese, then taking a block of cheese from the display and pretending that because you gotta eat they can go fuck themselves for trying to make money of your needs. Just doesnt wash.

First post of yours Ive read, thats flat out ignorant, and obviously crap. Still everyone has off days I guess.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Humakt's post
06-08-2012, 11:14 PM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
(06-08-2012 10:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  First post of yours Ive read, thats flat out ignorant, and obviously crap. Still everyone has off days I guess.

You must be new.

(06-08-2012 10:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(06-08-2012 06:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Bullshit, I disable cookies out of principle to protect my own privacy and my machinery from maliciousness. If that interferes with your attempt to "monetize" my behavior too fucking bad. No skin off my scrotum and I don't see a damn thing unethical about it. Kinda like saying putting a "No Soliciting" sign on my front door is unethical because the door-to-door salesman are deprived of the opportunity to rip me off.

Unfortunatly, its not just the cookies, its stated in plain english that you get 10 free views. So maybe you read 12 - 15 without being aware, but at some point you'll know your way past the 10. So given you know the conditions, if you break them you know your "stealing". As for monetizing your behaviour, thats not what theyre doing they distributing product, and charging you for its use you as the consumer get to choose if your money is well spent on their product. Lastly its not at all like putting up a no soliciting sign, you have to visit there site theyre not spamming you. What it is like is you going to the supermarket taking a piece of freebie cheese, then taking a block of cheese from the display and pretending that because you gotta eat they can go fuck themselves for trying to make money of your needs. Just doesnt wash.

Bullshit again, I've never even seen that page you're talking about. It's just hearsay as far as I'm concerned. Everyone of my landings at the NY Times has been indirectly as a result of someone else's link. If fucker had permission to link, I got permission to click.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2012, 11:39 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2012 11:45 PM by Humakt.)
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
(06-08-2012 11:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(06-08-2012 10:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  First post of yours Ive read, thats flat out ignorant, and obviously crap. Still everyone has off days I guess.

You must be new.

(06-08-2012 10:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Unfortunatly, its not just the cookies, its stated in plain english that you get 10 free views. So maybe you read 12 - 15 without being aware, but at some point you'll know your way past the 10. So given you know the conditions, if you break them you know your "stealing". As for monetizing your behaviour, thats not what theyre doing they distributing product, and charging you for its use you as the consumer get to choose if your money is well spent on their product. Lastly its not at all like putting up a no soliciting sign, you have to visit there site theyre not spamming you. What it is like is you going to the supermarket taking a piece of freebie cheese, then taking a block of cheese from the display and pretending that because you gotta eat they can go fuck themselves for trying to make money of your needs. Just doesnt wash.

Bullshit again, I've never even seen that page you're talking about. It's just hearsay as far as I'm concerned. Everyone of my landings at the NY Times has been indirectly as a result of someone else's link. If fucker had permission to link, I got permission to click.

Relativly, new. But objectivly, old and past it.

The premis for this thread is layed out by the OP, in the first post of this thread. ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid126805 ) In that post it quite clearly states that its 10 free reads then pay. Its also, stated thats its a site the subject visits and is aware of the terms and conditions. So if my point is bullshit, you must be talking about something unrelated to this thread, in which case I apologise for being on topic and hope you'll forgive me for assuming you where talking about the topic and not just raving about somehing random. My bad, moving on.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 05:05 AM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
Read my rants on this, please. I love to rant on shit like this, but I hate to repeat myself over and over again. Just browse a bit back into history of this nice thread...

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
07-08-2012, 01:28 PM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
(07-08-2012 05:05 AM)Filox Wrote:  Read my rants on this, please. I love to rant on shit like this, but I hate to repeat myself over and over again. Just browse a bit back into history of this nice thread...

Smile

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid126844

Here youve either misread or are willfully misdirecting, you ask what the question is and then reframe the debate and answer your own redirect. The question is:

The question is, is Y acting unethically? To put it bluntly, is he stealing from X? A related question is, what would you do if you were in Y's position? And did you have to think about your decision and weigh various factors, or was it immediately clear to you, i.e. a no-brainer?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid126885

Dont agree, using cookies is not unethical, nor are they pushing cookies into your nachine, there is no indication that the site uses malware to use cookies in way except in the way there are intended to be used. Also, as the site states in plain english you get 10 free views the issue of cookies is an abstraction. If you know, you get views free, you know that reading 11 without paying is not kosher. Weather you have a cookie or not, the question is simple - the subject knows the conditions, he knowingly transgresses them is that unethical all the abstraction and debate on related topics wont change the question.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid127576

And cake.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid127596

Interesting, practical, but the topic of debate.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid129779

Not an issue, if you have an ethical standard which yu transgress you need no evidence presented to you, you already know.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid130221

In this post you ask to show where "you" would know. The OP's first post clearly cites the object of discussion is subject Y. Subject Y, has read and is aware of the conditionals placed on him. Your ignorance of the conditions are not the subject of debate here. It is not would you be unethical, it is would he be being unethical.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid130239

Again, not the issue. This isnt about the legality of your actions, its about the ethicality of subject Y's actions. As hes aware of the condition he knowingly breaks them, regardless of what a legal case could practically prove, subject Y knows hes acting unethically.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid130531

The example you cite of drawing multiple newspapers is a good one, not one that would occur to me we dont have that type of dispensor in Britain, we'd steal, set fire to or urinate on them in pretty short order. This again however only asserts that youd behave ethically and doesnt address weather subject Y, acts unethically. Although your stance in this post would seem at least to me to suggest that you find his behaviour unethical - I dont wanna put words in your mouth however so I'll leave it as an assuption.

For the sake of arguement, lets try this:

Subject Y has a girlfriend, they have a normal sexual relationship. She dumps him and goes on the game. Subject Y, resents having to pay for what he once got for free. Subject Y also happens to be a locksmith and resents the infringement that locks represent to his freedom of movement. He pick he former girlfriends lock and rapes her. Is subject Y being unethical, does his ex girlfriends illegal activity negate her right to not be raped, what would you do in the same circumstances, do you need to think about it or is it a no brainer?

PS. Hitler Smile

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 01:43 PM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
It comes down to whether you feel comfortable nicking stuff Smile I'd deffo feel comfortable sneaking a looksie at some article somewhere, 'specially if I knew they'd put such pansy protection in place, especially if I knew they were *preemptively* assuming a. that I would look at more than 10 if they asked me not to, and b. that I was stupid enough to not figure out that clearing the cookie would circumvent it.

Since according to Filox whom I trust for all things tech, placing a cookie without my permission is unfriendly behaviour, screw them. Those suckers are going down. Assuming I ever want to read 11 articles of theirs. Which I doubt will ever happen. But if it does, I will cackle madly as I empty my cache.

*I* think that instead they should place the cookie, but only pop up an unobtrusive *reminder* that you've gone over ten if you look at more articles. I think in that case, if they do the PR right, explaining why the reminder is there, that they think it's fair if you pay after reading ten articles, many more people will pay and will *not* resent them, because the company is then demonstrating that they trust them.

That whole little rant sure as hell doesn't mean I approve of raping people... the two situations are not equivalent IMO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 01:56 PM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
OK, I found your reply.

Yeah, Hitler.

Tongue

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 02:08 PM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
(06-08-2012 11:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(06-08-2012 10:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  First post of yours Ive read, thats flat out ignorant, and obviously crap. Still everyone has off days I guess.

You must be new.

(06-08-2012 10:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Unfortunatly, its not just the cookies, its stated in plain english that you get 10 free views. So maybe you read 12 - 15 without being aware, but at some point you'll know your way past the 10. So given you know the conditions, if you break them you know your "stealing". As for monetizing your behaviour, thats not what theyre doing they distributing product, and charging you for its use you as the consumer get to choose if your money is well spent on their product. Lastly its not at all like putting up a no soliciting sign, you have to visit there site theyre not spamming you. What it is like is you going to the supermarket taking a piece of freebie cheese, then taking a block of cheese from the display and pretending that because you gotta eat they can go fuck themselves for trying to make money of your needs. Just doesnt wash.

Bullshit again, I've never even seen that page you're talking about. It's just hearsay as far as I'm concerned. Everyone of my landings at the NY Times has been indirectly as a result of someone else's link. If fucker had permission to link, I got permission to click.

OK, that sounds like a good point.Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 02:21 PM
RE: Do you think this is unethical?
(07-08-2012 01:43 PM)morondog Wrote:  That whole little rant sure as hell doesn't mean I approve of raping people... the two situations are not equivalent IMO.

Its a matter of degrees, thefts wrong, rapes more wrong. Its just not as easy to say yeah rape that whore and sound cool. Although many of the arguements presented here could be equally applied to justifing this rape, if its ok to steal because they immorally of using a basic feature of your browser is unethical, which of course it isnt, why isnt raping the whore who is actually breaking the law more justifiable. Is it a fact that for them to use cookies is a crime, well no its not, has it been used be people here that there unethical behaviour justifies there theft, yes it has. Is the prostitute breaking the law, definativly yes, (apologies to dutch, Im gonna skip over you for the sake of brevity, but concede Id need to modify my arguement for you) does the fact that she is breaking the law make raping her justified. The arguement here is not me saying yeah rape that bitch, but asking does illegality by one party validate criminality towards them. The obvious and correct answer is no it doesnt, try the he started it line on a Judge see how far it gets you. Of course, like you say it depends on weather you think theft is wrong.

But, as I keep saying, the question is not about you, the question is about subject Y.

Also, the 2 situations are directly analogous, the only difference in both cases is rape with theft, locksmith for tech savvy. The basic question is unchanged, the 2nd example just stops you and others being flippant.

Oh yeah and Hitler.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: