> somebody pays for somebody else to show me ads is useful to all of them, but it certainly isn't useful to me...
presumably the ads being shown has subsidized the usage of the app that you're using for free. So i dont think it's not useful to you - it might be an annoyance, but you've made the trade to use the app for free (or for a lower cost than it otherwise wouldve been).
> They're doing morally dubious
and different people ascribe different moralities. I dont think there can be one universal, objective, moral standard to which you can use to compare actions.
This is why i use the legal standard - at least it's an objective standard that the majority of people agree.
>presumably the ads being shown has subsidized the usage of the app that you're using for free
That's not how it works. Ads increase sales, every ad impression of yours is not an ad impression for your competitor, every ad impression makes you more familiar with the advertised - and there are other factors, I'm sure. But ads don't subsidize shit. I'm sure it seems like that in some products, but if that would be universal, cable TV, online news, and a lot of other stuff would be free. But what ends up being is that people buy things AND watch the ads. A lot of times the incentives are aligned in a way that this makes the most business sense, not lowering the price of the product.
People have different moralities, for sure, but that doesn't mean you have to pick the legal standard to break the tie. That's like.. not having any opinions of your own? The legal standard is pretty much unrelated to morality, anyway. The complaint here is anyway at an entirely different level: the level of virtue, of what a person _ought_ to do, rather than _should be allowed_ to do, which is significantly broader.
The point of griping about this author's morality is: people have different moralities, and this one in particular sucks, so if you're reading this, hopefully you noticed that.
The ad subsidized something, against my will. How can that be framed as some kind of "transaction"? Sure, if I can choose to direct or avert my attention to ads, like, using an app with ads. But in other less consensual cases it's difficult to make the case that ads are always a positive sum game.
You choose to use the app, not against your will, the app having ads is the consequence of you not paying for it, you make a transaction to be able to use the app you will see ads.
Ads are annoying but people wont buy subscriptions or microtransact for infomation, they wont pay for software either, if there was an alternative it would be running by now.
presumably the ads being shown has subsidized the usage of the app that you're using for free. So i dont think it's not useful to you - it might be an annoyance, but you've made the trade to use the app for free (or for a lower cost than it otherwise wouldve been).
> They're doing morally dubious
and different people ascribe different moralities. I dont think there can be one universal, objective, moral standard to which you can use to compare actions.
This is why i use the legal standard - at least it's an objective standard that the majority of people agree.