> Note that 'universalizability' requires a somewhat static analysis
Sounds very convenient. You are allowed to make one logical step (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies go bankrupt) but are not allowed to make the equally sound step of (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies will seek other revenue sources such as paywalls).
But if you say i’m not allowed to argue the second one let’s talk about the first kind.
So universal add blocking puts those companies who keep clinging to add supported operation into bankruptcy. Goodridance. It is not like one must have free-as-in-beer services to have a coherent moral compass. They go bankrupt and we will manage without them. Totally consistent.
Similarly you wouldn’t say that the idea of punishing murderers lacks ‘universability’ just because it would shut down the Assasin’s Guild.
But you seem to want to read the publications with ads...
If I extend your (unreasonable) murder analogy, I'd have to say that you were hiring the Assassin's Guild, but refusing to pay because you don't like their terms.
Sounds very convenient. You are allowed to make one logical step (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies go bankrupt) but are not allowed to make the equally sound step of (everyone blocks adds => publishing companies will seek other revenue sources such as paywalls).
But if you say i’m not allowed to argue the second one let’s talk about the first kind.
So universal add blocking puts those companies who keep clinging to add supported operation into bankruptcy. Goodridance. It is not like one must have free-as-in-beer services to have a coherent moral compass. They go bankrupt and we will manage without them. Totally consistent.
Similarly you wouldn’t say that the idea of punishing murderers lacks ‘universability’ just because it would shut down the Assasin’s Guild.