Ethics in Business and Consumers

**malahverdian** · 07-20-2007 11:53 AM

So last night a friend and I got into a heated debate around 2 a.m. and lasted almost till 5 a.m. and I was just wondering some other people's perspectives on the issue ( we are both web developers as well )...

GreaseMonkey ( a FireFox Extension ) has a plug-in which allows you to strip the advertisements off of MySpace and FaceBook... now we both agree that this is innovative and does get rid of the annoying Flash ads... I mentioned to him that I have an issue with the software...

When you sign up for and use Myspace, you agree to their Terms of Service(ToS), and in exhange for their free service are served ads with each page. Now the ads still get served and then get stripped client side, so the advertiser is still charged for the impressions that are never displayed.

His arguments included that although he agreed to the ToS, he thought that MySpace was "abusing their power" by showing too many distracting ads, and that he should be able to ignore "unfair" parts of a ToS, or even a contract if he deemed particular pieces unfair. His argument was that he was never going to click an ad anyways. I basically told him that if he was unhappy with MySpace's amount of ads, concern for profit, or site in general, then he could move to another social networking site... or better yet make his own without ads, he seemed to think that MySpace was a right, instead of a privilege, because it had control over aspects of his social life.

Long story short, is it wrong to strip the ads from FaceBook, or MySpace, when they are providing you with a free service and charging an advertiser instead of you?

**malahverdian** · 07-20-2007 01:32 PM

Woo spam bump

**radreality** · 07-20-2007 10:17 PM

when you agree to myspace's TOS you are agreeing not to alter ads in any way.

Whether you are alter copyrighted material through the profile editor or through your web browser, you are still altering copyrighted material.

I wouldn't use the word unethical, I would use illegal.

______________________________
Robert Falk
Business Developer / Investor
Self Help & Success Forum

**rpendery2006** · 07-21-2007 01:02 AM

I agree with you, I think its myspace's decision and shouldn't be messed with. Not fair to advertisers...

**akula** · 07-21-2007 02:55 AM

http://adblockplus.org/blog/ethics-of-blocking-ads
http://adblockplus.org/blog/ethics-o...ing-ads-part-2
http://adblockplus.org/blog/ethics-o...ing-ads-part-3

**radreality** · 07-21-2007 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by akula

Adblock Plus and (a little) more: Ethics of blocking ads
Adblock Plus and (a little) more: Ethics of blocking ads - Part 2
Adblock Plus and (a little) more: Ethics of blocking ads - Part 3

horrible example of an argument. They are trying to promote a product, of course they are going to support the side that their product is on

You're a smart guy akula, you should know better than that.

______________________________
Robert Falk
Business Developer / Investor
Self Help & Success Forum

**Kendra Jane Fashions** · 07-21-2007 11:23 AM

It's as illegal as painting over a company's billboard.

I don't think the fact of the matter is that ads are annoying - I think a consumer (website visitor) hates seeing the junk/spam ads. How many people actually click on "free ringtone" or "this is really scary!" ads in 2007? I'm willing to bet VERY few.

If these ads had any relevance whatsoever, I think consumers (web visitors) would be much more receptive to advertising.

Wouldn't you think that MySpace has enough sales reach and enough traffic that they could get better, more relevant advertisers? A company can still choose to do business or not to do business with anyone, correct?

**Kendra Jane Fashions** · 07-21-2007 11:27 AM

Also...I do believe some of MySpace's ads really do work. The one that sticks out in my mind is when they run an ad for a movie coming out that week. I don't watch a lot of TV, so seeing that ad is the sole reason I have gone to see at least 3 movies this year.

**Xanifur** · 07-21-2007 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by radreality

I wouldn't use the word unethical, I would use illegal.

Illegal, are you joking? They can't sue you or throw you in prison. It Breaks the ToS meaning they have the right to stop you from using their service... that's it.

I wouldn't give 2 craps is MySpace banned my account.

**radreality** · 07-21-2007 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Xanifur

Illegal, are you joking? They can't sue you or throw you in prison. It Breaks the ToS meaning they have the right to stop you from using their service... that's it.

I wouldn't give 2 craps is MySpace banned my account.

its called copyrighted material. I clearly stated that.

Look at all the lawsuits myspace has pursued for violations of their TOS, and have won.

Most companies won't pursue you for violating their TOS because its not worth it, but technically they are able to.

______________________________
Robert Falk
Business Developer / Investor
Self Help & Success Forum

**Xanifur** · 07-21-2007 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by radreality

Most companies won't pursue you for violating their TOS because its not worth it, but technically they are able to.

I see, but it won't be worth MySpace's time to go after teens for blocking an ad, it just isn't logical financially.

**radreality** · 07-21-2007 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Xanifur

I see, but it won't be worth MySpace's time to go after teens for blocking an ad, it just isn't logical financially.

I agree. I wouldn't be worried about getting sued for doing something like this. I just stated that I would use the word illegal instead of the word unethical.

Plus, they wouldn't go after the individual who uses software to block ads, they will go after those that create the software.

______________________________
Robert Falk
Business Developer / Investor
Self Help & Success Forum