In a recent note, David Woolley said: > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:35:24 +0000 (GMT) > > Most pages one accesses are there either to directly sell you something, or > to advertise. People do not run ftp sites purely for your benefit. There > comes a point where the honest thing to do is to not access commercially > run pages at all. > Consumer ethics. Where does one draw the line?
o I don't go into a store and ask a salesman for a demo of something I intend to mail-order at a lower price. o I do videotape programs when I'm not home, and watch them later, fast-forwarding past the commercials. o I disable images when I use graphical browsers, and generally use Lynx which doesn't show me the ads. o If a site asks for an E-mail address, but doesn't enforce it, is it ethical to barge in without supplying one? o If an FTP site asks for an E-mail address in the connection protocol, is it ethical for a browser author to conceal the message? o If a site requires an E-mail address but doesn't verify it, is it ethical to supply a bogus address? o Are users of browsers which don't supply E-mail addresses freeloading at the expense of users of browsers such as Lynx which do? Are Lynx users ethically required to support these freeloaders? Are users of other browsers unethical, possibly unknowingly? o Since, as you say, most web sites nowadays exist not to serve the public but to exploit a prospective customer base, does the public have any ethical obligation whatever to the site "providers"? Somehow, I feel there's a poetic justice, when asked for an E-mail address, in supplying "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
