Freeloading?

For example, I don't use an ad blocker because I think pushing sites to switch to paywalls makes the web worse,

After reading the linked article, I got an impression that you see the quality of online content as constant. Like, depending on the way it is financed, there may be more or less of the content produced, but it would be the same kind of content. The only difference is that more is better.

I believe that the way the content is financed has a big impact on what is produced. The ads reward both good content and bad content, but they reward the bad content more. Both bad as in "toxoplasma of rage", and bad as in "boring text, exciting headline (sometimes contradicting the text)".

If one day someone creates a news website with a business model "headlines written by humans, text generated by GPT-3", such website would be unprofitable behind a paywall, but might be quite profitable with ads, if the admins are good at SEO.

Ten years ago, I had a small blog and I experimented with Google Adsense. It was depressing for me to see that the stupidest articles made more money. Well, relatively more; like 10 cents for a stupid article, versus 1 cent for a smart one. My most profitable article was a review of some movie in TV that I wrote so drunk that I even got names of half of the characters wrong. Made about as much money as all the programming tutorials I ever wrote combined.

That was when I realized that I had basically two options: (1) write the kind of content I can be okay with, and get paid 1 cent per article, so I might as well do it for free, or (2) start following the incentives and become the very thing I hate, but potentially make a decent profit. The winning strategy is to have a good SEO (i.e. keep redesigning the HTML code following Google's latest whims), use the popular keywords, write clickbait headlines (preferably multiple alternatives, and do the A/B testing), and don't think about it too much, just write a lot as fast as possible. Add some nice pictures, so the article looks nice when shared on social networks. Become friends with the right people and hyperlink each other's articles. Etc. So I have removed the ads and abandoned the idea of making money by writing stuff online. I didn't like the direction it was pushing me.

There are options other than either ads or everything behind a paywall. There is the freemium model used by Substack (get some content for free, pay for the rest); there is also Patreon; or selling merchandise or selling with referral links. On the other hand, there is now so much adsense-stuffed content produced that if you don't sacrifice to Moloch, you don't have a chance. During the time you write an article, some guy working at a clickbait factory will write hundreds; at the end of the day, he will get the minimum wage, you - nothing.

Is the ordering intended to reflect your personal opinions, or the opinions of people around you/society as a whole, or some objective view? Because I'm having a hard time correlating the order to anything in my wold model.

I feel like there's a category difference for business models where they expect everyone to act in a certain way, but make money from the exceptions.

Ads is one example. Publishers and advertisers know that the vast majority of people won't click on any particular ad, so not clicking on an ad doesn't seem like freeloading to me. However installing an ad blocker so that you don't even see the ads, or seeing a product advertised that you want and going to their website directly without clicking on the ad both feel much more like freeloading.

The implicit contract with the reader isn't "click ads", I think it's more like, "see the ads and click if one is relevant and timely". You aren't breaking the contract if you don't click on an irrelevant ad. You are breaking it if you never even see the ads.

See also: freemium software.

One thing I think makes a big difference to me is whether I feel like the provider is taking a collaborative or adversarial stance.

1. I don't usually skip ads on Youtube content but if the channel is often clickbaity/misrepresenting content then I will
2. The printer/ink thing feels very out to get me. The alternative model of printer subscription (e.g. hp) feels alot more collaborative so I don't feel the need to ensure that every page I print is as filled with ink as possible so as to get the "best" deal.
3. If the premium charged on foods in an amusement park/movie theatre feels excessive then I will feel less bad about eating my own food.

Relevent xkcd.

Interesting exercise. This made me think long and hard - maybe too long. I would order the list somewhat differently, and I wonder what other people's orderings are. Here is mine:

Things where there exists a clear legal rule against the activity that was arrived by a lawful process (even if many people remain unhappy with it or if it is not effectively enforceable):

• Using paywall circumvention software.
• Using GNU Parallel [in derived software] without citing it.
• Independently decrypting cable or satellite TV.

Things that assume people are nice to reduce cost and benefit from it 

• Taking free newspapers to use in craft projects or for heating your house.
• Accepting a swag t-shirt to get cotton to use for papermaking.
• Going to a store without any intention of buying something, just to eat the free samples.
• Interviewing somewhere you would definitely not want to work, just for the practice.
• Running an ad blocker on your computer.

The category I was thinking about the longest - on and off since this was posted, which led to this response taking so long. 

• Bringing outside food into a movie theater or amusement park.

I think most countries have laws that allow a host to make rules for their property and expel people not complying with them. My intuition gives mixed results. On the one hand, there is a clear law and custom. Thus I should place this in the top category. On the other hand, the scope this applies to seems to be much larger than it used to be. Whole amusement parks are now private property. My intuition says that places that look and feel like public places - parks, places where many people gather - should follow rules for public places. Thus I wouldn't bring food to a movie theater or restaurant and follow stricter rules in a hotel but would bring food to an amusement part or concert.  

Things that are voluntary and no negative externality results from it

• Fixing bugs in open source software without contributing your fixes back upstream.
• Listening to NPR without contributing, when you could afford to.
• Using Wikipedia without fixing errors you find.
• Stopping to watch a street performer or listen to busker without paying.

Driven by commercial incentives

• Accompanying friends to a restaurant and only ordering water.
• Reading ad supported stuff but never buying anything from the ads.
• Fast-forwarding through sponsored sections on YouTube or a podcast.
• Buying PS3 consoles and building a supercomputer.
• Buying a cheap printer and using third-party ink.
• Using a web browser but changing the default search engine.
• Leaving an amusement park for lunch.

I'd certainly nitpick the ranking, but they all fall into the general pattern of "harmless and possibly beneficial if rare, harmless if universal".  It's related to the fundamental problem of business - average cost is generally much lower than marginal cost for a producer, and relative value to buyers differs greatly by very-hard-to-observe criteria, so maximizing profit means some form of price discrimination, where people pay different amounts - you need to sell enough expensive stuff to pay for fixed costs and get started, but then you want to get a little bit more for the cheap stuff you've already paid for.  And you don't care if you give some away for free in pursuit of that little extra, as long as it doesn't cut into your high-paying customers.

At its root, this conundrum is a tension between the intuition that everyone is equal and fungible, and anything OK for one person to do, is OK for everyone to do, versus the fact that different instances of the "same" thing have different costs to provide, and different consumers have different ability and willingness to pay.  

Once you notice this, you'll see it everywhere.  I'd change your "price discrimination" estimate from "there's also some amount of" to "most of this is explainable by".

1. Most or all of these vary by culture. In some places, it is expected that everyone will bring a non-dining friend to dinner, or not contribute to a wiki.

2. Things exist because of reasons. In a counterfactual world where everyone did X, maybe Y wouldn't exist, but in reality very few people do X - usually because doing X is culturally frowned on, or requires more cash, brains, or neurodivergences than 67% of everyone.

I think there is a somewhat meaningful distinction whether the provider hopes or expects for it to be worthwhile.

I was a bit baffled by "Accompanying friends to a restaurant and only ordering water." Is this supposed to freeload on the friends or the restoraunt. If you are paying your food its not like you are burdening your friends. And if the eating friends went without you the extra seat would not really be usable by unrelated customers. And presumably you are making the meal more fun for your friends enabling the restaurant to provide a better value proposition. Is it because they give away the water for free instead of charging tap prices for it? Should we add "breathing oxygen" in that freeloading list too?

The movie theather bit is also super contingent how the theather is being run. If they forbid outside food its bad, but if they allow outside food then they are in the entertainment business only and not even partially in food business.

Bringing outside food into a movie theater or amusement park.

Eating your lunch immediately before going to the movie theater?

Bringing outside food into a movie theater or amusement park.

Don't they make enough money off the ticket to be profitable?