Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are falsely comparing food necessary to live with a website article.Don't forget that in the OT farmers were commanded to leave the edges of their fields for the poor. When people are denied access to things that others take for granted, it's wrong to judge them for wanting a slice of what someone else has an overabundance of. You can call their actions immoral if you want to, but I would be more apt to judge the system that creates them, than the person who's simply a consequence of it.
Your truck is not with society, it is with reality, money, scarcity, etc. And your Marxist alternative doesn't make everything affordable; it only destroys society.That's one of my pet peeves with society. It divides people between those who have the ability to pay, and those who don't.
There is a grey area, and I don't feel competent to draw where the line is. I have noticed instances where the AI has 'quoted' nearly word for word, entire sentences. At the same time, obviously, I do quote word for word entire sentences, but I restrict myself to whatever I feel is 'fair use' rather than the entire article. The rules here require:Is that ethical, to then post the summaries, if I use my library card instead of the paywall blocker as my library gives me free access to these news sites?
I very much appreciate your willingness to adjust your behavior based on feedback from other posters here.You guys have made me decide to deactivate my paywall bypass software today, as both groups of people (Christians and atheists) have said the same thing, that paywall blockers are unethical.
Thank you. From now on, I will use my library card to access news sites the ethical way, and will no longer give summaries of sites blocked by paywalls, as folks should be using their library cards to access this information. I will still give summaries of articles posted by the Guardian (donation model), New York Post (as it has no paywalls, though the news there is skewed), NPR (donation model), BBC (ad supported) and any other paper that has open-access information.Okay, well good for you, that is impressive.I will try to keep an eye out for your post.
You are falsely comparing food necessary to live with a website article.
Yeah, we call it "buying."Perhaps you missed the part about all men being created equal, because you seem to assume that money can change that. That due to your economic status you have the right to things that others don't.
Thank you. And yeah, AI can sometimes quote stuff nearly word for word, according to CNBC and Wikipedia. From CNBC and Wikipedia, both sources say that AI can inadvertently copy 8-44% of texts from books, so if that is the case, AI could infringe rights on articles as well. Mixtral can inadvertently copy 22% of book material. The AI that I use is Mistral 7B, which is not Mixtral, though as both are made by the same company named Mistral. So, I am betting that Mistral 7B also infringes >20% as well.There is a grey area, and I don't feel competent to draw where the line is. I have noticed instances where the AI has 'quoted' nearly word for word, entire sentences. At the same time, obviously, I do quote word for word entire sentences, but I restrict myself to whatever I feel is 'fair use' rather than the entire article. The rules here require:
Quoted portions of any work should not exceed 20% of the total work. Materials owned by the Associated Press must be quoted using only one sentence.
I very much appreciate your willingness to adjust your behavior based on feedback from other posters here.
I like your utopian ideals, but at the same time, journalists have to put food on the table. It would be great if all news websites had a donation run system (pay-what-you-want), but a lot of people would freeload. The Guardian has managed to keep up a donation run system, same with NPR. Now, if you want to bypass paywalls on your own dime (pun intended), you can (cos I am not Jesus or a cop), but from now on, I will be using my library card, as my local library has signed an agreement with the newspaper companies. I will also no longer provide summaries of articles that are blocked by a paywall, due to copyright legislation. I will only summarize articles from papers that are free to access from the get-go, or are free/optionally donation run.To me they're very comparable, because they're indicative of a person's value to society. Perhaps you missed the part about all men being created equal, because you seem to assume that money can change that. That due to your economic status you have the right to things that others don't. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that for a second. To me an honorable homeless person, deserves at least as much as a dishonorable ex-president, yet in keeping with the spirit of Christ I'll respect both of them for simply being what God wanted them to be.
Call my ideals Marxism if you like, but I prefer the term Christianity.
If I weren't Mr. Gruff in my avatar, I might be Jet, so I'm charmed to be part of the influence on Spike.You guys changed my views on this topic.
Thank you, brother. It is true that Jet from Cowboy Bebop (1998 anime) was a positive influence on the young man named Spike Spiegel.If I weren't Mr. Gruff in my avatar, I might be Jet, so I'm charmed to be part of the influence on Spike.
Theft of service isn't ethical or legal.Is it immoral to bypass paywalls? This is a question that many of us internet users might have asked. I will provide a secular and theological explanation of why bypassing paywalls is immoral, though I do bypass paywalls myself, often to help others on CF get access to news from New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and others. In the very near future, I will post a companion to this post, discussing why paywalls might be unethical. EDIT April 18, 2024 @ 6:15 PM: I will no longer be using paywall bypassing software to access or to summarize paywall articles, as the wonderful folks on this forum have changed my mind. From now on, all articles summarized by me or AI will be articles that are meant to be publicly available or open-access. For articles behind a paywall, some local libraries have legal agreements with news agencies to allow readers to access articles using a library card code. So, if you folks want to read a WaPo or NYT article for free (legally), please contact your local library for more information.
This type of popup is known as a paywall (Wiki link), for those who have not heard this term. A paywall is used to restrict access to news articles that require a subscription. Some newspapers, such as The Guardian, BBC (news) and the Onion (satire) do not use paywalls, and instead run on an ad-revenue and/or donation-based fee model.
View attachment 346077
Secular Perspective
1. Intellectual Property Rights: Paywalls are often used by publishers to protect their intellectual property and generate revenue. By bypassing them, one is essentially stealing the content that the publisher has worked hard to produce and distribute.
2. Fairness and Integrity: Paywalls create a level playing field for all consumers who are willing to pay for the content. By bypassing them, one is not contributing to the revenue stream that supports the creation and distribution of quality journalism or research.
3. Moral Responsibility: By paying for content, one assumes moral responsibility for supporting the creators and ensuring that they can continue to produce high-quality work. Bypassing paywalls undermines this responsibility and can lead to a culture of entitlement and disregard for the value of intellectual labor.
Biblical Perspective:
1. Stewardship: The Bible teaches that we are stewards of God's resources and are called to use them wisely and responsibly (2 Corinthians 9:6-8). By paying for content, we are being good stewards of the resources that God has given us and supporting those who produce valuable content.
2. Honesty and Integrity: The Bible also teaches that we are called to be honest and have integrity in all our dealings (Proverbs 12:22, Ephesians 4:25). By bypassing paywalls and taking content that is not rightfully ours, we are violating these principles.
3. Supporting the Work of God's People: The Bible encourages us to support those who labor in the Lord's work, including teachers and preachers (1 Timothy 5:17-18). By paying for content, we are supporting those who are producing valuable work that can help us grow in knowledge and understanding.
4. Fruits of the Spirit: The fruits of the Spirit include kindness, generosity, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). By paying for content and supporting those who produce it, we are exhibiting these fruits in our lives and contributing to a culture of generosity and fairness.
In conclusion, from both a secular logical reasoning/ethics perspective and a Christian Biblical perspective, bypassing paywalls is immoral. It undermines intellectual property rights, creates an unfair playing field, violates moral responsibility, and goes against principles of stewardship, honesty, integrity, and supporting the work of God's people.
Agreed 100%. Well, the issue has been resolved. Since April 18, 2024, I have made a promise between myself and God, as well as the forums to never bypass paywalls again, even though I was trying to be a "Robin Hood" for getting paywalled news for other people before that date.Theft of service isn't ethical or legal.
Simple.
I guess I don't see why it was ever even a question orAgreed 100%. Well, the issue has been resolved. Since April 18, 2024, I have made a promise between myself and God, as well as the forums to never bypass paywalls again, even though I was trying to be a "Robin Hood" for getting paywalled news for other people before that date.
Ok. Talk later. We are done here my friend. You do not have to force your skepticism on me my friend.I guess I don't see why it was ever even a question or
what a god has to do with it.
For me to be dishonest is to betray myself.
What an odd response. I'm in no way trying toOk. Talk later. We are done here my friend. You do not have to force your skepticism on me my friend.
I guess I don't see why it was ever even a question or
what a god has to do with it.
For me to be dishonest is to betray myself.
In practice I've never found it necessary to bypass pay walls.
Ok, skeptic. Let me believe in Jesus, and the fact that He convicted me on April 18th through the lovely folks on this forum, to no longer be a thief of news.What an odd response. I'm in no way trying to
force anything, and "skepticism"- of what-?
isn't it at all.
And don't call me friend, not insincerely
I watched an interesting video recently related to what I would term the "ethics" of web advertising. It's down-to-earth even though Eich literally invented Javascript.I have no trouble letting non-intrusive ads through my ad filter, as I do for this website, for example. Everyone should have the opportunity to make a living.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?