3 ms·

> It may be your browser, but it is their content being served via their infrastructure. It costs them real money to create and host this content. Then they sh

by nfoz 11y ago

> It may be your browser, but it is their content being served via their infrastructure. It costs them real money to create and host this content. Then they shouldn't send me that content if they don't want me to do whatever I want with it. Because that's my goddamn right. Frankly, if ad revenue is the way they're funding the development of their content, then I want them to stop. Just stop. Find another way to fund it, or don't send it to my computer in the first place.

bryans 11y ago
I own a physical store. It has a door. You walk through it. You then decide you don't like some aspect of my store. That doesn't entitle you to walk out with merchandise, declaring "well, you shouldn't have opened your door in the first place." It is not your "goddamn right" to dictate how a business generates revenue, nor does it make any sense whatsoever to insist that the burden of denying content is the creator's. Your argument can easily be turned around on you. If you're not willing to pay for the content (via allowing ads, in this case), then you shouldn't be demanding the content in the first place.
- nfoz 11y ago
  I'm not "demanding" the content. You're choosing to send it to me. I'm not walking into your store, I'm surfing the web, you're throwing your "goods" (if you see them that way) into my home. My computer. Under my control. My computer will block ads if I want, mostly I don't even know if sites have ads or not. Not my problem. I'm happy to pay for goods. I'm not happy to see ads -- I never want to see them, they are a menace. I pay for tons of ad-free content.
  - bryans 11y ago
    Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment. You don't see the "content" of the store until you walk through the door. Deciding afterwards that you don't agree with how the website is monetized but then consume the content anyway, is the same as deciding you don't like how the physical establishment operates, but you feel entitled to take something anyway. There is no logical difference, and you are using a completely false justification.
    - effie 11y ago
      > Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment. You don't see the "content" of the store until you walk through the door Walking through the door of an establishment also does not make the person obligated to pay for seeing the content. Anyway, anyone who knows basics about how the www technology operates and its history knows that's false analogy. Sending an HTTP request to a web server makes no promises to the owner of the web page or other data the server sends. There is no human-level contract or trade in the sense "content for ads" implied. It may be how the operation is payed for by the owner, but nobody ever asked the consumer. For contract/trade to happen, both parties need to agree on terms and willingly enter it. > is the same as deciding you don't like how the physical establishment operates, but you feel entitled to take something anyway. It is not the same. Nobody takes a thing from the owner when using adblocking software. > There is no logical difference, and you are using a completely false justification. There is a physical difference. Donuts will be missed, copies of cat pictures will be not. Eventually, even logic must give way to physics.
      - bryans 11y ago
        Exactly zero of your arguments have a logical basis. Literally all of the things you just said are completely ignorant of reality. It is so far beyond mind boggling that anyone could genuinely believe any of that, and I can only assume you're just trolling.
        effie 11y ago
        Which reality is that? The one where people believe that just using a web page creates a contract with the website owner? Don't be ridiculous. This is not what most people subscribe to, even though big media corps and you would like them to. It is not the reality, it is a pipe dream. In reality, contract/trade happens by voluntary agreement on terms by both parties.
    - Frozenlock 11y ago
      > "Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment." Of course it's different. It's not even close to being similar. Sending an HTTP request is much more like asking sears to send you the catalogue for this season. It's a REQUEST, they can REFUSE. If they do send me one, I can do whatever I want with it, including throwing it in the garbage or my fireplace. They might include stuff you don't want in the catalogue, but you can just rip them out. And if, after dozens of issues you realize they always put the unwanted stuff every 10 pages, you could build a machine that rips out every 10th page before you even look at it. Now, Sears could say they don't like that I'm doing that, but I don't care (nor should I). IF it really is annoying enough to them, they'll just stop sending me the catalogue. And with HTTP requests, I'm even paying for the bandwidth via my ISP! When they answer to my request, they cost me money, just like I'm costing them money.

by nfoz 11y ago

bryans 11y ago

I own a physical store. It has a door. You walk through it. You then decide you don't like some aspect of my store. That doesn't entitle you to walk out with merchandise, declaring "well, you shouldn't have opened your door in the first place." It is not your "goddamn right" to dictate how a business generates revenue, nor does it make any sense whatsoever to insist that the burden of denying content is the creator's. Your argument can easily be turned around on you. If you're not willing to pay for the content (via allowing ads, in this case), then you shouldn't be demanding the content in the first place.

nfoz 11y ago
I'm not "demanding" the content. You're choosing to send it to me. I'm not walking into your store, I'm surfing the web, you're throwing your "goods" (if you see them that way) into my home. My computer. Under my control. My computer will block ads if I want, mostly I don't even know if sites have ads or not. Not my problem. I'm happy to pay for goods. I'm not happy to see ads -- I never want to see them, they are a menace. I pay for tons of ad-free content.
- bryans 11y ago
  Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment. You don't see the "content" of the store until you walk through the door. Deciding afterwards that you don't agree with how the website is monetized but then consume the content anyway, is the same as deciding you don't like how the physical establishment operates, but you feel entitled to take something anyway. There is no logical difference, and you are using a completely false justification.
  - effie 11y ago
    > Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment. You don't see the "content" of the store until you walk through the door Walking through the door of an establishment also does not make the person obligated to pay for seeing the content. Anyway, anyone who knows basics about how the www technology operates and its history knows that's false analogy. Sending an HTTP request to a web server makes no promises to the owner of the web page or other data the server sends. There is no human-level contract or trade in the sense "content for ads" implied. It may be how the operation is payed for by the owner, but nobody ever asked the consumer. For contract/trade to happen, both parties need to agree on terms and willingly enter it. > is the same as deciding you don't like how the physical establishment operates, but you feel entitled to take something anyway. It is not the same. Nobody takes a thing from the owner when using adblocking software. > There is no logical difference, and you are using a completely false justification. There is a physical difference. Donuts will be missed, copies of cat pictures will be not. Eventually, even logic must give way to physics.
    - bryans 11y ago
      Exactly zero of your arguments have a logical basis. Literally all of the things you just said are completely ignorant of reality. It is so far beyond mind boggling that anyone could genuinely believe any of that, and I can only assume you're just trolling.
      - effie 11y ago
        Which reality is that? The one where people believe that just using a web page creates a contract with the website owner? Don't be ridiculous. This is not what most people subscribe to, even though big media corps and you would like them to. It is not the reality, it is a pipe dream. In reality, contract/trade happens by voluntary agreement on terms by both parties.
  - Frozenlock 11y ago
    > "Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment." Of course it's different. It's not even close to being similar. Sending an HTTP request is much more like asking sears to send you the catalogue for this season. It's a REQUEST, they can REFUSE. If they do send me one, I can do whatever I want with it, including throwing it in the garbage or my fireplace. They might include stuff you don't want in the catalogue, but you can just rip them out. And if, after dozens of issues you realize they always put the unwanted stuff every 10 pages, you could build a machine that rips out every 10th page before you even look at it. Now, Sears could say they don't like that I'm doing that, but I don't care (nor should I). IF it really is annoying enough to them, they'll just stop sending me the catalogue. And with HTTP requests, I'm even paying for the bandwidth via my ISP! When they answer to my request, they cost me money, just like I'm costing them money.