3 ms·

> "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 bei

> "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.

bryans 11y ago
> 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. You're completely ignoring the technological factors in delivering content online. If you were arguing that your ad blocker made the server aware of its usage via the HTTP request's headers, and the server could use that information to deny a request, then you might have a legitimate basis for your argument. But it doesn't, and you don't. > They might include stuff you don't want in the catalogue, but you can just rip them out. Exactly. You just made my argument for me. You received the content, and decided to ignore other content which you didn't want to see after it has already been delivered. You have paid the price of admission by accepting the document as the creator intended. But when you prevent the other content from showing up in the first place, you have entered into the world of immorality. You're demanding content be delivered the way you want it, at the literal financial expense of its creator, which is absurd. > 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. That's an entirely illogical comparison. You made the request with the complete understanding that when you navigate to a website, it will serve the content to you, and that the request for that content knowingly costs them money, and costs you money. But it's entirely at your request. You are paying your ISP for the capability to make that request, and nobody forced you to make it or pay for it. So when you do make the request but block the ads, you are forcing the content creator to pay for it, and then refusing them their ability to recoup that cost. You are not paying the content creator by paying your ISP. It's an illegitimate comparison.

bryans 11y ago

> 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. You're completely ignoring the technological factors in delivering content online. If you were arguing that your ad blocker made the server aware of its usage via the HTTP request's headers, and the server could use that information to deny a request, then you might have a legitimate basis for your argument. But it doesn't, and you don't. > They might include stuff you don't want in the catalogue, but you can just rip them out. Exactly. You just made my argument for me. You received the content, and decided to ignore other content which you didn't want to see after it has already been delivered. You have paid the price of admission by accepting the document as the creator intended. But when you prevent the other content from showing up in the first place, you have entered into the world of immorality. You're demanding content be delivered the way you want it, at the literal financial expense of its creator, which is absurd. > 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. That's an entirely illogical comparison. You made the request with the complete understanding that when you navigate to a website, it will serve the content to you, and that the request for that content knowingly costs them money, and costs you money. But it's entirely at your request. You are paying your ISP for the capability to make that request, and nobody forced you to make it or pay for it. So when you do make the request but block the ads, you are forcing the content creator to pay for it, and then refusing them their ability to recoup that cost. You are not paying the content creator by paying your ISP. It's an illegitimate comparison.