4 ms·

But it's not your website. It's someone else's. Someone who created the content and pays to keep it online for you to consume.

ryandrake 11y ago
OK, then modify the statement, but use the same mobster voice: "It would be a shame if your browser got overloaded with pop-overs, malware and javascript trackers. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price."
- hsod 11y ago
  I think it's BS to cast "people who respond to GET requests" as mobsters. If you want them to leave you alone just stop asking them for things.
  - anon1385 11y ago
    Well yes, that's what an ad blocker does. But a lot of people believe ad blockers are unethical.
    - zaphar 11y ago
      Pretend there is a Museum. It's free to the public with a suggested donation. You go there every weekend because of it's interesting collection of $thing. You never pay the suggested donation. Is this ethical? It's not illegal. But that isn't the question.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        Not a good analogy. If there was a donation mechanism, many people might choose to pay it. I contribute to several sites via Patreon, for instance. But if every time you visit the museum someone follows you around talking in your ear about the products available in the gift shop, you might choose not to go, or (if the content is interesting enough) you might start wearing headphones or earplugs and go anyway.
- eli 11y ago
  So a paywall, except it's intentionally obnoxious/dangerous to the very people it's trying to get to pay them money? I don't think this is a realistic thing to worry about.
- nostrademons 11y ago
  It's not your browser, either.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't think Google generally has popovers and malware. And you probably get trackers anyway.
jdjb 11y ago
As soon as their content hits my client though, they don't have any right to control what my client does with it.
- cheald 11y ago
  That's not really relevant to this subthread, though.
- bduerst 11y ago
  They still have copyright on their content and how you use it.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    > They still have copyright on their content Certainly. > and how you use it Now that's an interesting question. I wonder if we'll start seeing people try to use explicit copyright licenses to say that your license is revoked if you use an ad blocker. Not sure what that'd look like.

ryandrake 11y ago

OK, then modify the statement, but use the same mobster voice: "It would be a shame if your browser got overloaded with pop-overs, malware and javascript trackers. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price."

hsod 11y ago
I think it's BS to cast "people who respond to GET requests" as mobsters. If you want them to leave you alone just stop asking them for things.
- anon1385 11y ago
  Well yes, that's what an ad blocker does. But a lot of people believe ad blockers are unethical.
  - zaphar 11y ago
    Pretend there is a Museum. It's free to the public with a suggested donation. You go there every weekend because of it's interesting collection of $thing. You never pay the suggested donation. Is this ethical? It's not illegal. But that isn't the question.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      Not a good analogy. If there was a donation mechanism, many people might choose to pay it. I contribute to several sites via Patreon, for instance. But if every time you visit the museum someone follows you around talking in your ear about the products available in the gift shop, you might choose not to go, or (if the content is interesting enough) you might start wearing headphones or earplugs and go anyway.
eli 11y ago
So a paywall, except it's intentionally obnoxious/dangerous to the very people it's trying to get to pay them money? I don't think this is a realistic thing to worry about.
nostrademons 11y ago
It's not your browser, either.
icebraining 11y ago
I don't think Google generally has popovers and malware. And you probably get trackers anyway.

jdjb 11y ago

As soon as their content hits my client though, they don't have any right to control what my client does with it.

cheald 11y ago
That's not really relevant to this subthread, though.
bduerst 11y ago
They still have copyright on their content and how you use it.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > They still have copyright on their content Certainly. > and how you use it Now that's an interesting question. I wonder if we'll start seeing people try to use explicit copyright licenses to say that your license is revoked if you use an ad blocker. Not sure what that'd look like.