5 ms·
Unfortunately (for this situation) ad-blockers are starting to enter a war, where they try to remove adverts while keeping websites functional. It would be nice
by CJefferson 11y ago
Unfortunately (for this situation) ad-blockers are starting to enter a war, where they try to remove adverts while keeping websites functional. It would be nice to have an agreed way for websites to say "No ads? Go away", but I imagine most sites would choose to activate it, so ad-blockers would ignore it anyway, similar to do-not-track.
- pdkl95 11y agoSometimes I read webpages with /usr/bin/curl. Sorry, but you aren't going to convince anyone that I am somehow morally obligated to copy the <img> URLs to a computer with a graphical web browser to see some ads. Much like how the "first-sale doctrine" limits a publisher's rights over a work after a copy first changes hands, you do not get to dictate how the client renders your HTML or if they choose to run your javascript after you've voluntarily handed the files over to them in the HTTP request. If your business suffers because of this, well, that's what happens to business models based on magical thinking and a misunderstanding of copyright.
- CJefferson 11y agoYou are the one who introduced "moral obligation", and "dictating" to the conversation, please don't invent words I did not use. I simply said it would be nice for website owners to express their opinion on ad-blocking (some are pro, some are anti), and then users could choose to use that information. If this gets into a war, it won't be hard for website authors to start sending you webpages where you have to call the javascript for the content (with ads) to appear -- some websites already do. I would suspect however those who write ad blockers will be more motivated to block ads, than websites will be to write ad-blocker-blocers.