5 ms·

"There are (or should be) only two parties to a web request: the client and the server. Neither Apple, nor the State, nor Google, nor anyone else, is legitimate

by s73v3r 11y ago

"There are (or should be) only two parties to a web request: the client and the server. Neither Apple, nor the State, nor Google, nor anyone else, is legitimately a party to my session" The ad is arguably part of the content, as it's what's paying for you to see it in the first place. "The reason that I'm free to use an ad blocker is that it's my browser, and I am free to configure it however I want" That is a very selfish view, one which ignores everyone else except yourself. What if your company decided that you're not worth paying, but still wanted your work?

CoryG89 11y ago
Is disabling Javascript or cookies equally selfish? Because it seems like the same thing from where I'm standing.
wtbob 11y ago
> That is a very selfish view, one which ignores everyone else except yourself. Myself, and the server, whose right to refuse to serve me I explicitly recognised.
Elhana 11y ago
> What if your company decided that you're not worth paying, but still wanted your work? Perfectly reasonable, then you stop working/creating content and find another job. Capitalism is selfish.
MichaelGG 11y ago
If your work arrangement was "I'll show up and work on what you ask, then you tip me if you want", then your analogy might make sense. No one is forcing websites to respond to requests and serve content.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Unfortunately, this is almost an argument for more interstitial ads. View this ad first, then I'll let you look at the content. No ad? No content.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
    Great, then the social contract is clear. I can click the back button. There is a lot of good content out there that is not ad-dependent. If all ad-dependent websites made a clear declaration that "you are not welcome, go somewhere else" that would solve my problem. Not theirs though...
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      Agreed that I generally prefer clarity, but I'm also one of those who don't mind the occasional "unobtrusive" ad. I would hate to see ads become more obtrusive solely for me to have the opportunity to decline them.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    It's solidly an argument for paywalls. NB: I strongly dislike advertising/tracking networks and paywalls.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      So basically, you want everything for free.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        Sure thing. That's why I regularly use the threat of force to get my meals from the corner market, once monthly carry a thermonuclear device into the lobbies of my utility company, ISP, and landlord to make those bills vanish, and am always trailed by a cadre of highly competent ninja for one-off encounters. Far more seriously: your statement is a non sequitur.
Retra 11y ago
Let's say I'm offering you food. If someone else paid me to feed you horse manure, would you have an obligation to eat it? No, because it's not food. It doesn't become food just because some other party is paying me to feed it to you. You certainly aren't coming to me because you wanted horse manure. You don't have a deal with me regarding horse manure. I have a deal with the third party, and that has nothing to do with you.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  This is completely ignoring the fact that ads are how the content you enjoy gets paid for, and part of the social contract is that, since people won't pay, that the content will be paid for by ad views.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    This discussion never ends in changed minds. Best to abort it before you waste too much time. Remember that there is a camp who thinks that they can do what they wish with the data sent to their computer -including refusing to process said data-, and there is a camp who feels that one has a moral imperative to process all data sent by a website to one's computer. These camps rarely see eye-to-eye.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from. There's a very reliable method of ensuring that one who labors and posts to The Internet gets paid: refuse to deliver the fruits of the labor to others prior to payment. If camp #2 actually thought as you claim they do, they would advise all Internet-publishing laborers to eliminate the ad-blocking worry -and keep the dishonest among us honest- by putting their creations behind a paywall.

by s73v3r 11y ago

CoryG89 11y ago

Is disabling Javascript or cookies equally selfish? Because it seems like the same thing from where I'm standing.

wtbob 11y ago

> That is a very selfish view, one which ignores everyone else except yourself. Myself, and the server, whose right to refuse to serve me I explicitly recognised.

Elhana 11y ago

> What if your company decided that you're not worth paying, but still wanted your work? Perfectly reasonable, then you stop working/creating content and find another job. Capitalism is selfish.

MichaelGG 11y ago

If your work arrangement was "I'll show up and work on what you ask, then you tip me if you want", then your analogy might make sense. No one is forcing websites to respond to requests and serve content.

tedunangst 11y ago
Unfortunately, this is almost an argument for more interstitial ads. View this ad first, then I'll let you look at the content. No ad? No content.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  Great, then the social contract is clear. I can click the back button. There is a lot of good content out there that is not ad-dependent. If all ad-dependent websites made a clear declaration that "you are not welcome, go somewhere else" that would solve my problem. Not theirs though...
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Agreed that I generally prefer clarity, but I'm also one of those who don't mind the occasional "unobtrusive" ad. I would hate to see ads become more obtrusive solely for me to have the opportunity to decline them.
- simoncion 11y ago
  It's solidly an argument for paywalls. NB: I strongly dislike advertising/tracking networks and paywalls.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    So basically, you want everything for free.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Sure thing. That's why I regularly use the threat of force to get my meals from the corner market, once monthly carry a thermonuclear device into the lobbies of my utility company, ISP, and landlord to make those bills vanish, and am always trailed by a cadre of highly competent ninja for one-off encounters. Far more seriously: your statement is a non sequitur.

Retra 11y ago

Let's say I'm offering you food. If someone else paid me to feed you horse manure, would you have an obligation to eat it? No, because it's not food. It doesn't become food just because some other party is paying me to feed it to you. You certainly aren't coming to me because you wanted horse manure. You don't have a deal with me regarding horse manure. I have a deal with the third party, and that has nothing to do with you.

s73v3r 11y ago
This is completely ignoring the fact that ads are how the content you enjoy gets paid for, and part of the social contract is that, since people won't pay, that the content will be paid for by ad views.
- simoncion 11y ago
  This discussion never ends in changed minds. Best to abort it before you waste too much time. Remember that there is a camp who thinks that they can do what they wish with the data sent to their computer -including refusing to process said data-, and there is a camp who feels that one has a moral imperative to process all data sent by a website to one's computer. These camps rarely see eye-to-eye.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from. There's a very reliable method of ensuring that one who labors and posts to The Internet gets paid: refuse to deliver the fruits of the labor to others prior to payment. If camp #2 actually thought as you claim they do, they would advise all Internet-publishing laborers to eliminate the ad-blocking worry -and keep the dishonest among us honest- by putting their creations behind a paywall.