5 ms·
This strikes me as pretty similar to the usual "record labels are evil" defense for pirating music, in that it's a rationalization for something people were goi
by Jweb_Guru 11y ago
This strikes me as pretty similar to the usual "record labels are evil" defense for pirating music, in that it's a rationalization for something people were going to do anyway. While your points are true ones, they're not the reasons most people are using ad blockers (for instance, I am quite confident that most people have no idea about the security risks involved in simply loading an advertisement).
- JupiterMoon 11y agoNo. The security argument would be more analogous to a hypothetical situation whereby listening to legally purchased CDs occasionally resulted in you house keys or credit card details being distributed to criminals.
- 67726e 11y agoOr, you know, that time Sony installed a rootkit from music CDs.
- bigbugbag 11y agoFunny thing those were not actuals CDs, Philips asked Sony to stop using the official CD logo on those infected discs or face a lawsuit.
- 67726e 11y agoWhat do you mean they weren't CDs? They weren't "licensed" or they were something else entirely?
- throwaway049 11y agoThey did not conform to the official specification for an audio CD and therefore were not allowed to carry the logo for Compact Disc Digital Audio.
- analog31 11y agoThat's true in a sense for me. I originally installed an ad blocker because I'm annoyed by the ads, and by the bandwidth that they were consuming. I wasn't even aware of the security and privacy issues at first. When I became aware of those issues, I installed additional blocking software even though I was already not seeing any ads. In my defense, content blocking has been around since time immoral. The first browser I ever used, some Netscape, had a setting to disable the display of images. I used that setting to speed up my page loads.
- icebraining 11y ago* time immemorial
- analog31 11y agoYou caught me. ;-)