9 ms·

you're not entitled to have some server serve you whatever content you want it to, it doesn't have to answer your http requests - so logically, by whatever mean

you're not entitled to have some server serve you whatever content you want it to, it doesn't have to answer your http requests - so logically, by whatever means we get there, the end-game is for servers to monitor and exclude you. but the status quo is a lot better now, than for what it would take for that to happen. Do you want servers to figure out that you're blocking ads at the network level, and tell each other not to serve to your IP? Because it is a lot less wrong for them to do it - they have a lot more right to do it, if it's in their TOS - than for you to recraft their content so that you're only making http requests to contents, but not their ads. It's like going grocery shopping for milk and sugar at restaurants and coffee places, i.e. because they have it out 'for free'. you might say, hey, they're making it available for free, it's not your fault if they have a broken business model. But it's their right whether they want you there. The analogy isn't perfect, it's quite leaky, so let's get back to the technical facts here. The cat and mouse game is between a server wanting to serve content as well as ads, and some consumers wanting to recraft the requests so their clients/browsers do not load ads. Since ultimately the server has what the users want, for example articles, and the business model is some limited part of the attention of the user, I don't see this ending well for users who want to consumer the content but do not share any part of their attention with ads. It's just not going to work out.

rpgmaker 11y ago
Interesting point. I will say that, if in the end the user will have to accept the ads anyway because all the content providers will refuse them otherwise then I better enjoy ad blocking while I can :-)
- logicallee 11y ago
  people don't get my point. The future I describe is technically possible, and within servers' rights, but let's not have it come to that. Let's stop here: with the status quo. Playing cat-and-mouse with a server's ad-block detector and with its choice not to serve users who block its ads is going too far. It would be as though the server requested the user the actively agree on a screen, to seeing tasteful on-topic and non-intrusive ads, and the user must agree to continue: only to have an ad-blocker remove that screen but send the message "I agree to see advertising and promise to add this site to the whitelist" without doing so, as a lie and a forgery. While this would technically circumvent this measure, it is ridiculous for an ad-blocker to forge that agreement. (I am making an off-topic analogy, this is not related to what is happening now.) Likewise, this is going too far. It is morally wrong and technically stupid to go down this rabbit-hole, because technically, legally, and morally it leads to exactly what I have described. Let's stop here.
chris_wot 11y ago
I think we'd all accept the odd ad. But that's not what is happening. We are being systematically tracked as we browse content, and the amount of advertising and tracking we don't even see if mind-blowing. I'm not at all surprised that most people want to opt-out of being stalked :-)
- logicallee 11y ago
  What is under discussion is tampering with servers' ability to choose what kind of relationship they will have with those who block ads. We don't want to go down this path.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    No, we're discussing software a user chooses to run on their web client. You can request that they run your software, but you do not have a right to force them to run anything without a contract. If you decided to rely on such an unreliable platform for an important business decision, that's your problem. edit: If you want to actually enforce a transaction where content is delivered only if the ads are included, that's what contracts are for. Use them. This was a solved problem several hundred years ago. This idea that you get to make up contract-like requirements without actually negotiating and agreeing to them is nonsense.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      but similarly you don't have the right to force them to serve you ad-free content. If the offer is "this content, plus ads", and you don't want ads, your option is to say "I'll get the content somewhere else", or say "I'll get this content, but I don't want the ads". If they then say "no, sorry, we really mean it about the ads" why would you want to continue to get the content from them? They've shown that they don't care about you.
      - distances 11y ago
        But that isn't really the current offer, is it? The offer is "here are end points to different pieces of content, and here's a suggestion how to combine them together". The users may mix and match the content however they like as long as they don't redistribute it in a way that infringes copyright. It's kind of a mixtape of digital content for personal use: it's totally fine to interleave stuff from HN and Twitter, if I feel like that today. And while I'm at it, I just may skip the ads.
tbabb 11y ago
They can try to serve me spam/ad content along with the rest of content they provide, but I am not obligated to read it, nor is my browser obligated to display it, any more than I am obligated to read the contents of my spambox (even if some of that spam is coming from companies whose services I use), in the same way that I am not obligated to read every billboard on my way to work. Companies post ads because because they believe that some people will read them, and that promise is enough to generate money. That valuation is between them and the clients to whom they are selling ad space, and places no obligation on me. If at some point that business model becomes unprofitable, they can pick a different one.
- bad_user 11y ago
  You are also not obligated to insert any URL in your browser's address bar, or to install any app. While you aren't obligated to read a billboard, it is illegal to vandalize it. And spam email is unsolicited, as in email you receive without consent from an entity you've got no relationship with. Not sure what argument you're trying to make, but requesting a URL that then serves ads does not qualify. Also, by blocking countermeasures to ad-blocking, we've gone from gray area to illegal because of the anti-circumvention laws. This is going to be fun.
  - leviathan 11y ago
    The analogy is weak. You are not vandalizing the ads if you're blocking them. When you vandalize the billboard, no one else can read it. When you block ads on your own computer/network, no one else is affected.
    - logicallee 11y ago
      The analogy is extremely strong. Why shouldn't I be allowed to vandalize a billboard, please? It's just some paper on some scaffolding. It's a social construct that I can't vandalize it. Now when we get down to the technical level with HTTP, yes, you can make requests and the server can answer them. The basic idea of ad-blocking must be OK, I think. I mean you can't force someone to ask for images from an ad server. running a hosts file and so forth must be fine, in my opinion. But that's not what we're discusisng now. We are now talking about tampering with a server's software that it's trying to use to see if you block ads, in order to trick the server into serving you contents that, based on the fact that you are running an ad-blocker, the server has chosen not to serve you. I really do think this is too much.
drdeca 11y ago
re the milk analogy: They can just make a rule that you can only get the milk and sugar if you purchase the coffee? Which, seems like is basically the case? They can include a contract thingy before showing the content for the first time if they want. If I intentionally agree to not block ads, I don't think I'm going to violate that agreement. But I haven't made an agreement like that, so my choice to allow ads to run is not due to any obligation. I choose not to block ads, indeed, partially so that the websites receive payment. (perhaps partially also due to laziness though) But I also "defend" (insofar as my comments on the internet can do so) the right to block ads if one so chooses, and has not explicitly made an agreement not to. In the same way that a person who views a donation funded website is not obligated to donate, hoping instead that it will be funded by other people who donate, a person who views a website which is ad supported is not obligated to view the ads, hoping instead that other people (such as myself) will view the ads. Ads are* a donation, not a purchase. *in the absence of a contract edit: also I disable 3rd party cookies
- logicallee 11y ago
  (I don't see why you're being downvoted.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mahranch 11y ago
  > Ads are* a donation, not a purchase. I vehemently disagree. Ads subsidize the content you consume. Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story. Most of the web is directly or indirectly funded by ads. Just like local radio stations and public/local TV stations have their programs/content funded by advertisers. It's the exact same thing. If everyone (100% of the population) was able to skip watching or listening to those ads, then advertisers would no longer advertise and there would be no content because nobody is paying for it, or footing the bill. And people wonder why they call our generation (millennials) "the entitled generation". This is exactly the reason. You truly and honestly believe we're entitled to consume all that content for free. As if that wasn't enough, you have the gall to act like you're doing the content creators a favor by disabling your adblock! I'm actually shocked... That's one thing the gen-xers and boomers have over us - they understand that nothing is ever free and they never feel entitled to it all. When my grandmother was first shown the internet, I showed her some of her online versions of favorite magazines and sites like youtube. She kept asking me how much it cost to go to those sites and consume that content, and for 2-3 months, she really thought there was some hidden catch, and she expected a bill to arrive in her mailbox. That's the correct mentality to have. She understands the value of the content she's consuming and realizes that nothing is free. > *in the absence of a contract The contract is there in play already. Ads are up on a website right along side the content. You have to install software on your own computer to hide or remove those ads. You're actively going out of your way to alter the website's owners property - you made the first move. It's not like the content was already there, then the creator decided one day to put up ads after the fact. It doesn't work like that. It's just like ads on a TV. In order to watch a TV program, say Fox's Elementary, (just picking a popular show), you have to sit through the ads to watch the full show. If you make an effort to not watch the ads (get up and walk away, shut your eyes, change the channel), you have that right and are free to do it, but don't pretend you're not breaking your "consumer contract" with those shows. They put those ads there in good faith that they'll be seen by the people watching them. People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future. When there is no money in content subsidization, the content will disappear. And some naive & ignorant people will say that's a good thing, since they'll purchase content à La Carte, but trust me. It's not a good thing. It obliterates innovation and destroys creativity. Most content producing companies/websites will be swallowed up by consolidation (you can already see this happening as "networks" of websites have been forming, like the Gawker network, etc) while the little guys, bloggers and startups completely disappear as they can no longer pay their hosting bills. Only the Walmarts of web content will be left standing (companies that can afford to run a subscription model). That's a bleak future I want no part of. I'll keep the ads, thank you very much.
lehmannro 11y ago
This is exactly what the website of BILD, a major German tabloid, is doing. They will not serve you content if they detect an ad blocker.
- josteink 11y ago
  I just tried out bild.de and it worked fine with uBlock. Anything I'm missing?
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    I use uBlock Origin and I see a page that basically says "disable adblocker to view our content".
    - gorhill 11y ago
      The fix works only for Firefox-based browsers, because it makes use of inline script tag filtering[1] which does not work on chromium, because it does not support `beforescriptexecute`[2]. The work around for Chromium-based browsers is to wholesale block inline script for the page, at the cost of probably breaking some functionality on the page. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-filtering https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-fil... [2] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=168175 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=168175
malka 11y ago
> Do you want servers to figure out that you're blocking ads at the network level, and tell each other not to serve to your IP? Gonna be fun when such servers lock corporate IP.
ominous 11y ago
"Do you want servers to figure out that you're blocking ads at the network level," I don't want anything. The server has content, I GET content. Scenario I: I don't block any content; Scenario II: Same as Scenario I, but I don't click ads; Scenario III: Same as Scenario II, but I don't look at the ads; Scenario IV: Same as Scenario III, but an opaque overlay is placed above the ads; Scenario V: Same as Scenario IV, but the ad content is furthermore moved outside of the viewport; ... My scenario: I don't GET ad content. Or any content I decide not to GET. "they have a lot more right to do it, if it's in their TOS" I am in a cybercafe in Matakana. What is this TOS you speak of? The internet is an open medium. You want to trade our (edit: both mine and the server's) bandwidth (ads I would GET, but not pay attention to) for your content? Fine. I'll pipe it to /dev/null. Or save us both the effort, and not GET it at all.
gradschool 11y ago
The longer term end game might be more like a world in which access to information is so efficient that advertising ceases to exist as an industry, because anyone offering a product or service is discoverable by whoever needs it. A future generation with a shorter attention span considers advertising morally equivalent to slavery because it deprives people of their time without compensation. Since nobody's livelihood depends on advertising any more, it's easy for everyone to hold the view that it's bad. A future fantasy writer envisions a Daenerys Targaryen character who goes around banishing advertising by force, opposed only by the occasional sick and twisted adversary with whom the audience is at a total loss to identify. Future historians look for shreds of evidence that some esteemed political figure was morally offended by advertising in a personal way but refrained from speaking out against it for pragmatic reasons. Whenever I follow discussions of this topic, I try to imagine what that future society would make of them.

rpgmaker 11y ago

Interesting point. I will say that, if in the end the user will have to accept the ads anyway because all the content providers will refuse them otherwise then I better enjoy ad blocking while I can :-)

logicallee 11y ago
people don't get my point. The future I describe is technically possible, and within servers' rights, but let's not have it come to that. Let's stop here: with the status quo. Playing cat-and-mouse with a server's ad-block detector and with its choice not to serve users who block its ads is going too far. It would be as though the server requested the user the actively agree on a screen, to seeing tasteful on-topic and non-intrusive ads, and the user must agree to continue: only to have an ad-blocker remove that screen but send the message "I agree to see advertising and promise to add this site to the whitelist" without doing so, as a lie and a forgery. While this would technically circumvent this measure, it is ridiculous for an ad-blocker to forge that agreement. (I am making an off-topic analogy, this is not related to what is happening now.) Likewise, this is going too far. It is morally wrong and technically stupid to go down this rabbit-hole, because technically, legally, and morally it leads to exactly what I have described. Let's stop here.

chris_wot 11y ago

I think we'd all accept the odd ad. But that's not what is happening. We are being systematically tracked as we browse content, and the amount of advertising and tracking we don't even see if mind-blowing. I'm not at all surprised that most people want to opt-out of being stalked :-)

logicallee 11y ago
What is under discussion is tampering with servers' ability to choose what kind of relationship they will have with those who block ads. We don't want to go down this path.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  No, we're discussing software a user chooses to run on their web client. You can request that they run your software, but you do not have a right to force them to run anything without a contract. If you decided to rely on such an unreliable platform for an important business decision, that's your problem. edit: If you want to actually enforce a transaction where content is delivered only if the ads are included, that's what contracts are for. Use them. This was a solved problem several hundred years ago. This idea that you get to make up contract-like requirements without actually negotiating and agreeing to them is nonsense.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    but similarly you don't have the right to force them to serve you ad-free content. If the offer is "this content, plus ads", and you don't want ads, your option is to say "I'll get the content somewhere else", or say "I'll get this content, but I don't want the ads". If they then say "no, sorry, we really mean it about the ads" why would you want to continue to get the content from them? They've shown that they don't care about you.
    - distances 11y ago
      But that isn't really the current offer, is it? The offer is "here are end points to different pieces of content, and here's a suggestion how to combine them together". The users may mix and match the content however they like as long as they don't redistribute it in a way that infringes copyright. It's kind of a mixtape of digital content for personal use: it's totally fine to interleave stuff from HN and Twitter, if I feel like that today. And while I'm at it, I just may skip the ads.

tbabb 11y ago

They can try to serve me spam/ad content along with the rest of content they provide, but I am not obligated to read it, nor is my browser obligated to display it, any more than I am obligated to read the contents of my spambox (even if some of that spam is coming from companies whose services I use), in the same way that I am not obligated to read every billboard on my way to work. Companies post ads because because they believe that some people will read them, and that promise is enough to generate money. That valuation is between them and the clients to whom they are selling ad space, and places no obligation on me. If at some point that business model becomes unprofitable, they can pick a different one.

bad_user 11y ago
You are also not obligated to insert any URL in your browser's address bar, or to install any app. While you aren't obligated to read a billboard, it is illegal to vandalize it. And spam email is unsolicited, as in email you receive without consent from an entity you've got no relationship with. Not sure what argument you're trying to make, but requesting a URL that then serves ads does not qualify. Also, by blocking countermeasures to ad-blocking, we've gone from gray area to illegal because of the anti-circumvention laws. This is going to be fun.
- leviathan 11y ago
  The analogy is weak. You are not vandalizing the ads if you're blocking them. When you vandalize the billboard, no one else can read it. When you block ads on your own computer/network, no one else is affected.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    The analogy is extremely strong. Why shouldn't I be allowed to vandalize a billboard, please? It's just some paper on some scaffolding. It's a social construct that I can't vandalize it. Now when we get down to the technical level with HTTP, yes, you can make requests and the server can answer them. The basic idea of ad-blocking must be OK, I think. I mean you can't force someone to ask for images from an ad server. running a hosts file and so forth must be fine, in my opinion. But that's not what we're discusisng now. We are now talking about tampering with a server's software that it's trying to use to see if you block ads, in order to trick the server into serving you contents that, based on the fact that you are running an ad-blocker, the server has chosen not to serve you. I really do think this is too much.

drdeca 11y ago

re the milk analogy: They can just make a rule that you can only get the milk and sugar if you purchase the coffee? Which, seems like is basically the case? They can include a contract thingy before showing the content for the first time if they want. If I intentionally agree to not block ads, I don't think I'm going to violate that agreement. But I haven't made an agreement like that, so my choice to allow ads to run is not due to any obligation. I choose not to block ads, indeed, partially so that the websites receive payment. (perhaps partially also due to laziness though) But I also "defend" (insofar as my comments on the internet can do so) the right to block ads if one so chooses, and has not explicitly made an agreement not to. In the same way that a person who views a donation funded website is not obligated to donate, hoping instead that it will be funded by other people who donate, a person who views a website which is ad supported is not obligated to view the ads, hoping instead that other people (such as myself) will view the ads. Ads are* a donation, not a purchase. *in the absence of a contract edit: also I disable 3rd party cookies

logicallee 11y ago
(I don't see why you're being downvoted.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mahranch 11y ago
> Ads are* a donation, not a purchase. I vehemently disagree. Ads subsidize the content you consume. Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story. Most of the web is directly or indirectly funded by ads. Just like local radio stations and public/local TV stations have their programs/content funded by advertisers. It's the exact same thing. If everyone (100% of the population) was able to skip watching or listening to those ads, then advertisers would no longer advertise and there would be no content because nobody is paying for it, or footing the bill. And people wonder why they call our generation (millennials) "the entitled generation". This is exactly the reason. You truly and honestly believe we're entitled to consume all that content for free. As if that wasn't enough, you have the gall to act like you're doing the content creators a favor by disabling your adblock! I'm actually shocked... That's one thing the gen-xers and boomers have over us - they understand that nothing is ever free and they never feel entitled to it all. When my grandmother was first shown the internet, I showed her some of her online versions of favorite magazines and sites like youtube. She kept asking me how much it cost to go to those sites and consume that content, and for 2-3 months, she really thought there was some hidden catch, and she expected a bill to arrive in her mailbox. That's the correct mentality to have. She understands the value of the content she's consuming and realizes that nothing is free. > *in the absence of a contract The contract is there in play already. Ads are up on a website right along side the content. You have to install software on your own computer to hide or remove those ads. You're actively going out of your way to alter the website's owners property - you made the first move. It's not like the content was already there, then the creator decided one day to put up ads after the fact. It doesn't work like that. It's just like ads on a TV. In order to watch a TV program, say Fox's Elementary, (just picking a popular show), you have to sit through the ads to watch the full show. If you make an effort to not watch the ads (get up and walk away, shut your eyes, change the channel), you have that right and are free to do it, but don't pretend you're not breaking your "consumer contract" with those shows. They put those ads there in good faith that they'll be seen by the people watching them. People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future. When there is no money in content subsidization, the content will disappear. And some naive & ignorant people will say that's a good thing, since they'll purchase content à La Carte, but trust me. It's not a good thing. It obliterates innovation and destroys creativity. Most content producing companies/websites will be swallowed up by consolidation (you can already see this happening as "networks" of websites have been forming, like the Gawker network, etc) while the little guys, bloggers and startups completely disappear as they can no longer pay their hosting bills. Only the Walmarts of web content will be left standing (companies that can afford to run a subscription model). That's a bleak future I want no part of. I'll keep the ads, thank you very much.

lehmannro 11y ago

This is exactly what the website of BILD, a major German tabloid, is doing. They will not serve you content if they detect an ad blocker.

josteink 11y ago
I just tried out bild.de and it worked fine with uBlock. Anything I'm missing?
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  I use uBlock Origin and I see a page that basically says "disable adblocker to view our content".
  - gorhill 11y ago
    The fix works only for Firefox-based browsers, because it makes use of inline script tag filtering[1] which does not work on chromium, because it does not support `beforescriptexecute`[2]. The work around for Chromium-based browsers is to wholesale block inline script for the page, at the cost of probably breaking some functionality on the page. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-filtering https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-fil... [2] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=168175 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=168175

malka 11y ago

> Do you want servers to figure out that you're blocking ads at the network level, and tell each other not to serve to your IP? Gonna be fun when such servers lock corporate IP.

ominous 11y ago

"Do you want servers to figure out that you're blocking ads at the network level," I don't want anything. The server has content, I GET content. Scenario I: I don't block any content; Scenario II: Same as Scenario I, but I don't click ads; Scenario III: Same as Scenario II, but I don't look at the ads; Scenario IV: Same as Scenario III, but an opaque overlay is placed above the ads; Scenario V: Same as Scenario IV, but the ad content is furthermore moved outside of the viewport; ... My scenario: I don't GET ad content. Or any content I decide not to GET. "they have a lot more right to do it, if it's in their TOS" I am in a cybercafe in Matakana. What is this TOS you speak of? The internet is an open medium. You want to trade our (edit: both mine and the server's) bandwidth (ads I would GET, but not pay attention to) for your content? Fine. I'll pipe it to /dev/null. Or save us both the effort, and not GET it at all.

gradschool 11y ago

The longer term end game might be more like a world in which access to information is so efficient that advertising ceases to exist as an industry, because anyone offering a product or service is discoverable by whoever needs it. A future generation with a shorter attention span considers advertising morally equivalent to slavery because it deprives people of their time without compensation. Since nobody's livelihood depends on advertising any more, it's easy for everyone to hold the view that it's bad. A future fantasy writer envisions a Daenerys Targaryen character who goes around banishing advertising by force, opposed only by the occasional sick and twisted adversary with whom the audience is at a total loss to identify. Future historians look for shreds of evidence that some esteemed political figure was morally offended by advertising in a personal way but refrained from speaking out against it for pragmatic reasons. Whenever I follow discussions of this topic, I try to imagine what that future society would make of them.