5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > The analogy is extremely strong. The analogy is either a serious misunderstanding of how the internet and web browsers work, or is a deliberate attempt to confuse these concepts. > Why shouldn't I be allowed to vandalize a billboard Because it's not your property. If you order a billboard and have it shipped to your house, you can do what you want to it. > tampering with a server's software What are you smoking? Do you not understand that a userscript runs on the client? The server isn't involved at all after it sends the HTML and JS files. What makes you think you have a right to run software on my computer? You don't - I'll run whatever software I want on my computer. It's your business if you want to send me a page, of course. Just like it's my decision if I want to run some program.
      - mahranch 11y ago
        Not that I agree with the guy above you, but I also don't agree with your comment here: > What makes you think you have a right to run software on my computer? What makes you think you have the right to consume the content I worked hard to create for free? Just because you can hide ads, or sneak into a concert to listen and consume that content, it doesn't make it morally permissible. Do you think you should be able to sneak into a theater and watch a movie for free? Should you be entitled to that? This really isn't any different. And here's why: These content creators and publishers are creating their content with the expectation that people will view the ads right along side the content, and they will make money. It's an inherent expectation. So once you hide those ads, you are making an effort to cheat the content creator. It's just become so ubiquitous to web browsing that you actually think it should be "the norm" and that you're on some moral high ground here. You aren't and I'm flabbergasted that intelligent people actually think this way. Either hackernews has changed within the last year or two, or it's demographic has gotten a lot younger over the years. From my experience most people are fine with ads, they want to support the content creators. What they're up in arms about, is "intrusive" ads. That is completely understandable. However, this fight now has become about all ads in general, and I have to take a stand there because I understand how content subsidization works. Without ads, there would be no internet. At least, not in its current form. It would be a vastly different place, and not one I'd be eager to see.
- tbabb 11y ago
  By your logic, would it be illegal to install a browser plugin that replaces every instance of the word "keyboard" with the word "leopard"? Is that "vandalism"? And as you point out, I must first request the information. So I request a URL to a webpage and receive and HTML+CSS+JS document, containing more URLs which, via adblock, I decide not to follow or make more HTTP requests to. Similarly, the page has JS code which my browser may decide not to execute, or CSS elements which the browser may, at my request, decide not to display. Pretty sure all of the at is well within my right.
- Drakim 11y ago
  If somebody hands me a free newspaper with ads in them, it's not vandalism for me to cut out the ads so that I can read the newspaper without them. Nobody sane would call "modifying a copy of something" vandalism.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > vandalize What a huge sense of self-entitlement. Your rights as a publisher do not extend to my computer and what I do with the data after you send it to me. You may request that I run some software with a <script> tag, or request that I download an image with an <img> tag, but if you want to guarantee any of those things you better get me to agree to a contract first. It isn't vandalism when someone modifies something you gave them. Vandalism is a criminal charge - are you also going to claim I'm a criminal if I use some scissors to cut ads out of a magazine after receiving it in the mail? > illegal What law, exactly, are you claiming is being violated? A script that detects if I don't download an ad is not DRM, and a TOS posted somewhere on the website is absolutely not a contract.
  - mahranch 11y ago
    > What a huge sense of self-entitlement. Your rights as a publisher do not extend to my computer But the content itself isn't yours. You are not entitled to view that content. The creator put it up with the expectation that people would/will be viewing the ads right along side the content. It's that expectation and assumption that supersedes everything else. It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. I say it's load of rubbish. The content creators (publishers) are the ones who get to dictate terms, end of story. You're not paying anything to consume that content and you didn't create it, so your "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all). You're entitled to absolutely nothing. Let me ask you a question: If instead, a website says "I have this content you want to see. In order to view it, you must view this ad first. Click "Yes" to accept and view the ad. Click "No" to go back to Google.com." is that any different to you? It shouldn't be. Also, that's where the internet is headed if more people adopt your entitled mentality. If I'm a publisher, I'd be doing something similar. No, if I were a publisher, I'd be trying to get all the big name publishers/advertisers to do that too. They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. :P
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > But the content itself isn't yours. Correct. I never said it was mine. That still doesn't give you rights over what software I run on my computer. > You are not entitled to view that content Correct. You can choose not to send it to me. The difficulty you seem to be having is that the you don't seem to understand what your rights are. You can choose not to do business with me. You can also prevent me from distributing extra copies of your work (copyright). You do not have the right to control how someone uses your work after you hand it over. This is known as the doctrine of first sale[1]. In spite of a lot of people trying to pretend they have rights over how content is used, wishful thinking doesn't create rights contrary to past court decisions. > expectation For the 100th time, an expectation is not a contract. > It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". What you call "semantics and 'technicalities'" are the law. > The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. Advertisers and their apologists are trying to cover up years of legal missunderstanding and business models that depend on an incorrect understanding of the alw. It's easier to accuse others of "entitlement" than admiting your business model is going to fail. Oh, and that "entitlement"? We are entitled to something - the law. > Let me ask you a question: [click-through model] Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard). > It shouldn't be. But one of those makes a contract, and the other is wishful thinking and in some casses a deliberate attempt to mislead. If you think that creating a proper contract is too much of a burden and will drive away traffic, then you might want to realize that the market is trying to inform you what the actual value of your "content" is. > They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. Do you really think people simply don't understand this? I've never met anyone who didn't understand that some things currently depend on advertisements for income. Now when are you going to start understanding how contract law works? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- lmm 11y ago
  The browser is supposed to be the user's agent. In the early documentation it was explicit that both the user and the browser were expected to apply their own styling to web content. IMO a lot of bad web design has come out of the wrongheaded idea that the designer should be able to lay out the page pixel-by-pixel and expect the browser to render it exactly the same way. If you want that, use PDF or Flash or some such.

by tbabb 11y ago

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.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > The analogy is extremely strong. The analogy is either a serious misunderstanding of how the internet and web browsers work, or is a deliberate attempt to confuse these concepts. > Why shouldn't I be allowed to vandalize a billboard Because it's not your property. If you order a billboard and have it shipped to your house, you can do what you want to it. > tampering with a server's software What are you smoking? Do you not understand that a userscript runs on the client? The server isn't involved at all after it sends the HTML and JS files. What makes you think you have a right to run software on my computer? You don't - I'll run whatever software I want on my computer. It's your business if you want to send me a page, of course. Just like it's my decision if I want to run some program.
    - mahranch 11y ago
      Not that I agree with the guy above you, but I also don't agree with your comment here: > What makes you think you have a right to run software on my computer? What makes you think you have the right to consume the content I worked hard to create for free? Just because you can hide ads, or sneak into a concert to listen and consume that content, it doesn't make it morally permissible. Do you think you should be able to sneak into a theater and watch a movie for free? Should you be entitled to that? This really isn't any different. And here's why: These content creators and publishers are creating their content with the expectation that people will view the ads right along side the content, and they will make money. It's an inherent expectation. So once you hide those ads, you are making an effort to cheat the content creator. It's just become so ubiquitous to web browsing that you actually think it should be "the norm" and that you're on some moral high ground here. You aren't and I'm flabbergasted that intelligent people actually think this way. Either hackernews has changed within the last year or two, or it's demographic has gotten a lot younger over the years. From my experience most people are fine with ads, they want to support the content creators. What they're up in arms about, is "intrusive" ads. That is completely understandable. However, this fight now has become about all ads in general, and I have to take a stand there because I understand how content subsidization works. Without ads, there would be no internet. At least, not in its current form. It would be a vastly different place, and not one I'd be eager to see.
tbabb 11y ago
By your logic, would it be illegal to install a browser plugin that replaces every instance of the word "keyboard" with the word "leopard"? Is that "vandalism"? And as you point out, I must first request the information. So I request a URL to a webpage and receive and HTML+CSS+JS document, containing more URLs which, via adblock, I decide not to follow or make more HTTP requests to. Similarly, the page has JS code which my browser may decide not to execute, or CSS elements which the browser may, at my request, decide not to display. Pretty sure all of the at is well within my right.
Drakim 11y ago
If somebody hands me a free newspaper with ads in them, it's not vandalism for me to cut out the ads so that I can read the newspaper without them. Nobody sane would call "modifying a copy of something" vandalism.
pdkl95 11y ago
> vandalize What a huge sense of self-entitlement. Your rights as a publisher do not extend to my computer and what I do with the data after you send it to me. You may request that I run some software with a <script> tag, or request that I download an image with an <img> tag, but if you want to guarantee any of those things you better get me to agree to a contract first. It isn't vandalism when someone modifies something you gave them. Vandalism is a criminal charge - are you also going to claim I'm a criminal if I use some scissors to cut ads out of a magazine after receiving it in the mail? > illegal What law, exactly, are you claiming is being violated? A script that detects if I don't download an ad is not DRM, and a TOS posted somewhere on the website is absolutely not a contract.
- mahranch 11y ago
  > What a huge sense of self-entitlement. Your rights as a publisher do not extend to my computer But the content itself isn't yours. You are not entitled to view that content. The creator put it up with the expectation that people would/will be viewing the ads right along side the content. It's that expectation and assumption that supersedes everything else. It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. I say it's load of rubbish. The content creators (publishers) are the ones who get to dictate terms, end of story. You're not paying anything to consume that content and you didn't create it, so your "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all). You're entitled to absolutely nothing. Let me ask you a question: If instead, a website says "I have this content you want to see. In order to view it, you must view this ad first. Click "Yes" to accept and view the ad. Click "No" to go back to Google.com." is that any different to you? It shouldn't be. Also, that's where the internet is headed if more people adopt your entitled mentality. If I'm a publisher, I'd be doing something similar. No, if I were a publisher, I'd be trying to get all the big name publishers/advertisers to do that too. They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. :P
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > But the content itself isn't yours. Correct. I never said it was mine. That still doesn't give you rights over what software I run on my computer. > You are not entitled to view that content Correct. You can choose not to send it to me. The difficulty you seem to be having is that the you don't seem to understand what your rights are. You can choose not to do business with me. You can also prevent me from distributing extra copies of your work (copyright). You do not have the right to control how someone uses your work after you hand it over. This is known as the doctrine of first sale[1]. In spite of a lot of people trying to pretend they have rights over how content is used, wishful thinking doesn't create rights contrary to past court decisions. > expectation For the 100th time, an expectation is not a contract. > It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". What you call "semantics and 'technicalities'" are the law. > The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. Advertisers and their apologists are trying to cover up years of legal missunderstanding and business models that depend on an incorrect understanding of the alw. It's easier to accuse others of "entitlement" than admiting your business model is going to fail. Oh, and that "entitlement"? We are entitled to something - the law. > Let me ask you a question: [click-through model] Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard). > It shouldn't be. But one of those makes a contract, and the other is wishful thinking and in some casses a deliberate attempt to mislead. If you think that creating a proper contract is too much of a burden and will drive away traffic, then you might want to realize that the market is trying to inform you what the actual value of your "content" is. > They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. Do you really think people simply don't understand this? I've never met anyone who didn't understand that some things currently depend on advertisements for income. Now when are you going to start understanding how contract law works? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
lmm 11y ago
The browser is supposed to be the user's agent. In the early documentation it was explicit that both the user and the browser were expected to apply their own styling to web content. IMO a lot of bad web design has come out of the wrongheaded idea that the designer should be able to lay out the page pixel-by-pixel and expect the browser to render it exactly the same way. If you want that, use PDF or Flash or some such.