5 ms·

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 y

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.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > What makes you think you have the right to consume the content I worked hard to create for free? I don't! Misrepresenting my position is not a good way to argue. Unlike your offensive concert and movie analogies, I am not advocating breaking into a server to copy content. Requests are made to the server, and you can choose to send me data or not. Also, just because you worked hard at something doesn't mean that it has value. Why do you think you have a right to be paid regardless of what the market says your content is worth? > This really isn't any different. Only in your self-entitled world. > Without ads, there would be no internet. At least, not in its current form. Yes, thank you very much - that's the goal. > It would be a vastly different place, and not one I'd be eager to see. I'm sorry you have such a limited view of the world. There is more to the world than profit motive.

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.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > What makes you think you have the right to consume the content I worked hard to create for free? I don't! Misrepresenting my position is not a good way to argue. Unlike your offensive concert and movie analogies, I am not advocating breaking into a server to copy content. Requests are made to the server, and you can choose to send me data or not. Also, just because you worked hard at something doesn't mean that it has value. Why do you think you have a right to be paid regardless of what the market says your content is worth? > This really isn't any different. Only in your self-entitled world. > Without ads, there would be no internet. At least, not in its current form. Yes, thank you very much - that's the goal. > It would be a vastly different place, and not one I'd be eager to see. I'm sorry you have such a limited view of the world. There is more to the world than profit motive.