4 ms·

You have those things and then you have robbing the publisher from his revenue and still wanting to consume his production. This problem precedes your problems.

You have those things and then you have robbing the publisher from his revenue and still wanting to consume his production. This problem precedes your problems. You presumed that the publisher will violate your privacy but decided that you want to profit from him anyway while blocking him from profiting from you. Is that an exchange in good faith? Or do you contemplate the morality of actions only when it suits you? Sounds like self-justification to me.

spriggan3 11y ago
I'm not robbing anybody, how I am robbing somebody if content isn't behind a paywall at first place? so you might argue I might violate some TOS if I block ads, and it might be true. However this is not theft. The problem is you calling it theft. There is no theft here, I didn't rob the producer of the content he created. one can't even use the "piracy" argument like for musical or video content. The article is published online for free, and I can access it for free. If the publisher wants it paid, just let him put it behind a paywall. If he isn't doing that, well it is because he knows his content isn't worth people's money. No, the problem is between ad-networks and producers first and foremost. The problem isn't on my end.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  It's unrealized gains. The problem most definitely lies with you. The producer proposes a something-for-something deal and you won't take anything other than something-for-nothing by presumption. If he consumes your bandwidth, he is the devil. But when you consume his bandwidth without offering anything in return, it is justified?
  - spriggan3 11y ago
    > If he consumes your bandwidth, he is the devil. But when you consume his bandwidth without offering anything in return, it is justified? That's the foundation of the web and with his javascript on a webpage the producer is certainly consuming unnecessary CPU cycles on my computer and I have the right not to allow that. The problem definitely doesn't lie with me. If he doesn't agree he has the right to block me no question. But as long as I can access the content legally I will never feel bad about that and there is nothing to feel bad about.

spriggan3 11y ago

I'm not robbing anybody, how I am robbing somebody if content isn't behind a paywall at first place? so you might argue I might violate some TOS if I block ads, and it might be true. However this is not theft. The problem is you calling it theft. There is no theft here, I didn't rob the producer of the content he created. one can't even use the "piracy" argument like for musical or video content. The article is published online for free, and I can access it for free. If the publisher wants it paid, just let him put it behind a paywall. If he isn't doing that, well it is because he knows his content isn't worth people's money. No, the problem is between ad-networks and producers first and foremost. The problem isn't on my end.

TheLogothete 11y ago
It's unrealized gains. The problem most definitely lies with you. The producer proposes a something-for-something deal and you won't take anything other than something-for-nothing by presumption. If he consumes your bandwidth, he is the devil. But when you consume his bandwidth without offering anything in return, it is justified?
- spriggan3 11y ago
  > If he consumes your bandwidth, he is the devil. But when you consume his bandwidth without offering anything in return, it is justified? That's the foundation of the web and with his javascript on a webpage the producer is certainly consuming unnecessary CPU cycles on my computer and I have the right not to allow that. The problem definitely doesn't lie with me. If he doesn't agree he has the right to block me no question. But as long as I can access the content legally I will never feel bad about that and there is nothing to feel bad about.