3 ms·

Given that's not what most sites' TOS say, viewing advertisements is not a transactional agreement in 99% of applicable cases.

logicallee 11y ago
again it's rather nuanced. (Personally, I think it is.) I mean, it's not "transactional" if you say to a person (of either gender, and you can be of either gender) at a bar "Hey can I buy you a drink?" and they say "sure", wait for you to buy them the drink, then take it walk away without another glance at you. Where is the TOS that they agreed to share at least a second or two of your company? That said, it's still transactional, just at a different level than you're playing on, and they're being dicks if they behave that way. But you didn't answer my hypothetical: Do people have a right to click a button on a blank page with nothing else that says "I agree to look at ads in exchange for loading the content on this site" that sets a cookie "I-agree-to-load-ads-in-exchange-for-requesting-content-from-this-site", if, after doing so, they actually block ads? (Or more likely, do they have the right to run a plug-in that clicks that agreement for them, while afterward blocking the ads anyway)? This is a yes-or-no question about your world view.
- pcmaffey 11y ago
  There is no such agreement to click. If there were, then yes you'd be breaking an agreement. But there isn't, so it's not part of the transaction.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    thanks. You could be completely correct. If this is the case then it's a legal technicality. (i.e. a single line added to the TOS or a clickthrough would change it.) However, I think most HN contributors would not agree with you that "if there were, then yes, you'd be breaking an agreement" - I would think most HN contributors would argue that the agreement would not really be binding legally or at least morally/ethically. I'm okay with the position you take today, as long as it's clear this is a legal technicality as opposed to some moral imperative and right to view the content on servers, that applies regardless of any agreement in place, even explicit.

logicallee 11y ago

again it's rather nuanced. (Personally, I think it is.) I mean, it's not "transactional" if you say to a person (of either gender, and you can be of either gender) at a bar "Hey can I buy you a drink?" and they say "sure", wait for you to buy them the drink, then take it walk away without another glance at you. Where is the TOS that they agreed to share at least a second or two of your company? That said, it's still transactional, just at a different level than you're playing on, and they're being dicks if they behave that way. But you didn't answer my hypothetical: Do people have a right to click a button on a blank page with nothing else that says "I agree to look at ads in exchange for loading the content on this site" that sets a cookie "I-agree-to-load-ads-in-exchange-for-requesting-content-from-this-site", if, after doing so, they actually block ads? (Or more likely, do they have the right to run a plug-in that clicks that agreement for them, while afterward blocking the ads anyway)? This is a yes-or-no question about your world view.

pcmaffey 11y ago
There is no such agreement to click. If there were, then yes you'd be breaking an agreement. But there isn't, so it's not part of the transaction.
- logicallee 11y ago
  thanks. You could be completely correct. If this is the case then it's a legal technicality. (i.e. a single line added to the TOS or a clickthrough would change it.) However, I think most HN contributors would not agree with you that "if there were, then yes, you'd be breaking an agreement" - I would think most HN contributors would argue that the agreement would not really be binding legally or at least morally/ethically. I'm okay with the position you take today, as long as it's clear this is a legal technicality as opposed to some moral imperative and right to view the content on servers, that applies regardless of any agreement in place, even explicit.