5 ms·

It seems that most people in the comments haven't actually read the article as the complaint seems to not be about ad-blocking but about the browser replacing a

by uw_rob 11y ago

It seems that most people in the comments haven't actually read the article as the complaint seems to not be about ad-blocking but about the browser replacing ads with its own. What would the argument for this being OK be? Also as an aside, it seems insane to me that people are comparing the ad-blocking to having others decide what you can and cannot read, and that it is somehow a violation of advertisers freedom.

lackbeard 11y ago
> What would the argument for this being OK be? It's saddening that this is even a question in anyone's mind. Is it okay to use Lynx? curl? Is it okay to save what I downloaded with curl?
- uw_rob 11y ago
  Of course that is ok! I believe you have the right to choose how things are displayed for you. I however think it is morally dubious for a browser to remove ads from a site to just replace it with its own.
Lazare 11y ago
> What would the argument for this being OK be? What would be the argument that it's not okay? To me your argument is like saying that it's okay to buy a book and draw on the cover with a green pen, but not okay to draw on the cover with a red pen. If I bought the book, I can modify it how I want; the colour of ink I use shouldn't matter.
- uw_rob 11y ago
  I think the user should have the right to choose what, and how, content is displayed. With that being said, I think it is morally dubious for a browser to inject ads. Regardless of the privacy concerns, I don't think anyone should profit at the direct costs of others. I think your physical comparison fails as it tries to equate a right to something that is moral. And sometimes they are different.
  - Lazare 11y ago
    > I don't think anyone should profit at the direct costs of others. Does this mean it's immoral for me to donate $5 to my favourite ad blocking extension author? After all, the author is now profiting at the expense of the publisher. Similarly, is it immoral for me to sign up for a service which injects additional ads in exchange for a fee, if I so choose? If not, does it become immoral in your eyes for me to also run an ad blocker which blocks the normal ads? Or is it important that the ad injection browser extension be written by a different person than the ad blocking browser extension? Considering that Brave is (I imagine) not turning a profit, does that mean their service is okay until they become profitable, then becomes immoral? > I think your physical comparison fails as it tries to equate a right to something that is moral. And sometimes they are different. I am discussing morality in both cases.

by uw_rob 11y ago

lackbeard 11y ago

> What would the argument for this being OK be? It's saddening that this is even a question in anyone's mind. Is it okay to use Lynx? curl? Is it okay to save what I downloaded with curl?

uw_rob 11y ago
Of course that is ok! I believe you have the right to choose how things are displayed for you. I however think it is morally dubious for a browser to remove ads from a site to just replace it with its own.

Lazare 11y ago

> What would the argument for this being OK be? What would be the argument that it's not okay? To me your argument is like saying that it's okay to buy a book and draw on the cover with a green pen, but not okay to draw on the cover with a red pen. If I bought the book, I can modify it how I want; the colour of ink I use shouldn't matter.

uw_rob 11y ago
I think the user should have the right to choose what, and how, content is displayed. With that being said, I think it is morally dubious for a browser to inject ads. Regardless of the privacy concerns, I don't think anyone should profit at the direct costs of others. I think your physical comparison fails as it tries to equate a right to something that is moral. And sometimes they are different.
- Lazare 11y ago
  > I don't think anyone should profit at the direct costs of others. Does this mean it's immoral for me to donate $5 to my favourite ad blocking extension author? After all, the author is now profiting at the expense of the publisher. Similarly, is it immoral for me to sign up for a service which injects additional ads in exchange for a fee, if I so choose? If not, does it become immoral in your eyes for me to also run an ad blocker which blocks the normal ads? Or is it important that the ad injection browser extension be written by a different person than the ad blocking browser extension? Considering that Brave is (I imagine) not turning a profit, does that mean their service is okay until they become profitable, then becomes immoral? > I think your physical comparison fails as it tries to equate a right to something that is moral. And sometimes they are different. I am discussing morality in both cases.