3 ms·

"He went on to explain that the Guardian’s social media management software provided by Tribal Fusion enables tracking and data mining of users “without the con

"He went on to explain that the Guardian’s social media management software provided by Tribal Fusion enables tracking and data mining of users “without the consent of the user to allow that tracking of data” in order to feed back to advertisers." Don't you have to agree to the website's terms to use that website in the first place? If you're already breaking those terms by blocking their ads (and thus their revenue), do you really have a legal leg to stand on here? Isn't saying "whether or not you use an ad-blocker" is private information like saying you should be able to stand on a street corner in a bright pink shirt and people shouldn't look at you because it's your business what color shirt you wear? I can't see this as anything but a ridiculous attempt to use a legal loophole. If you want to see their content, enable their ads. If you really don't want to see their ads, don't use their site. It's not really that hard. You aren't entitled to their content.

fwn 11y ago
> but a ridiculous attempt to use a legal loophole Which is funny because my mental default is that publishers try to use legal arguments to fight adblockers. It somehow feels like turning evil to me that one might use the same means to enforce an adblock positive position. It appears to me to be morally wrong in both cases.
krapp 11y ago
> You aren't entitled to their content. I am entitled to whatever their server sends my browser when I make a request. I am also entitled to alter that content in the browser in any way I see fit, including blocking their advertising. They may want to be compensated for their content and server costs through advertising, but unfortunately for them the web has been designed in such a way as to allow the rest of the world not to care about what they want. The advertising model on the web is just fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure. It's essentially an honor system, but as long as people can block ads and still get content, they will. Trying to detect that is an understandable reaction on the part of businesses, but the ad blockers will only be redesigned to compensate, and people would probably much rather go elsewhere than even be slightly annoyed by advertising. Companies need to accept that the ability to block ads is an intrinsic part of the web, just as the ability to turn the channel is an intrinsic part of a television. They just can't make us look at their ads if we don't want to.
michaelmrose 11y ago
Trying to argue that clicking a link creates a contract that obligated me to cede control of my machine to you is laughable and harmful. More importantly you aren't entitled to run software I don't approve of by virtue of putting up an openly accessible site. Don't like it charge money. Can't make money that way go sell shoes.

fwn 11y ago

> but a ridiculous attempt to use a legal loophole Which is funny because my mental default is that publishers try to use legal arguments to fight adblockers. It somehow feels like turning evil to me that one might use the same means to enforce an adblock positive position. It appears to me to be morally wrong in both cases.

krapp 11y ago

> You aren't entitled to their content. I am entitled to whatever their server sends my browser when I make a request. I am also entitled to alter that content in the browser in any way I see fit, including blocking their advertising. They may want to be compensated for their content and server costs through advertising, but unfortunately for them the web has been designed in such a way as to allow the rest of the world not to care about what they want. The advertising model on the web is just fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure. It's essentially an honor system, but as long as people can block ads and still get content, they will. Trying to detect that is an understandable reaction on the part of businesses, but the ad blockers will only be redesigned to compensate, and people would probably much rather go elsewhere than even be slightly annoyed by advertising. Companies need to accept that the ability to block ads is an intrinsic part of the web, just as the ability to turn the channel is an intrinsic part of a television. They just can't make us look at their ads if we don't want to.

michaelmrose 11y ago

Trying to argue that clicking a link creates a contract that obligated me to cede control of my machine to you is laughable and harmful. More importantly you aren't entitled to run software I don't approve of by virtue of putting up an openly accessible site. Don't like it charge money. Can't make money that way go sell shoes.