4 ms·

I agree with you in some cases but not in others. I'll give you a recent example: there's nothing wrong with servers running ad-block detectors and not serving

I agree with you in some cases but not in others. I'll give you a recent example: there's nothing wrong with servers running ad-block detectors and not serving content to people running ad-blockers. It's within their rights. It's not "within their rights" for people to circumvent these and try to see the content anyway. Since on a technical level the content owner's web server is both serving the content to you at their expense, for which your browser makes a request, and also is specifically serving copyrighted content, and finally on a moral level has created that content at their expense, I consider it absolutely, 100% within their moral, legal, technical, and decent rights to throw up a TOS saying: "Our business model is showing you advertising, and you agree to load and not block ads. Click 'I agree' to proceed". It's in my opinion within their moral, ethical, technical, and legal rights to detect and block people using ad blockers. It's not a technical "arms race" for people installing plugins that let them trick the server into serving them content even though they're not displaying ads, while the server chooses not to display them content. Even if there is NO such click-through TOS being thrown up, the server by running ad-detection algorithms makes this relationship abundantly clear. I wrote this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11458626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11458626 All of my contributions were downvoted, which is fine, but people were also extremely rude. They didn't understand my bakery analogy, and focused on something irrelevant, the TOS. (This is like saying the bakery didn't have a sign up saying you couldn't reach behind the counter and take something. I mean, the fact that the server is actively running ad-block detection and wanting not to serve you isn't enough? It's also irrelevant because it takes one line to add that to a TOS so it's not a real response.) So here is an example of a fine contribution in which my view is correct and HN groupthink is completely wrong. untog pointed out that my comment was correct by stating "Seems telling that you're getting downvotes but no replies explaining how your comparison is wrong..." Going forward, of course I will not be using that analogy.. Indeed I won't post on any ad-block related subjects. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't expect people not to run ad-blockers, just as the existence of copyright doesn't mean I don't expect people to torrent stuff. I just mean that they're not morally in the right, they shouldn't act righteous about it, and servers that refuse to serve people content when those people are running ad blockers are in no way (not even a tiny way) in the wrong. I'll probably be downvoted for this, I just wanted to give you an example of something that I wouldn't post. I literally wouldn't be posting this now except as an example of something people will downvote.

EdHominem 11y ago
The whole point of HTML documents is that the client renders them. I vastly prefer web docs because they reflow to my screen, can be decluttered, styled, etc, over PDFs and the like. If sites with paywalls wanted to distribute encrypted PDFs to their customers that would be one thing. But they're using HTML and the whole point of that is that the client renders it. I will always reshape your HTML + requests before I fetch and render it. That's how it works. If you don't like that, this is not the medium for you to engage me in. Also, ads are grandfathered in, in most people's minds, because they happened before our privacy discussions started. But when you consider the insidious tracking and the anti-anti-tracking measures (how is that not hacking?) going on, they're a hideous technology. If history was different and you just invented internet ads now you'd be called a malware author and privacy abuser (of children!). So it's time public perception catches up with reality and (tracking-capable) ads die a fiery death.
- hsod 11y ago
  All of this is beside the point though. The owners of the server have made it clear that they don't want to serve you content. The principles of fairness and honest dealings say that you should respect those wishes, even if you technically can work around them.
  - Retric 11y ago
    There is nothing honest about trying to run DRM over HTML. Serving adds are pissing in a public pool. It might be convent, but it makes things worse for everyone else.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    right, you're the only one who is correct in this thread, and the other responses are wrong - and yet my comment explaining this is downvoted. But look at all the noise that was generated in this thread! So, this is actually a fantastic illustration of why on some political or certain controversial issues, when HN groupthink is wrong (such as all the other responses in this thread) it's better not to point out the correct view.

EdHominem 11y ago

The whole point of HTML documents is that the client renders them. I vastly prefer web docs because they reflow to my screen, can be decluttered, styled, etc, over PDFs and the like. If sites with paywalls wanted to distribute encrypted PDFs to their customers that would be one thing. But they're using HTML and the whole point of that is that the client renders it. I will always reshape your HTML + requests before I fetch and render it. That's how it works. If you don't like that, this is not the medium for you to engage me in. Also, ads are grandfathered in, in most people's minds, because they happened before our privacy discussions started. But when you consider the insidious tracking and the anti-anti-tracking measures (how is that not hacking?) going on, they're a hideous technology. If history was different and you just invented internet ads now you'd be called a malware author and privacy abuser (of children!). So it's time public perception catches up with reality and (tracking-capable) ads die a fiery death.

hsod 11y ago
All of this is beside the point though. The owners of the server have made it clear that they don't want to serve you content. The principles of fairness and honest dealings say that you should respect those wishes, even if you technically can work around them.
- Retric 11y ago
  There is nothing honest about trying to run DRM over HTML. Serving adds are pissing in a public pool. It might be convent, but it makes things worse for everyone else.
- logicallee 11y ago
  right, you're the only one who is correct in this thread, and the other responses are wrong - and yet my comment explaining this is downvoted. But look at all the noise that was generated in this thread! So, this is actually a fantastic illustration of why on some political or certain controversial issues, when HN groupthink is wrong (such as all the other responses in this thread) it's better not to point out the correct view.