7 ms·

And I think a site's ToS could potentially forbid this and thus provide an avenue to sue either you, Brave or both. Aside from that, I don't think the "my devi

And I think a site's ToS could potentially forbid this and thus provide an avenue to sue either you, Brave or both. Aside from that, I don't think the "my device, my choice" adblock arguments go here. I think it's pretty obviously immoral.

jcoffland 10y ago
You mean unethical.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/ http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/
curioussavage 10y ago
You send me some html, css and Javascript from YOUR domain to MY computer. I reserve the right to do what I want with it. YOU have NO right to determine what I do with it after you send it to me. It is pointless to think that rules regarding that can be enforced anyways. To me that is the reality of the situation, its like we are debating if gravity should pull us down or not. Edit: for civility (with lack of sleep as the excuse).
- seibelj 10y ago
  This person's phrasing of his / her sentiment is a tad off-putting, which is why I imagine people are downvoting, but honestly I see it as the same way: I made a TCP request and fetched your data. How my data display device (i.e. web browser) displays it is up to me. If I choose to alter it or enhance it, that's up to me. It was your decision to send me your data, not to tell me how to display it.
  - hsod 10y ago
    This assumes that there is no implicit or explicit agreement between you and the content host. What if the site's TOS made you explicitly agree not to block ads (not in a hidden legalese way but with clear UX)? Would that change your calculus? What if the site owner was a friend of yours, and asked you personally not to block ads? Would that?
    - seibelj 10y ago
      Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. I have now signed an agreement, and the data is only delivered through an authenticated manner. But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me. I think you are speaking about ethics, and you can try to convince me that my ethics are inferior to your ethics, and I can try to convince you that my ethics are better than your ethics, but that becomes a parlor game. Surely, a blind person has a need to display the data retrieved differently? Perhaps your ethics change for the disabled? I've gone off topic, but the point is, if the ad-supported business model is failing, that's a problem for business to solve, not pleas to my "morality".
      - hsod 10y ago
        I'm solely challenging your assertion that you have zero ethical obligation to a content provider because of the mechanism by which they provided you content. I don't think your digression into meta-ethics is very interesting, so I'll focus what seems to be your concrete point. > Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. [...] But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me. What if there was no authentication mechanism, but just a heartfelt request in the text of the content which asked you kindly to whitelist that site in your ad blocker? What if they didn't explicitly request it, but you simply know that that's what they would want? What I'm trying to get at with these questions is this idea that web users are freed from the obligations of fairness and honest dealings due to the technical mechanisms of the internet.
        seibelj 10y ago
- st3v3r 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but this argument still hinges on the idea that you are entitled to their content for free. By going to their site, you have agreed to pay them in the form of ads. If those terms are not amenable to you, that's fine, just don't go to their site. Don't pretend you're doing something just and noble by stiffing them on the bill.

jcoffland 10y ago

You mean unethical.

jcoffland 10y ago
http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/ http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/

curioussavage 10y ago

You send me some html, css and Javascript from YOUR domain to MY computer. I reserve the right to do what I want with it. YOU have NO right to determine what I do with it after you send it to me. It is pointless to think that rules regarding that can be enforced anyways. To me that is the reality of the situation, its like we are debating if gravity should pull us down or not. Edit: for civility (with lack of sleep as the excuse).

seibelj 10y ago
This person's phrasing of his / her sentiment is a tad off-putting, which is why I imagine people are downvoting, but honestly I see it as the same way: I made a TCP request and fetched your data. How my data display device (i.e. web browser) displays it is up to me. If I choose to alter it or enhance it, that's up to me. It was your decision to send me your data, not to tell me how to display it.
- hsod 10y ago
  This assumes that there is no implicit or explicit agreement between you and the content host. What if the site's TOS made you explicitly agree not to block ads (not in a hidden legalese way but with clear UX)? Would that change your calculus? What if the site owner was a friend of yours, and asked you personally not to block ads? Would that?
  - seibelj 10y ago
    Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. I have now signed an agreement, and the data is only delivered through an authenticated manner. But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me. I think you are speaking about ethics, and you can try to convince me that my ethics are inferior to your ethics, and I can try to convince you that my ethics are better than your ethics, but that becomes a parlor game. Surely, a blind person has a need to display the data retrieved differently? Perhaps your ethics change for the disabled? I've gone off topic, but the point is, if the ad-supported business model is failing, that's a problem for business to solve, not pleas to my "morality".
    - hsod 10y ago
      I'm solely challenging your assertion that you have zero ethical obligation to a content provider because of the mechanism by which they provided you content. I don't think your digression into meta-ethics is very interesting, so I'll focus what seems to be your concrete point. > Well, if they made me register an account and agree to a ToS, I think it changes things. [...] But if it's publicly available, like a blog post, I don't see how you can place any restrictions on me. What if there was no authentication mechanism, but just a heartfelt request in the text of the content which asked you kindly to whitelist that site in your ad blocker? What if they didn't explicitly request it, but you simply know that that's what they would want? What I'm trying to get at with these questions is this idea that web users are freed from the obligations of fairness and honest dealings due to the technical mechanisms of the internet.
      - seibelj 10y ago
st3v3r 10y ago
I'm sorry, but this argument still hinges on the idea that you are entitled to their content for free. By going to their site, you have agreed to pay them in the form of ads. If those terms are not amenable to you, that's fine, just don't go to their site. Don't pretend you're doing something just and noble by stiffing them on the bill.