9 ms·

Sibling comments made the security argument at length, but I'll add another aspect: one of sovereignty. I'm displaying content on my screen. It's my screen, an

Sibling comments made the security argument at length, but I'll add another aspect: one of sovereignty. I'm displaying content on my screen. It's my screen, and my computer, and I don't see a difference between an ad blocker and, say, putting post-it notes over the screen to physically block the space the ads are appearing in. In the same way, I can control whether I watch a video muted or at 100% volume. I can control what font I use, whether my browser is fullscreen. I can modify the displayed content so all instances of the word "millennials" read as "snake people". I can choose not to display ads. I'm not articulating this well, but I hope I got my point across. I view anti-adblockers like I do DRM - it's a program or piece of data (edit: ...that is running on my computer, not remotely) that is causing my computer to behave in ways I do not want my computer to behave, and so fits the definition of malware.

trylist 10y ago
Their argument is pretty silly. If I close my eyes and mute my TV when commercials come on am I ripping off TV networks?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- thomaskcr 10y ago
  No because they get paid to show you the ad, not make sure you watched it. Adblockers prevent the ad from being shown which is fundamentally different. On recording and fast forwarding later since it's a closer analog, the network is being paid to show that ad to people during that time period - generally the numbers used to sell ad space exclude people recording for later (they are broken out). So that is also not ripping them off since the ads are part of the "cost" of watching the show at that time, not in general.
  - problems 10y ago
    So would it then be okay by your logic to load the ad in the background and just hide it from the page like muting a radio ad? Old school Adblock used to do this in the early days.
    - thomaskcr 10y ago
      I guess, I mean this is just based on my personal world-view, I'm not an ad ethicist and I don't run any sites that depend on the revenue - I just personally don't run an ad-blocker because I feel it breaks the "social contract" that in return for someone providing me content I give up some screen real estate for an ad. In your case, what's the point? Even though I feel like it's hyperbolic, one of the main arguments is that they are an attack vector - so if they are still running/displaying then it seems pointless. It's not that hard to ignore ads, there are a few sites I don't really go to because I know they have annoying ads (and I don't feel entitled to their content for free, so I just don't go) but otherwise I have never had any issues with ads that are difficult to ignore.
      - problems 10y ago
        > It's not that hard to ignore ads Speak for yourself, especially after years of having them blocked I find them incredibly distracting when I look at someone else's screen. > I don't feel entitled to their content for free I don't either, but if your server will give it to me, I'll take it. If they wanted it secured, they should have used a pay wall. That's their fault, not my problem. If you give it to my computer, I get to decide how it's displayed. Ultimately, it's my hardware, if it does anything I don't like, I have a right to fix it and that right of ownership trumps any non-existent contract in my book.
        thomaskcr 10y ago
        It's just an honor system thing. If you feel entitled to consume their content that they pay to host while making sure they don't get paid for it then that's how you feel and just like you said you fully have that ability and control. They do offer a way you can pay to not have ads, and they offer a way for people who don't want the hassle of a paywall to consume their content by viewing ads. There will always be people who just don't feel others should be paid for the services they offer. In my opinion this is just like grabbing a big handful of Halloween candy that was left out without a sign saying "take one", there's nothing preventing you from taking all you want but the expectation is that you just take one so everyone can have some.
codedokode 10y ago
Agree. I think the consumer should have more rights: - a right to freely inspect and disassemble the software before running it to make sure it doesn't have any malicious or tracking functions and disable the code one doesn't want to be run on his system - a right to make any modifications to one's legally obtained copy of software (but not redistribute it) - a right to distribute tools necessary for disassembling and modifying software - a right to decide what information can be collected and sent from his device. For example, many smartphones today have preinstalled software (like Google Play Services) that sends data to Google and to manufacturer. The consumer is unable to inspect or disable this unless he is a computer engineer having a lot of free time. Even if it is anonymised data they should not be sent without owner's consent. If you are unable to control this you are not the real owner. The digital techologies are a new thing and are not yet covered fully with laws so large corporations (and their friends at NSA) try to make the rules beneficial to them. We have a laws like DMCA that restrict the rights of consumer to repair a tractor but we have no laws protecting consumer from spying on him by Google. Large companies just want to have as much authority over consumer as they can.
johncolanduoni 10y ago
There's a difference between encroaching on your sovereignty (i.e. Making a law against you blocking ads, which I strongly oppose) and what you're doing being unethical. Do you really think everything you can do that takes advantage of legal rights you should totally have is ethical? If that's the case, which of the following do you agree with: A. It should be illegal to cheat on your significant other. B. It is totally ethical to cheat on your significant other.

trylist 10y ago

Their argument is pretty silly. If I close my eyes and mute my TV when commercials come on am I ripping off TV networks?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
thomaskcr 10y ago
No because they get paid to show you the ad, not make sure you watched it. Adblockers prevent the ad from being shown which is fundamentally different. On recording and fast forwarding later since it's a closer analog, the network is being paid to show that ad to people during that time period - generally the numbers used to sell ad space exclude people recording for later (they are broken out). So that is also not ripping them off since the ads are part of the "cost" of watching the show at that time, not in general.
- problems 10y ago
  So would it then be okay by your logic to load the ad in the background and just hide it from the page like muting a radio ad? Old school Adblock used to do this in the early days.
  - thomaskcr 10y ago
    I guess, I mean this is just based on my personal world-view, I'm not an ad ethicist and I don't run any sites that depend on the revenue - I just personally don't run an ad-blocker because I feel it breaks the "social contract" that in return for someone providing me content I give up some screen real estate for an ad. In your case, what's the point? Even though I feel like it's hyperbolic, one of the main arguments is that they are an attack vector - so if they are still running/displaying then it seems pointless. It's not that hard to ignore ads, there are a few sites I don't really go to because I know they have annoying ads (and I don't feel entitled to their content for free, so I just don't go) but otherwise I have never had any issues with ads that are difficult to ignore.
    - problems 10y ago
      > It's not that hard to ignore ads Speak for yourself, especially after years of having them blocked I find them incredibly distracting when I look at someone else's screen. > I don't feel entitled to their content for free I don't either, but if your server will give it to me, I'll take it. If they wanted it secured, they should have used a pay wall. That's their fault, not my problem. If you give it to my computer, I get to decide how it's displayed. Ultimately, it's my hardware, if it does anything I don't like, I have a right to fix it and that right of ownership trumps any non-existent contract in my book.
      - thomaskcr 10y ago
        It's just an honor system thing. If you feel entitled to consume their content that they pay to host while making sure they don't get paid for it then that's how you feel and just like you said you fully have that ability and control. They do offer a way you can pay to not have ads, and they offer a way for people who don't want the hassle of a paywall to consume their content by viewing ads. There will always be people who just don't feel others should be paid for the services they offer. In my opinion this is just like grabbing a big handful of Halloween candy that was left out without a sign saying "take one", there's nothing preventing you from taking all you want but the expectation is that you just take one so everyone can have some.

codedokode 10y ago

Agree. I think the consumer should have more rights: - a right to freely inspect and disassemble the software before running it to make sure it doesn't have any malicious or tracking functions and disable the code one doesn't want to be run on his system - a right to make any modifications to one's legally obtained copy of software (but not redistribute it) - a right to distribute tools necessary for disassembling and modifying software - a right to decide what information can be collected and sent from his device. For example, many smartphones today have preinstalled software (like Google Play Services) that sends data to Google and to manufacturer. The consumer is unable to inspect or disable this unless he is a computer engineer having a lot of free time. Even if it is anonymised data they should not be sent without owner's consent. If you are unable to control this you are not the real owner. The digital techologies are a new thing and are not yet covered fully with laws so large corporations (and their friends at NSA) try to make the rules beneficial to them. We have a laws like DMCA that restrict the rights of consumer to repair a tractor but we have no laws protecting consumer from spying on him by Google. Large companies just want to have as much authority over consumer as they can.

johncolanduoni 10y ago

There's a difference between encroaching on your sovereignty (i.e. Making a law against you blocking ads, which I strongly oppose) and what you're doing being unethical. Do you really think everything you can do that takes advantage of legal rights you should totally have is ethical? If that's the case, which of the following do you agree with: A. It should be illegal to cheat on your significant other. B. It is totally ethical to cheat on your significant other.