5 ms·

>The foundation of the Web - the Hypertext Transfer Protocol - is that I request a piece of data from a given address, while also providing relevant information

>The foundation of the Web - the Hypertext Transfer Protocol - is that I request a piece of data from a given address, while also providing relevant information about my capabilities and media I'm willing to accept, and then you send me back that data. So Facebook says that the foundation of the web is sending data to the server (such as cookies) and receiving information back. Nowhere in the protocol does it say they can't track you. Ergo, tracking is perfectly legal and moral. The foundation of the internet is that the server sends you data. Your browser happens to have a security hole and you got a virus. Totally ethical and legal. Nowhere in the HTTP protocol does it say not to send viruses.

pdkl95 10y ago
> Ergo, tracking is perfectly legal and moral. It is currently legal, but that doesn't imply that it's moral. Legality does not define morality. > Nowhere in the HTTP protocol does it say not to send viruses. Correct. > Totally ethical and legal. Sending a virus is patently unethical regardless of the transport mechanism. as for legality, see a lawyer about 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#a_5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#a_5
- dispose13432 10y ago
  I was just responding to OP's claim that since the protocol doesn't specify that I'll be watching ads, it must be legal and ethical to block them and harass those who spend money on them.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > I was just responding to OP's claim that since the protocol doesn't specify I know. The examples were still factually incorrect straw-men. > it must be legal and ethical to block them That's the point; it is legal and ethical to use data that was voluntarily given. If you want control over how things are used, stop sending to everybody freely and require a contract. > harass those who spend money on them. Clicking a link isn't harassment.
    - dispose13432 10y ago
      >Clicking a link isn't harassment. You are making people lose money (not the malware adnetworks, not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement) to prove a point to the ad-network (which is actually making money off this), I consider it close to harassment.
      - 235951 10y ago
        No, the advertisers are choosing not to pay the content creators. By blocking or using auto clickers the users are only choosing to not reveal the personal information that is sold by the content creator to the advertisers(even if the content creators don't get to see it, or cant make use of it). On tv and in movies the prestige was what advertisers where getting from ads, they would pay to have the ads carried on the same networks as great content. They wouldn't stop me from talking over an ad or closing my eyes while one was on, and I wasn't "stealing" by doing so. My part of that system was buying the cable package or the movie ticket, funding the general delivery system. Whats happened now is that content creators have taken a bad deal and started selling our personal information rather then the actual prestige of being next to their content. This is perfect for advertisers as it then sets the fight up to be between content creators and their audience, when it should be content creators and their audience working for a better deal.
        dispose13432 10y ago
        No, when you artificially click on a link, the original website pays the hosting website a bit and Google a bit. So now when you run this program, the two entities you're most against (Google for not having safe-ads) and the content website (for not working for free) are actually getting payed! If you want to hurt Google, just block ads.
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        But but but! The entity that had created / placed the ad loses money! That's good, because it raises the costs for them, incentivizing rethinking of the marketing strategy. It also, over time, makes the hosting website get less money, as the quality of clicks is worse.
tripzilch 10y ago
can we maybe make a new sort of Godwin guideline where we stop taking people seriously once they've shown they can't tell apart legal rights from moral rights?

pdkl95 10y ago

> Ergo, tracking is perfectly legal and moral. It is currently legal, but that doesn't imply that it's moral. Legality does not define morality. > Nowhere in the HTTP protocol does it say not to send viruses. Correct. > Totally ethical and legal. Sending a virus is patently unethical regardless of the transport mechanism. as for legality, see a lawyer about 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#a_5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#a_5

dispose13432 10y ago
I was just responding to OP's claim that since the protocol doesn't specify that I'll be watching ads, it must be legal and ethical to block them and harass those who spend money on them.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > I was just responding to OP's claim that since the protocol doesn't specify I know. The examples were still factually incorrect straw-men. > it must be legal and ethical to block them That's the point; it is legal and ethical to use data that was voluntarily given. If you want control over how things are used, stop sending to everybody freely and require a contract. > harass those who spend money on them. Clicking a link isn't harassment.
  - dispose13432 10y ago
    >Clicking a link isn't harassment. You are making people lose money (not the malware adnetworks, not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement) to prove a point to the ad-network (which is actually making money off this), I consider it close to harassment.
    - 235951 10y ago
      No, the advertisers are choosing not to pay the content creators. By blocking or using auto clickers the users are only choosing to not reveal the personal information that is sold by the content creator to the advertisers(even if the content creators don't get to see it, or cant make use of it). On tv and in movies the prestige was what advertisers where getting from ads, they would pay to have the ads carried on the same networks as great content. They wouldn't stop me from talking over an ad or closing my eyes while one was on, and I wasn't "stealing" by doing so. My part of that system was buying the cable package or the movie ticket, funding the general delivery system. Whats happened now is that content creators have taken a bad deal and started selling our personal information rather then the actual prestige of being next to their content. This is perfect for advertisers as it then sets the fight up to be between content creators and their audience, when it should be content creators and their audience working for a better deal.
      - dispose13432 10y ago
        No, when you artificially click on a link, the original website pays the hosting website a bit and Google a bit. So now when you run this program, the two entities you're most against (Google for not having safe-ads) and the content website (for not working for free) are actually getting payed! If you want to hurt Google, just block ads.
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        But but but! The entity that had created / placed the ad loses money! That's good, because it raises the costs for them, incentivizing rethinking of the marketing strategy. It also, over time, makes the hosting website get less money, as the quality of clicks is worse.

tripzilch 10y ago

can we maybe make a new sort of Godwin guideline where we stop taking people seriously once they've shown they can't tell apart legal rights from moral rights?