5 ms·

> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement No. By replying to my browser, they're entering into an agreement to not waste my time, and give me

> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement No. By replying to my browser, they're entering into an agreement to not waste my time, and give me lots of money. Oh, not that either? Hmm. Several sites detect that I'm using a malware blocker. I make no effort to obfuscate this. Some websites will ask me to turn it off, others will block me if I do not. That's fine - I've no obligation to them, they have no obligation to me. Neither of us entered into any kind of agreement. Keep in mind - I'm even happy to unblock and click ads relevant to my interests and follow relevant affiliate links - to stuff I'm actually interested in. Webcomics in particular are my jam. So I would likely not even bother with ad blockers if site owners were not routinely acting as a proxy for criminals in (attempting to) serve me malware, extortion-ware, pyramid schemes, and other scams - or peddling horrifically low quality untargeted advertizing that doesn't respect my time (think "same 30 second unskippable ad plays 5 times in a row" utter and other absolute garbage.) > Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't If you want to talk ethics and morals, just how ethical and moral is it to leave your computer open to joining a botnet - imposing so many externalities onto other parties not privy to your "agreement" in the form of DDoS attacks and proxying to obfuscate the origins of such criminals? I think these concerns far weightier than the ethical or moral concerns of depriving a website owner a few cents for selling my time, my attention, my browsing history, etc. (even if they've outsourced that messy work to an ad company who does so on their behalf.)

bad_user 10y ago
You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app. Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course). The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modify its behavior, which will be copyright infringement. So how long do you think it will take for either (1) everybody moving to native apps where ads can't be blocked or (2) courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement. After all, isn't opening a website just like installing an app? I don't see a difference really. Don't get me wrong, I now have ad-blockers installed everywhere I can. But let's not kid ourselves, you didn't have an implicit right for that content to begin with, by blocking ads you won't reward the good actors (i.e. GroundUp, featured in this article) and the future isn't bright.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  It would only be copyright infringement if you distributed your modified version of the Facebook app, or the modified content you've caused your browser to render.
- metafunctor 10y ago
  That's why I use m.facebook.com on iOS instead of the native app.
  - intrasight 10y ago
    Even better. Just checkin to FB once a day on your desktop (assuming you have one of course). Then you can use FBPurity to "cleanse" your FB experience.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modify its behavior, which will be copyright infringement. It wouldn't be. You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer, you just don't have the right to redistribute all of those bits. Copyright is about distribution, not about modification (well, it is in part, such a modified work would be classed as a 'derived work' and that is why you can't redistribute it, just like you can't redistribute the original). > courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement. That's utterly wrong. Copyright infringement is about distributing content, not about forced consumption of content that was freely given to you by the rights holders or their agents and associates (the ad networks). And rights holders have plenty of options here: - sell ads directly rather than through networks (and serve them up from the same server) - charge for their content - deny you access if you use an adblocker No court will ever rule this as copyright infringement.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    For using apps in general you need to agree with an EULA, which can be upheld, otherwise EULAs wouldn't exist. Of course you can't sell your soul in an EULA and there's always this gray area where users might not be held accountable for selling their souls with a single click on "I agree". But you're saying that copyright law refers to distribution, but well, you can't have that binary distributed legally unless you agreed to that EULA. And if you haven't agreed to that EULA, then by using the app it's copyright infringement. The other problem is that most users won't be able to crack their own binaries and distributing or even downloading cracked binaries from the Internet will be copyright infringement. Even so, lets assume that an easy to use tutorial will be provided, such that somehow users aren't violating any laws. Well, this is why the industry is pushing for DRM, which ends up getting used not only for encrypting media, but also for protecting binaries. And in some parts of the world it is already illegal to crack DRM. And if not, I see the industry winning this argument and pushing for legislation protecting them, because truthfully they can point to people that crack binaries in order to freeload and pirate stuff for free - even if such arguments will be morally and factually wrong, they'll win by those arguments with the right lobbying power being exerted. It has been happening for some time now. > You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer Sure, if you don't like how the Facebook app works, you can choose to not use it. There's no way you can package this argument as to make it right.

bad_user 10y ago

You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app. Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course). The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modify its behavior, which will be copyright infringement. So how long do you think it will take for either (1) everybody moving to native apps where ads can't be blocked or (2) courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement. After all, isn't opening a website just like installing an app? I don't see a difference really. Don't get me wrong, I now have ad-blockers installed everywhere I can. But let's not kid ourselves, you didn't have an implicit right for that content to begin with, by blocking ads you won't reward the good actors (i.e. GroundUp, featured in this article) and the future isn't bright.

Symbiote 10y ago
It would only be copyright infringement if you distributed your modified version of the Facebook app, or the modified content you've caused your browser to render.
metafunctor 10y ago
That's why I use m.facebook.com on iOS instead of the native app.
- intrasight 10y ago
  Even better. Just checkin to FB once a day on your desktop (assuming you have one of course). Then you can use FBPurity to "cleanse" your FB experience.
jacquesm 10y ago
> The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modify its behavior, which will be copyright infringement. It wouldn't be. You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer, you just don't have the right to redistribute all of those bits. Copyright is about distribution, not about modification (well, it is in part, such a modified work would be classed as a 'derived work' and that is why you can't redistribute it, just like you can't redistribute the original). > courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement. That's utterly wrong. Copyright infringement is about distributing content, not about forced consumption of content that was freely given to you by the rights holders or their agents and associates (the ad networks). And rights holders have plenty of options here: - sell ads directly rather than through networks (and serve them up from the same server) - charge for their content - deny you access if you use an adblocker No court will ever rule this as copyright infringement.
- bad_user 10y ago
  For using apps in general you need to agree with an EULA, which can be upheld, otherwise EULAs wouldn't exist. Of course you can't sell your soul in an EULA and there's always this gray area where users might not be held accountable for selling their souls with a single click on "I agree". But you're saying that copyright law refers to distribution, but well, you can't have that binary distributed legally unless you agreed to that EULA. And if you haven't agreed to that EULA, then by using the app it's copyright infringement. The other problem is that most users won't be able to crack their own binaries and distributing or even downloading cracked binaries from the Internet will be copyright infringement. Even so, lets assume that an easy to use tutorial will be provided, such that somehow users aren't violating any laws. Well, this is why the industry is pushing for DRM, which ends up getting used not only for encrypting media, but also for protecting binaries. And in some parts of the world it is already illegal to crack DRM. And if not, I see the industry winning this argument and pushing for legislation protecting them, because truthfully they can point to people that crack binaries in order to freeload and pirate stuff for free - even if such arguments will be morally and factually wrong, they'll win by those arguments with the right lobbying power being exerted. It has been happening for some time now. > You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer Sure, if you don't like how the Facebook app works, you can choose to not use it. There's no way you can package this argument as to make it right.