3 ms·

I mean, yes I agree - adblockers are "a foul" In the sense that it's very likely against the content providers wishes. I'm not saying users shouldn't be using t

I mean, yes I agree - adblockers are "a foul" In the sense that it's very likely against the content providers wishes. I'm not saying users shouldn't be using them, but don't be surprised if the content provider tries to block access to people who actively avoid any monetization via adblockers. I'm very open web in concept, but just because I want the web to be open doesn't mean I'm entitled to everyones content for free with no restrictions. As a content provider, you should be allowed to put whatever restrictions on it that you want - just like the real world. Just keep your restrictions off of my computer. Eg, I DO NOT want to see DRM chips on my PC to protect companies. I am certainly fine with them requiring a DRM specific browser though, I can choose not to go to their site and not to use their browser.

nathan_long 9y ago
> As a content provider, you should be allowed to put whatever restrictions on it that you want - just like the real world. In the real world, I can sell you a paper magazine or give it to you for free. I cannot prevent you from ignoring the ads or hiring someone to cut them out with scissors. If a site wants to require me to pay in order to access it, that's valid. But if they want to say "you must instruct your computer to download and display our ads", that's not valid, IMO. My browser is an agent that works for me. The server is an agent that works for the site. We should each be free to instruct them as we wish.
- ythn 9y ago
  > But if they want to say "you must instruct your computer to download and display our ads", that's not valid, IMO. Why not? I can sell you a video stream without ads for $1. Or I can let you watch it for free with the implicit agreement that you'll watch ads (which will cover the costs of the bandwidth you are using). You want the best of both worlds - you want to watch it for free and not watch any ads. How is that not stealing my bandwidth? If you are going to block the ads, that's fine, but it's your moral obligation to back out of my site and not to consume my bandwidth.
  - nathan_long 9y ago
    If I mute the TV and go to the bathroom while the commercials play, am I stealing? If I read a magazine and flip past the ads, am I stealing? If I change the channel on the radio on a commercial break, am I stealing? I understand what you're saying about the producer's dependence on ad revenue. But never before has a media existed where someone could force you to consume advertising against your will. If you provide content with ads and people decline to look at your ads, you've got a problem with your business model. And by the way, I don't block ads on, eg, StackOverflow, because the ads are tasteful and useful. But if a site with news articles wants to show me animated, sexually suggestive ads for cheap pharmaceuticals, yes, I'm going to block that. I'm not going to let them steal my bandwidth and my mental calm for that.
    - ythn 9y ago
      > If I mute the TV and go to the bathroom while the commercials play, am I stealing? If I read a magazine and flip past the ads, am I stealing? If I change the channel on the radio on a commercial break, am I stealing? I think everyone can agree that adblockers go far beyond these examples you listed. Adblockers are an automated, shareable process. > But never before has a media existed where someone could force you to look at advertising against your will. Last time I checked nothing is stopping you from muting your computer and going to the bathroom during ads. Like I said, you just want your cake and eat it too. If you block ads on my website and I detect it, It's fully within my rights to blacklist you for stealing.
    - zaphar 9y ago
      You can mute your computer and go to the bathroom while watching youtube or amazon video. You've lost none of the rights that you had with the tv. It's a terrible analogy that people should stop using in this debate. You can debate about whether it's good business on their part. You can debate about whether they should force drm onto your computer. But you can't reasonably debate that just because it's on the web they shouldn't be allowed enter into a financial exchange with consumers and that they shouldn't be able to refuse to do business with people who do not wish to enter into that exchange with them.
- talmand 9y ago
  I give you a magazine for free with the stipulation that you not cut the ads out; you are correct that I couldn't stop you from doing so with the magazine you currently have but I can certainly refuse to give you another magazine. // We should each be free to instruct them as we wish. That's not what you are claiming at all. If the company's server determines you are preventing ads then it is within the company's rights to instruct the server to stop serving your browser content.

nathan_long 9y ago

> As a content provider, you should be allowed to put whatever restrictions on it that you want - just like the real world. In the real world, I can sell you a paper magazine or give it to you for free. I cannot prevent you from ignoring the ads or hiring someone to cut them out with scissors. If a site wants to require me to pay in order to access it, that's valid. But if they want to say "you must instruct your computer to download and display our ads", that's not valid, IMO. My browser is an agent that works for me. The server is an agent that works for the site. We should each be free to instruct them as we wish.

ythn 9y ago
> But if they want to say "you must instruct your computer to download and display our ads", that's not valid, IMO. Why not? I can sell you a video stream without ads for $1. Or I can let you watch it for free with the implicit agreement that you'll watch ads (which will cover the costs of the bandwidth you are using). You want the best of both worlds - you want to watch it for free and not watch any ads. How is that not stealing my bandwidth? If you are going to block the ads, that's fine, but it's your moral obligation to back out of my site and not to consume my bandwidth.
- nathan_long 9y ago
  If I mute the TV and go to the bathroom while the commercials play, am I stealing? If I read a magazine and flip past the ads, am I stealing? If I change the channel on the radio on a commercial break, am I stealing? I understand what you're saying about the producer's dependence on ad revenue. But never before has a media existed where someone could force you to consume advertising against your will. If you provide content with ads and people decline to look at your ads, you've got a problem with your business model. And by the way, I don't block ads on, eg, StackOverflow, because the ads are tasteful and useful. But if a site with news articles wants to show me animated, sexually suggestive ads for cheap pharmaceuticals, yes, I'm going to block that. I'm not going to let them steal my bandwidth and my mental calm for that.
  - ythn 9y ago
    > If I mute the TV and go to the bathroom while the commercials play, am I stealing? If I read a magazine and flip past the ads, am I stealing? If I change the channel on the radio on a commercial break, am I stealing? I think everyone can agree that adblockers go far beyond these examples you listed. Adblockers are an automated, shareable process. > But never before has a media existed where someone could force you to look at advertising against your will. Last time I checked nothing is stopping you from muting your computer and going to the bathroom during ads. Like I said, you just want your cake and eat it too. If you block ads on my website and I detect it, It's fully within my rights to blacklist you for stealing.
  - zaphar 9y ago
    You can mute your computer and go to the bathroom while watching youtube or amazon video. You've lost none of the rights that you had with the tv. It's a terrible analogy that people should stop using in this debate. You can debate about whether it's good business on their part. You can debate about whether they should force drm onto your computer. But you can't reasonably debate that just because it's on the web they shouldn't be allowed enter into a financial exchange with consumers and that they shouldn't be able to refuse to do business with people who do not wish to enter into that exchange with them.
talmand 9y ago
I give you a magazine for free with the stipulation that you not cut the ads out; you are correct that I couldn't stop you from doing so with the magazine you currently have but I can certainly refuse to give you another magazine. // We should each be free to instruct them as we wish. That's not what you are claiming at all. If the company's server determines you are preventing ads then it is within the company's rights to instruct the server to stop serving your browser content.