3 ms·

When you arrive on most sites with ads, they don't make you to accept anything. They don't give you a term of service to read. You just click, and download the

When you arrive on most sites with ads, they don't make you to accept anything. They don't give you a term of service to read. You just click, and download the code, and it executes. It's an implicit contract, which means they sell your data without your consent, as most people don't understand what's going on. Actually, even when you understand what's going on, the sheer number of things to check to get the full picture make it unpractical. Your argument make sense if a website clearly make you click on a term of service like google does. In that case, you accepted a clear, explicit contract. Either consent or leave. But that's not what happen with most services. And because of that, it makes sense to use an ad blocker. You just prevent sites to make you pay a price that they don't disclose. Another thing is: - what they are doing is immoral - what we are doing is not illegal So the reason we should stop doing this for sites that DO disclose what they do is morality. But there is little incentive to be seek morality when playing with an immoral player. So there is not scenario here, where not using an adblock is a good strategy.

BoorishBears 9y ago
So are you closing the page when AdBlock shows Blocking X ads? My point isn't that you shouldn't be told that the site wants to block access unless you agree to view ads, but I feel like people are nitpicking over an implementation detail of how the internet works. Because they want to allow things like indexing they serve the content and the "paywall" (payment being you allowing ads) in one swoop. Yes it's on your computer and you control your computer so you can get rid of their paywall, but you can also do that to software that requires a license key to activate, yet we don't seem to defend cracked software the same way. Maybe if we reimplemented the internet today we'd allow browsers to send an "Allows Ads" header and have an HTTP Status Code for "I only accept clients who accept ads". I mean, even Google doesn't actually make you click on a term of service to search. > - what they are doing is immoral > - what we are doing is not illegal Only one of these is a factual statement. Ad-blocking is not illegal, and of course it shouldn't be. But what they're doing is extracting value out of their content. You can argue it's immoral, but it's not a factual statement in the sense your other statement is. > But there is little incentive to be seek morality when playing with an immoral player. So there is not scenario here, where not using an adblock is a good strategy. What you're saying to me is pretty much "if they won't play fair why should I". Which is fine logic, I just think if you're going to follow that line of thought, don't trumpet it from the rooftops like it's some sort of interesting proposal. To me they're desperate to generate value from content people won't pay upfront from and leaning on unfortunate tactics, and you're saying I won't pay at all. Neither side is right, yet only one side seems to be really proud about what it's doing Again, my point isn't that Ad Blocking shouldn't be allowed, and I'm not here to convince anyone to uninstall their ad-blocker. My point is if you don't like ad-driven content, the "moral high ground" isn't to say "yeah well why'd their server return status code 200 and let me download the assets?". The moral high ground is to decline to use their services. Except that'd take actual inconvenience, curating the minority services that aren't ad-driven. So it's much easier to just say that ad blocking is "taking a stand" instead of admitting it's really just "having your cake and eating it to"
ascorbic 9y ago
I take from this that you're happy for sites to then use these anti-ad-blocker scripts to deny access to users that won't view the ads? I certainly think that's a more honest approach than using them to get around the blockers to display ads anyway, but it's probably less popular.

BoorishBears 9y ago

So are you closing the page when AdBlock shows Blocking X ads? My point isn't that you shouldn't be told that the site wants to block access unless you agree to view ads, but I feel like people are nitpicking over an implementation detail of how the internet works. Because they want to allow things like indexing they serve the content and the "paywall" (payment being you allowing ads) in one swoop. Yes it's on your computer and you control your computer so you can get rid of their paywall, but you can also do that to software that requires a license key to activate, yet we don't seem to defend cracked software the same way. Maybe if we reimplemented the internet today we'd allow browsers to send an "Allows Ads" header and have an HTTP Status Code for "I only accept clients who accept ads". I mean, even Google doesn't actually make you click on a term of service to search. > - what they are doing is immoral > - what we are doing is not illegal Only one of these is a factual statement. Ad-blocking is not illegal, and of course it shouldn't be. But what they're doing is extracting value out of their content. You can argue it's immoral, but it's not a factual statement in the sense your other statement is. > But there is little incentive to be seek morality when playing with an immoral player. So there is not scenario here, where not using an adblock is a good strategy. What you're saying to me is pretty much "if they won't play fair why should I". Which is fine logic, I just think if you're going to follow that line of thought, don't trumpet it from the rooftops like it's some sort of interesting proposal. To me they're desperate to generate value from content people won't pay upfront from and leaning on unfortunate tactics, and you're saying I won't pay at all. Neither side is right, yet only one side seems to be really proud about what it's doing Again, my point isn't that Ad Blocking shouldn't be allowed, and I'm not here to convince anyone to uninstall their ad-blocker. My point is if you don't like ad-driven content, the "moral high ground" isn't to say "yeah well why'd their server return status code 200 and let me download the assets?". The moral high ground is to decline to use their services. Except that'd take actual inconvenience, curating the minority services that aren't ad-driven. So it's much easier to just say that ad blocking is "taking a stand" instead of admitting it's really just "having your cake and eating it to"

ascorbic 9y ago

I take from this that you're happy for sites to then use these anti-ad-blocker scripts to deny access to users that won't view the ads? I certainly think that's a more honest approach than using them to get around the blockers to display ads anyway, but it's probably less popular.