3 ms·

IMHO, the more correct analogy will be to walk into cinema and watch cinema without paying for pop-corn, despite the fact that theater makes most of their profi

IMHO, the more correct analogy will be to walk into cinema and watch cinema without paying for pop-corn, despite the fact that theater makes most of their profit on pop-corn. I have no obligation to make a business profitable.

tomjakubowski 8y ago
Customers who use too many company resources or hurt the bottom line get dropped. Like when a suspected card counter is banned from a casino. That's just what's happening here.
munk-a 8y ago
If the ticket price was bumped up by $20 and popcorn was included free you might rationally object to the fact that you didn't want their overpriced air anyways, but it doesn't mean you'd have any inherent right to utilize the service at the old cost - competition might fix that problem (a new theatre with slightly more expensive tickets than the old one originally offered, but far cheaper than the new tickets to movie + popcorn) or regulation might (especially if movie theatres don't scale well (and they don't, a mall with 20 movie theatres isn't going to be rolling in money)).
logifail 8y ago
>> I have no obligation to make a business profitable. Do we have an obligation to allow script in our browsers? >90% of my "news reading" on the internet is done with NoScript running; from my point of view it's all good, no ads, no GDPR pop-ups, pages load quickly, fewer worries about tracking. It's probably not what publishers want, though.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  I interact a lot with ads on eBay and similar sites. I even subscribe to them! Moreover, I also like ads at Facebook news feed, because they are relevant and delivered at time. I unlike but click sometimes at ads in Google. Everything else is banned with NoScript. IMHO, ad-driven business model is OK, but implementation matters. If site will _serve_ me with ads, I will use it. If site will try to abuse me with ads, then I will try to shield me from this abuse. I have ideas how to solve Spotify problems, but it looks like Spotify employee are downvoting opponent comments to death, so they will have my f*ck instead of hint.
- munk-a 8y ago
  That's where the question gets interesting! Your browser definitely (under current laws) has the right to refuse to allow NoScript to run, so if a similar program specifically targeted google ads then chrome would not be obligated to support it and could use the laws around your legal right (and lack thereof) to proprietary modify software to order you to cease & desist running it. I think that websites do, legally, have the right to refuse you service if you run NoScript and some websites go through crazy hoop to exercise that right. I _suspect_ that using NoScript to alter the page is actually illegal under current intent since that usage could cause the software to misperform and potentially cause damages and it violates the agreed upon usage contract on that site. That said, it's _mostly_ unenforceable on a technical level (usually it's at least not cost effective to do) and I personally think it's unethical to force people to run malware to view your content - it needs a clearer definition in the law though, all this stuff is stupid hazy.
  - logifail 8y ago
    >> I _suspect_ that using NoScript to alter the page is actually illegal under current intent ... Yet some would say the pages get altered by the scripts that stuff in the awful ads In any case, you don't need an add-in to disable scripting. Hell, use curl to fetch the damned page. That's about as "pure" a way of fetching one as you can get. The day they rule that curl is illegally blocking ads is the day I become a monk.

tomjakubowski 8y ago

Customers who use too many company resources or hurt the bottom line get dropped. Like when a suspected card counter is banned from a casino. That's just what's happening here.

munk-a 8y ago

If the ticket price was bumped up by $20 and popcorn was included free you might rationally object to the fact that you didn't want their overpriced air anyways, but it doesn't mean you'd have any inherent right to utilize the service at the old cost - competition might fix that problem (a new theatre with slightly more expensive tickets than the old one originally offered, but far cheaper than the new tickets to movie + popcorn) or regulation might (especially if movie theatres don't scale well (and they don't, a mall with 20 movie theatres isn't going to be rolling in money)).

logifail 8y ago

>> I have no obligation to make a business profitable. Do we have an obligation to allow script in our browsers? >90% of my "news reading" on the internet is done with NoScript running; from my point of view it's all good, no ads, no GDPR pop-ups, pages load quickly, fewer worries about tracking. It's probably not what publishers want, though.

v_lisivka 8y ago
I interact a lot with ads on eBay and similar sites. I even subscribe to them! Moreover, I also like ads at Facebook news feed, because they are relevant and delivered at time. I unlike but click sometimes at ads in Google. Everything else is banned with NoScript. IMHO, ad-driven business model is OK, but implementation matters. If site will _serve_ me with ads, I will use it. If site will try to abuse me with ads, then I will try to shield me from this abuse. I have ideas how to solve Spotify problems, but it looks like Spotify employee are downvoting opponent comments to death, so they will have my f*ck instead of hint.
munk-a 8y ago
That's where the question gets interesting! Your browser definitely (under current laws) has the right to refuse to allow NoScript to run, so if a similar program specifically targeted google ads then chrome would not be obligated to support it and could use the laws around your legal right (and lack thereof) to proprietary modify software to order you to cease & desist running it. I think that websites do, legally, have the right to refuse you service if you run NoScript and some websites go through crazy hoop to exercise that right. I _suspect_ that using NoScript to alter the page is actually illegal under current intent since that usage could cause the software to misperform and potentially cause damages and it violates the agreed upon usage contract on that site. That said, it's _mostly_ unenforceable on a technical level (usually it's at least not cost effective to do) and I personally think it's unethical to force people to run malware to view your content - it needs a clearer definition in the law though, all this stuff is stupid hazy.
- logifail 8y ago
  >> I _suspect_ that using NoScript to alter the page is actually illegal under current intent ... Yet some would say the pages get altered by the scripts that stuff in the awful ads In any case, you don't need an add-in to disable scripting. Hell, use curl to fetch the damned page. That's about as "pure" a way of fetching one as you can get. The day they rule that curl is illegally blocking ads is the day I become a monk.