3 ms·
I'll grant that sending fake data is more active than merely not loading ads, but I personally consider not loading ads about as malicious as failing to read a
by contravariant 6y ago
I'll grant that sending fake data is more active than merely not loading ads, but I personally consider not loading ads about as malicious as failing to read a billboard, or failing to subscribe when a webpage says 'Subscribe now'.
I don't think I'll ever quite understand the idea that the user is under any obligation to do whatever. Just because their user-agent might have some default behaviour doesn't mean that the user-agent should be expected to act in the interest of the server.
Though there's an argument to be made that sending lots of false data in response to a request to post personal information to google-analytics is a bit like manipulating a public survey by sending in silly answers. I'm not sure to what extent that is illegal but I'll grant that it's not exactly ethically correct.
- sandworm101 6y ago>> not loading ads about as malicious as failing to read a billboard Because, at this time, ad blocking tools are relatively benign. But what if we think of them more as content-blocking or content-management tools? What if I have a tool that blocks only right-wing advertisements or content? What if I have a tool that blocks all images of women showing too much skin? Block images of black people? Such not-neutral tools would radically change public perceptions. Legislation might follow. There was a comical toll out there that would replace the text "Trump" with "The idiot" on viewed websites. That's the thin edge of this wedge.
- contravariant 6y agoJust because something is evidence of objectionable political view doesn't mean it should be forbidden.