3 ms·

No client has an obligation to let a web site have control over their machine. The way I and many other got into our careers was being able to fiddle around, ex

No client has an obligation to let a web site have control over their machine. The way I and many other got into our careers was being able to fiddle around, explore, and customize our own experiences (aka blocking stuff like this, fixing UI issues, etc.)

ratsmack 5y ago
>No client has an obligation to let a web site have control over their machine. Web sites do not force you to load their content, so I must assume you feel entitled to what ever you want in this regard.
- musicale 5y ago
  > Web sites do not force you to load their content Indeed they do not - you can choose to load whatever content you like. You can choose to load images. Or JavaScript. Or video. Or ads. Or not. > so I must assume you feel entitled to what ever you want in this regard Users should absolutely be entitled to decide what data they want to download over their network connection. It's essential for many reasons, including saving on metered data, saving battery life, improving performance, improving security, and improving privacy. Adtech is extremely detrimental in a variety of ways including data use, power use, speed, security, and privacy. For those reasons alone, it makes a lot of sense to block it whenever possible.
- wewtyflakes 5y ago
  They do if their URL is misleading or is otherwise disguised. Also, it is common to click links without knowing ahead of time what the full content of the page is. That may not be ideal, but this is what it is. Ad blockers give users a layer of protection against malicious, lazy, or overeager websites. You seem to suggest users should just take it all or not visit, but that seems to only make sense if links advertised what users would be getting into (ex: visit this link and let us cryptomine you for content!"). Maybe that would be better and more honest, though I don't see how it would work with how people use the web today.

ratsmack 5y ago

>No client has an obligation to let a web site have control over their machine. Web sites do not force you to load their content, so I must assume you feel entitled to what ever you want in this regard.

musicale 5y ago
> Web sites do not force you to load their content Indeed they do not - you can choose to load whatever content you like. You can choose to load images. Or JavaScript. Or video. Or ads. Or not. > so I must assume you feel entitled to what ever you want in this regard Users should absolutely be entitled to decide what data they want to download over their network connection. It's essential for many reasons, including saving on metered data, saving battery life, improving performance, improving security, and improving privacy. Adtech is extremely detrimental in a variety of ways including data use, power use, speed, security, and privacy. For those reasons alone, it makes a lot of sense to block it whenever possible.
wewtyflakes 5y ago
They do if their URL is misleading or is otherwise disguised. Also, it is common to click links without knowing ahead of time what the full content of the page is. That may not be ideal, but this is what it is. Ad blockers give users a layer of protection against malicious, lazy, or overeager websites. You seem to suggest users should just take it all or not visit, but that seems to only make sense if links advertised what users would be getting into (ex: visit this link and let us cryptomine you for content!"). Maybe that would be better and more honest, though I don't see how it would work with how people use the web today.