8 ms·

No. The agreement is that my browser will issue HTTP requests, their web server will return some HTML. There's a legal requirement that neither payload is inten

No. The agreement is that my browser will issue HTTP requests, their web server will return some HTML. There's a legal requirement that neither payload is intended to cause harm, but the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that. If someone wants to feed ads into that content, that's their right. If I want to change the way that content displays, that's my right.

2Gkashmiri 4y ago
by opening the website, that data HAS left the origin server and is sent to my browser. What i do with that data is up to me. i choose to ignore half of it so be it. Is there a mandate that i have to "hold it the right way only" like apple famously did with their antennagate?
- Nemi 4y ago
  This is the best argument. If they send me an exploit it isn’t expected for me to run it blindly because of some unwritten contract, right? Once the payload is sent to me it is my right to execute it as I wish. That is the unwritten contract.
chrisseaton 4y ago
> the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  The internet is not an honesty box.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Well I think it is - they're offering something with an understanding. Yes the understanding isn't legally enforced, but socially that's what they're expecting. Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree, rather than continuing to take while knowing that it's not what they wanted.
    - coldpie 4y ago
      > Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree If you think the current state of online advertising as a business model is actively immoral, as I do, then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do Why not avoid the businesses instead?
        cwkoss 4y ago
        Do you think people in costco should avoid trying samples if they don't intend to purchase the item?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        No - do you? Trying samples is what they're presented for.
        cwkoss 4y ago
        By your own logic, shouldn't you avoid eating samples for products you have no intent on purchasing?
- tboughen 4y ago
  I disagree. There are forms of adverts that my browser extensions will not block - simple images for example. It’s not my fault that sites choose not to use these any more, and instead use a model that is, in my view, an unacceptable security risk.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    If it’s unacceptable, don’t visit the website again. That seems more honest to me.
    - ASalazarMX 4y ago
      It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs? The ultimate purpose of ads is getting money from us, why can't we have a say about how the request is presented to us? Ads are not a privilege or a right, they're beggars posted at every corner of the Internet.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs? Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts.
        ASalazarMX 4y ago
        > Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts. By not consuming intrusive ads, and by not buying products promoted with unethical practices. You can't possibly defend the current state of private spying and surveillance, it's dystopian. The data collected is sold (directly or indirectly) to bad actors, and is ripe for abuse. You can't just say "deal with it or GTFO", ad blocking is the only recourse we as consumers have to voice our opinion.
- ivanche 4y ago
  It’s interesting that moral and social burden is somehow put onto people that don’t want to be tracked/shadow profiled/spied on, and NOT on the companies that do tracking/spying.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    What moral and social burden? If you don't like it, ignore them and don't visit their websites. They aren't forcing you to.
    - ivanche 4y ago
      I am sorry, was it you that wrote "I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong."? If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > I am sorry, was it you that wrote HN lets you see who wrote a comment - it says above each one. > If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is. I mean you don't have a burden to visit their website if you don't want to. If it was a government organisation then yes.
    - anonymousab 4y ago
      I don't know what code their sites will send my browser until they send it. But I do know that my browser tells them not to track me in its initial request, so they are free to send me away and not let me "in the door". But they don't, they let me in despite me being very clear that I am entering on the condition that they don't track me, so here we are. They don't get to pull the surprised-face card when I then proceed to not let them track me. Adjacent to that, I think a "I'm not going to display your ads" or bluntly "don't show me ads" header would make perfect sense and yet I'm quite sure that webmasters would treat it the exact same way that they've treated do-not-track.
- delvinj 4y ago
  I think its more like: you visit the honesty box for eggs, but someone follows you home and watches everything you do for six months.
  - account42 4y ago
    Also the "honesty box" vendor put all the more ethical egg sellers out of business by undercutting them.
lelandfe 4y ago
If a website is providing ad-supported content you enjoy, you really see no moral quandary in stymying their income? "Akshually there's no law saying I need to behave morally" feels like an adroit sidestepping of the problems here.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  No, I really do not. And if we really want to speak about morals there is an unacknowledged moral issue here in that most websites using ads are hooked up to someone else's ad network and do not vet them for accuracy or safety. The website owner has seemingly no responsibility for the portal they opened to shove someone else's content into my face. Until such time I can demand payment for damages when that negligently opened portal serves the latest zero day or scams my family or employees and tracks me all over the web while violating my privacy, I am forced to conclude the average webmaster wants the benefit without the responsibility. And with that, the blocker stays on, with a clear conscience and an eye to safety. Your business model that demands I sacrifice safety and privacy so you can make a few pennies is not my fucking problem. First party ads are an entire different issue and do not have any of these concerns. They are also very rare.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    Even if all ads were well-behaved and didn't carry more risk of infection than licking BART seats, I'd still block them. The entire industry is evil, in that their whole reason to exist is manipulating people into acting against their own interests.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  If a person is standing in public space and talking, while at the same time having a bunch of advertisement signs around him, and you had the technology (say, AR glasses) to block out said advertisements from your view, would you consider it immoral to block out the advertisements, while listening to what the person is saying?
  - Moru 4y ago

2Gkashmiri 4y ago

by opening the website, that data HAS left the origin server and is sent to my browser. What i do with that data is up to me. i choose to ignore half of it so be it. Is there a mandate that i have to "hold it the right way only" like apple famously did with their antennagate?

Nemi 4y ago
This is the best argument. If they send me an exploit it isn’t expected for me to run it blindly because of some unwritten contract, right? Once the payload is sent to me it is my right to execute it as I wish. That is the unwritten contract.

chrisseaton 4y ago

> the agreement - unless I've signed a contract - does not go further than that I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong.

stickfigure 4y ago
The internet is not an honesty box.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Well I think it is - they're offering something with an understanding. Yes the understanding isn't legally enforced, but socially that's what they're expecting. Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree, rather than continuing to take while knowing that it's not what they wanted.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    > Since you know that's what they're expecting (unless you're an idiot), the more moral thing to do is to respect that and not engage with them if you don't agree If you think the current state of online advertising as a business model is actively immoral, as I do, then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > then I'd argue violating that expectation is at least morally neutral if not actually the moral thing to do Why not avoid the businesses instead?
      - cwkoss 4y ago
        Do you think people in costco should avoid trying samples if they don't intend to purchase the item?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        No - do you? Trying samples is what they're presented for.
        cwkoss 4y ago
        By your own logic, shouldn't you avoid eating samples for products you have no intent on purchasing?
tboughen 4y ago
I disagree. There are forms of adverts that my browser extensions will not block - simple images for example. It’s not my fault that sites choose not to use these any more, and instead use a model that is, in my view, an unacceptable security risk.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  If it’s unacceptable, don’t visit the website again. That seems more honest to me.
  - ASalazarMX 4y ago
    It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs? The ultimate purpose of ads is getting money from us, why can't we have a say about how the request is presented to us? Ads are not a privilege or a right, they're beggars posted at every corner of the Internet.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > It's morally acceptable to block intrusive ads, in order to force advertisers to adopt better practices. Isn't that the way of the free market? To vote with your wallet, I mean, with your eyeballs? Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts.
      - ASalazarMX 4y ago
        > Yeah by not visiting sites with bad adverts. By not consuming intrusive ads, and by not buying products promoted with unethical practices. You can't possibly defend the current state of private spying and surveillance, it's dystopian. The data collected is sold (directly or indirectly) to bad actors, and is ripe for abuse. You can't just say "deal with it or GTFO", ad blocking is the only recourse we as consumers have to voice our opinion.
ivanche 4y ago
It’s interesting that moral and social burden is somehow put onto people that don’t want to be tracked/shadow profiled/spied on, and NOT on the companies that do tracking/spying.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  What moral and social burden? If you don't like it, ignore them and don't visit their websites. They aren't forcing you to.
  - ivanche 4y ago
    I am sorry, was it you that wrote "I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong."? If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > I am sorry, was it you that wrote HN lets you see who wrote a comment - it says above each one. > If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is. I mean you don't have a burden to visit their website if you don't want to. If it was a government organisation then yes.
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    I don't know what code their sites will send my browser until they send it. But I do know that my browser tells them not to track me in its initial request, so they are free to send me away and not let me "in the door". But they don't, they let me in despite me being very clear that I am entering on the condition that they don't track me, so here we are. They don't get to pull the surprised-face card when I then proceed to not let them track me. Adjacent to that, I think a "I'm not going to display your ads" or bluntly "don't show me ads" header would make perfect sense and yet I'm quite sure that webmasters would treat it the exact same way that they've treated do-not-track.
delvinj 4y ago
I think its more like: you visit the honesty box for eggs, but someone follows you home and watches everything you do for six months.
- account42 4y ago
  Also the "honesty box" vendor put all the more ethical egg sellers out of business by undercutting them.

lelandfe 4y ago

If a website is providing ad-supported content you enjoy, you really see no moral quandary in stymying their income? "Akshually there's no law saying I need to behave morally" feels like an adroit sidestepping of the problems here.

Karunamon 4y ago
No, I really do not. And if we really want to speak about morals there is an unacknowledged moral issue here in that most websites using ads are hooked up to someone else's ad network and do not vet them for accuracy or safety. The website owner has seemingly no responsibility for the portal they opened to shove someone else's content into my face. Until such time I can demand payment for damages when that negligently opened portal serves the latest zero day or scams my family or employees and tracks me all over the web while violating my privacy, I am forced to conclude the average webmaster wants the benefit without the responsibility. And with that, the blocker stays on, with a clear conscience and an eye to safety. Your business model that demands I sacrifice safety and privacy so you can make a few pennies is not my fucking problem. First party ads are an entire different issue and do not have any of these concerns. They are also very rare.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  Even if all ads were well-behaved and didn't carry more risk of infection than licking BART seats, I'd still block them. The entire industry is evil, in that their whole reason to exist is manipulating people into acting against their own interests.
bheadmaster 4y ago
If a person is standing in public space and talking, while at the same time having a bunch of advertisement signs around him, and you had the technology (say, AR glasses) to block out said advertisements from your view, would you consider it immoral to block out the advertisements, while listening to what the person is saying?
- Moru 4y ago