10 ms·

There are websites that look for ad-blockers and demand you turn them off. The website has every right to server you the content as they seem fit. You are not

by Clent 3y ago

There are websites that look for ad-blockers and demand you turn them off. The website has every right to server you the content as they seem fit. You are not entitled to an experience other than the one they are willing to provide.

hollerith 3y ago
Yeah, well, we tried the vision you describe, in which the site has almost complete control over the user experience, and it hasn't turned out well IMHO. The only reason the site has so much control is that the browser makers gave it away. The browser makers should have retained much more control over the user experience. The site of course should have complete control over the words that appear on the site (and the ordering of the words of course) and some other things. That was the fundamental mistake of the web. If people wanted to create a new internet protocol for serving user experiences over the net such that the user need not explicitly install any app, that would've been OK with me. The mistake was achieving that goal by extending the internet protocol that was quickly become society's most important way of distributing words (writings). I've completely gotten off the subject of ad blockers.
ben_w 3y ago
> You are not entitled to an experience other than the one they are willing to provide. And they aren't entitled to have me as a user or customer. As ad blocking is a matter of basic digital sanitation, this is roughly analogous to me refusing to do business with a doctor whose office has a sign outside saying "no facemasks may be worn" — they might be allowed by law to make a bad demand, but it's still bad and they still shouldn't even if they don't care about losing my custom.
- Clent 3y ago
  Using an ad block analogy, you aren't refusing to do business with the doctor. A better analogy is you go into a doctors office, there have pamphlets for other services offered that you are no interested in, so rip the pamphlet displays off the wall and complain you're the victim for not being allowed to see the doctor.

by Clent 3y ago

hollerith 3y ago

Yeah, well, we tried the vision you describe, in which the site has almost complete control over the user experience, and it hasn't turned out well IMHO. The only reason the site has so much control is that the browser makers gave it away. The browser makers should have retained much more control over the user experience. The site of course should have complete control over the words that appear on the site (and the ordering of the words of course) and some other things. That was the fundamental mistake of the web. If people wanted to create a new internet protocol for serving user experiences over the net such that the user need not explicitly install any app, that would've been OK with me. The mistake was achieving that goal by extending the internet protocol that was quickly become society's most important way of distributing words (writings). I've completely gotten off the subject of ad blockers.

ben_w 3y ago

> You are not entitled to an experience other than the one they are willing to provide. And they aren't entitled to have me as a user or customer. As ad blocking is a matter of basic digital sanitation, this is roughly analogous to me refusing to do business with a doctor whose office has a sign outside saying "no facemasks may be worn" — they might be allowed by law to make a bad demand, but it's still bad and they still shouldn't even if they don't care about losing my custom.

Clent 3y ago
Using an ad block analogy, you aren't refusing to do business with the doctor. A better analogy is you go into a doctors office, there have pamphlets for other services offered that you are no interested in, so rip the pamphlet displays off the wall and complain you're the victim for not being allowed to see the doctor.