4 ms·

But that is just it. The act of saying "hey, give me some bytes, and my program will run them" is exactly what you are doing when you view a web page. You are s

But that is just it. The act of saying "hey, give me some bytes, and my program will run them" is exactly what you are doing when you view a web page. You are saying "I am going to run this stuff that this IP spits at me". If Gotse shows yup on your screen you have some decisions, do I visit this site again? Or do I maybe not. The same goes with YouTube. You go to it, it shows you something you did not like (or like, no judging), but in this case it is a message saying hey the data we uploaded to you has been tampered with. You got a choice, do you go back to that site? Your argument about legality is on a different level. Sure you might not be legally liable for the code ran, but YOU did say run code that this website sends me. Giving permission doe snot mean assuming liability.

uoaei 3y ago
I have no way of knowing what kind of code the website will run on my computer. I only know what I intend to happen based on my incredibly limited knowledge of what the website "intends" to offer. And there's no guarantee that what the website intends to offer, or my assumptions thereof, align with what ends up happening on my computer. Ergo no one has been given permission to run code on my computer and assume my implicit consent. It is unreasonable to expect users to audit the code sent by websites before they run it. It's a lot to assume the average computer user understands the terms of the agreement as you seem to before they click on a link. Arguably it's too much to assume that, which means the responsibility lies elsewhere. Since in this example there's only two parties (server and user), and the user should not be expected to understand the "agreement" they're participating in, only one other party is present and obviously has perfect knowledge of the code that is going to be served to the user and executed by their computer. Ergo the one with perfect knowledge has the responsibility of making sure the code comports with the intentions of the user. There is no justification for the argument that the user must reshape their intentions to mold around what the server ends up providing to them.
- mbrumlow 3y ago
  Nobody cares what you know or don’t know, oe even what you intend. That is not the contract. Your expectation don’t matter. At the low level you are sayin “download whatever this web server sends me and execute it”. If the users intent mattered the I could sue cnn for not being factual, because I intend on a news site to be factual.
- mbrumlow 3y ago
  > There is no justification for the argument that the user must reshape their intentions to mold around what the server ends up providing to them. This is a you problem. Not the services problem. A service can chose to send whatever images and code it likes. It’s their choice, not yours. You have some choices in your end, depending on your browser. Render images, execute JavaScript, load plugins, store cookies. Why sites might do what you expect is because they want you to visit the site again. That is the only reason a site has any reason to do what the user expected. CNN could simply start serving a new site today that offers online shopping. Your expectations might be for a news website, but they does not matter at all. Your expectations are not a contract.

uoaei 3y ago

I have no way of knowing what kind of code the website will run on my computer. I only know what I intend to happen based on my incredibly limited knowledge of what the website "intends" to offer. And there's no guarantee that what the website intends to offer, or my assumptions thereof, align with what ends up happening on my computer. Ergo no one has been given permission to run code on my computer and assume my implicit consent. It is unreasonable to expect users to audit the code sent by websites before they run it. It's a lot to assume the average computer user understands the terms of the agreement as you seem to before they click on a link. Arguably it's too much to assume that, which means the responsibility lies elsewhere. Since in this example there's only two parties (server and user), and the user should not be expected to understand the "agreement" they're participating in, only one other party is present and obviously has perfect knowledge of the code that is going to be served to the user and executed by their computer. Ergo the one with perfect knowledge has the responsibility of making sure the code comports with the intentions of the user. There is no justification for the argument that the user must reshape their intentions to mold around what the server ends up providing to them.

mbrumlow 3y ago
Nobody cares what you know or don’t know, oe even what you intend. That is not the contract. Your expectation don’t matter. At the low level you are sayin “download whatever this web server sends me and execute it”. If the users intent mattered the I could sue cnn for not being factual, because I intend on a news site to be factual.
mbrumlow 3y ago
> There is no justification for the argument that the user must reshape their intentions to mold around what the server ends up providing to them. This is a you problem. Not the services problem. A service can chose to send whatever images and code it likes. It’s their choice, not yours. You have some choices in your end, depending on your browser. Render images, execute JavaScript, load plugins, store cookies. Why sites might do what you expect is because they want you to visit the site again. That is the only reason a site has any reason to do what the user expected. CNN could simply start serving a new site today that offers online shopping. Your expectations might be for a news website, but they does not matter at all. Your expectations are not a contract.