9 ms·

> the court nevertheless preserved Axel Springer’s right to exclude users with an activated adblocker from accessing its content I actually think this is fair,

by kleiba 3y ago

> the court nevertheless preserved Axel Springer’s right to exclude users with an activated adblocker from accessing its content I actually think this is fair, and I say that as someone who has been using adblockers since the dawn of time and couldn't imagine using a webbrowser without it. I believe the court has decided absolutely sanely for one: it should be my choice as an internet user whether I want to be exposed ot ads or not. In my case: no way, Jose. And to those who make the argument that a lot of what the internet offers todays would be unsustainable without the ad revenue, I say that although you may think that you cannot live without this or that or the other on the internet, let me reassure you: you can. Everything on the internet is expendable. Trust me. Yes, even TikTok, son. Heck, most of what you're in love with today wasn't even there 10 years ago. It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet. And to be honest, I'd rather lose some conveniences if the alternative is this absolute insanity that is today's web without an adblocker. But if content providers do not want to give me their stuff unless I watch their ads, I think that's fine. It's your right to do that. Just don't think that I am going to turn off the adblocker for you as a consequence. Much more likely, I'm just going to go somewhere else for my kick.

Xenoamorphous 3y ago
> Just don't think that I am going to turn off the adblocker for you as a consequence. Much more likely, I'm just going to go somewhere else for my kick. You’ll be saving them money (less infrastructure costs, like bandwith) without giving a penny to their competitors (because you’re using an adblocker); actually now you’re probably a net loss for their competitors. So they’re happy to lose you, I guess? We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, I know first hand. And I hate it.
- lolinder 3y ago
  I'm actually very excited to get back to the point where services compete for my money rather than for my attention. Advertising has created an internet that has an enormous amount of content, most of which is just... bad. It's hard to find good content because almost all of it is engineered to get clicks. A paywalled internet will mean I'll have to be choosier about what I consume, but what's available will hopefully be high quality because it's not competing for my attention when I'm at my weakest at the end of a long day, it's competing for my wallet when I rationally review the budget every month.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, If that's the intersection of need/demand, okay so be it. Like, I have preferences but I understand they might not be others'.
- cschep 3y ago
  There is so much good content on the internet that people put out because they just love it and don't expect any money for it. All of that won't change. Lots of the ad-ridden blogs and stuff will go away but I'll echo the sentiment found largely around these comments: good riddance.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    and my favorite content creators only post once in a blue moon when the stars align, likely because they don't have a need to post more often. Which is why my most frequent content creators tend to be the consistent ones who try to get something out at least once a week or month. Thing is, even with this ad-free model, the most motivated ones will be the ones on top. And They will just find other ways to monetize instead of ads, because they are motivated to capitalize on their audience. Donations (charitable or incentivized), merch, content paywalls, self-ads instead of sponsored ones. Same concept. Ads are a big problem, but not THE core issue.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, I know first hand. And I hate it. I'd be completely fine with that result. It would mean that commercial websites would be segregated off, leaving the rest of the web (the part I get real value from) more discoverable.
izzydata 3y ago
If something is not sustainable without ads that seems to imply that people are not willing to pay for it. If people aren't willing to pay for it then I'm not sure it is a good business model. Regardless of the consequences I'd rather see an ad free internet. If that means Youtube can't exist and Facebook can't exist and Google can't exist then so be it.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Except that users are willing to pay for it, since a vast majority of them look at the ads and some of them even click on the ads.
  - neuralRiot 3y ago
    I wouldn’t have a problem with ads if they weren’t so intrusive and obnoxious. Imagine trying to read a magazine that would jump itself to the page with the “Axe” ad, you go back to the page you were reading and 10 seconds later it jumps to the “Chevy colorado” ad. Or asking the bookkeeper for “a book of holiday recipes” and on you way home in every corner a guy knocks your car window to sell you “holiday food”.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Why not just ignore sites that use ads? If people find value in ad supported product they can use them and if they don't they can just avoid them and use an alternative without ads or nothing.
  - izzydata 3y ago
    If there were no ads anywhere on the internet than everything would be on an even playing field. Currently a site that offers a paid service for something that someone else gives away for free is at a huge disadvantage.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      Even if the web was on an even playing field it has to worry about being disrupted by other platforms that allow ads. That could take the form of Web2 which is the web + ad supported sites with backwards compatibility with the original web or it could take the form of mobile apps where users can get useful ad supported apps.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 3y ago
> But if content providers do not want to give me their stuff unless I watch their ads, I think that's fine. Exactly. I've got a right to block ads if I can figure out how to achieve that technologically. But they've got a right to not give me content if they can figure out, technologically, that I'm blocking their ads. This all seems very fair to me.
- l0b0 3y ago
  Agreed. As someone who could not use the web without an ad blocker, I wouldn't even be opposed to a `X-Blocks-Ads: true` request header or something, to just shut down the hue and cry between the two parties. Let's all be honest, then see where it gets us.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    If we could trust adtech to be honest we wouldn't have to vigorously block them. You and I both know X-Block-Ads would be nothing more than an extra wrinkle for your browser fingerprint.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Yes. The adtech industry is a hive of scum and villainy. They'll use every bit of data they have access to in order to screw you.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Right, because the Do-Not-Track flag was respected oh so well. The only people that seem to care about flags are an invading colonizing system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8
    - l0b0 3y ago
      It would be another bit for the fingerprinting, that's an important caveat. The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls, and let the market decide whether users are OK with that. The current situation is that ad blocking is a luxury, afforded by people like us with a decent Internet connection for the constant updates, and understanding of technology, to enable ad blocking in the first place.
andy99 3y ago
Yeah it's pretty simple, the world doesn't owe anyone a business model (something that's forgotten way to often) but nor are we owed free content. My understanding of a transaction is that there needs to be a "meeting of the minds" - if I value what you want to give me more than the price you want, we have trade and everybody wins. Unfortunately the ad economy is closer to begging. The consumer doesn't value what's being provided and the provider somehow tries to guilt or force users into "paying". And overall everyone loses - the content provider doesn't get the value they want for their content and the consumer doesn't get something they value. The only winner is advertising intermediaries. That unfortunately is the system we've set up.
genocidicbunny 3y ago
> But if content providers do not want to give me their stuff unless I watch their ads, I think that's fine. It's your right to do that. Just don't think that I am going to turn off the adblocker for you as a consequence. Much more likely, I'm just going to go somewhere else for my kick. To me, I think this is the more salient set of points. I accept that a company wants to show me ads to pay for the content they're serving. I accept that they may refuse to let me access content if I don't first view/consume the ads. And I also accept that if I am not happy with that specific arrangement, I am free to go elsewhere. What I do refuse to accept is that once they have sent me the data that they have any right to control how I consume it. If you want to prevent me from accessing your site unless I view ads, you have a very simple way to do that -- have your webserver return an error code unless I have viewed the ads. But once you have sent me the bytes, in my eyes, you lose any right to dictate how those bytes are processed or blackholed.
- rollcat 3y ago
  In my view, this falls under fair use. If you have a private copy of a printed newspaper, you're free to tear out a page, draw pen-mustaches, wrap a fish in it, make a paper airplane, solve the crossword puzzle incorrectly, wipe yourself, basically anything you like - for your own amusement. I don't see how your private copy of the webpage bytes should be any different. In both cases there are very clear boundaries: you can't redistribute derivative works without permission & attribution (copyright), you can't publicly broadcast, etc. Everything else should be fair game.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    One generally pays for the newspaper.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      And websites are free to put up a paywall in front of the content to get me to pay for it.
    - whstl 3y ago
mission_failed 3y ago
There is a grey area though when a company becomes the defacto monopoly over a service. Google and Microsoft email both have history of blocking email from other providers and have created a landscape where trying to run your own email server is a nightmare. But should they be able to refuse service to you if you block ads?
- thfuran 3y ago
  Unequivocally yes. If not, do you also think they should be required to serve all your requests while you dos them?
awiejtlaijwr 3y ago
Christ, this is why I don't even browse the web on my phone. I email myself reminders to look things up when I get home to my laptop. The absence of adblockers makes it unbearable. Three different videos selling three different products unrelated to my query all trying to talk over each other? Kill me please.
- berkes 3y ago
  Firefox mobile can run an AdBlock addon just fine. Firefox focus even has it built in.
- technothrasher 3y ago
  I leave my phone connected via OpenVPN to my corporate network with a PiHole server to filter out most web ads, trackers, etc. What I do try to avoid is using any apps where I can use the website instead.
- matrix87 3y ago
  Maybe use android then? Then you can use newpipe, AdAway, FF with desktop add-ons. I use it and don't have the same problem
- suslik 3y ago
  If you’re talking about iOS, ther is adblocking there. Adguard works well for me on Safari, and Orion browser even runs ublock origin. I honestly never see ads on mobile.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  There are ad blockers available for both Android and iOS. Both free and paid. Personally I’ve got a great experience for years now with Wipr on iOS, but at this rate I should start asking for a commission because I literally just suggested it to someone else here on HN.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet." Maybe even more of a life without it. There is one fact that I learned immediately when I started using the internet in 1986 and then the www in 1993. There will always be an endless supply of free "content" on the internet and www. With or without advertising. The ads did not even start until 1994 or so. There was an internet without ads. A non-commercial internet. That's what I signed up for. That people today are paying for multiple "subscriptions" to view stuff on the internet is amazing but it will not make the free stuff disappear. It will not stop non-commercial use of the network. The internet did not come into existence for the purpose of advertising. But the companies exerting oversized control over it, that is all they are interested in.
foob 3y ago
I mostly agree with this in principle, but an important point is that, when you squint, the technology behind blocking ad blockers starts looking very similar to the technology behind blocking web scrapers. If you're capable of programmatically scraping content without a human user viewing ads, then you're capable of displaying the content to a user without the ads. So any solution for preventing ad blocking implies that the content can't be scraped programmatically. I know that web scrapers carry some negative connotations, but keep in mind that search engines like Google couldn't possibly exist without web scraping. A world where you can't block ads or scrape content for indexing is a world where only a few preordained companies have the ability to build search engines. Proposals like Web Environment Integrity (WEI) accomplish two goals for Google: they make ad blocking more difficult, and they kick down the ladder to prevent new innovative search engines from emerging. There are already many websites which only allow-list Google's IPs for indexing, and I think we should be very hesitant about anything that could further entrench their monopoly on search even if we support content creators being compensated through ads.
- Bu9818 3y ago
  I agree, I don't even care about ads in specific. I primarily use the tor browser which doesn't block ads due to fingerprinting (it's ok for casual browsing, though some sites are actually obnoxious and slow down the browser). More generally, I care about web scraping and being able to control the presentation of content: for internet archival, using a featureful video/music player (mpv) or library like a local imageboard, utilities like user scripts to add features/programatically do stuff, content blocking (filter rules for specific posts/users), creating RSS feeds for notifications if the site doesn't offer one, simpler/faster frontends like invidious/nitter, etc.
vasco 3y ago
> Heck, most of what you're in love with today wasn't even there 10 years ago. I wasn't in love with my girlfriend / kids / etc before I met her either but I wouldn't want to go without her just because there was once a time where it was true. That seems like weak argument.
- kleiba 3y ago
  Maybe because that particular sentence wasn't an argument at all but rather an illustration?
pyrophane 3y ago
I like it because it forces some decisions on various parties. Don't want to look at ads online? Block them but realize you yourself may be blocked from certain places. Don't want to allow ad-blocked users? Okay, but you lose those users unless you engage with the reason they are blocking ads and either give them an alternative or convince them to greenlist you.
franciscop 3y ago
> Everything on the internet is expendable. Trust me. Yes, even TikTok, son. Heck, most of what you're in love with today wasn't even there 10 years ago. This is unfortunately patently not true anymore. As the internet has gotten more intertwined in our lives, so has into the gvmt, corporations, society, etc. For example banking, for using my bank I need an internet connection. I literally work on the internet, but even if I didn't I cannot imagine any of the main jobs I would be remotely qualified to do that doesn't need internet, so I'd be back to minimum-skill minimum-wage jobs. Which wouldn't afford me my current home, and from which I'd be kicked out of the country I live at since I wouldn't qualify for either the job type or minimum salary. Note: I assume by "expendable" you mean "can be avoided without a huge impact in life", I _could_ live without internet but I'd also need to be working a minimum wage, wouldn't afford my home, and probably would even lose my visa.
irrational 3y ago
While I agree with you, I also am not sure what I should think about nearly every news article on here has a link that someone has posted that circumvents the paywall that has been put up prevent people from accessing the content without paying (either directly or via ads). Is it okay to use an adblocker and not pay for a subscription, but also circumvent walls so I can still access the content?
belorn 3y ago
There is one major aspect that I find troubling with companies blocking users with an activated adblocker. It removes the illusion that they are providing a service without any expectation for payment. Tax law, at least where I live, is very explicit on this. If a company provide goods or services with the expectation of payment, be that as a good or service, then that transaction trigger value added tax. Free samples and gratis products do not trigger this, including those that has advertisement, because those do not have an expectation of payment. In general it is the company that is selling a product that must manage payment of value added tax to consumers within the country, and the government has soft blocked imports from companies when that tax has not been paid. I don't know German law around value added tax so they might have different exemption rules. I do wonder however if the court acknowledged in the Axel Springer case that the viewing of advertisement is an payment for providing content.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Do you got any links to previous legal cases about that? Otherwise it is just baseless speculation.
- recursive 3y ago
  They're getting paid by advertisers, not viewers.
avazhi 3y ago
This echoes my thought process, too. I would go full Luddite and swear off YouTube, Twitch, etc if I absolutely had to watch ads to use their services. I already do this with twitch - once the unblockable ads start playing I close the tab and spend my time elsewhere, with nothing of value lost. There is literally no content that is worth being exposed to ads to access, from my point of view. I realise that many others don’t share such militant views on this, but for me it’s non negotiable.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>let me reassure you: you can. Everything on the internet is expendable. Every single thing on the internet is expendable. The internet as a whole is arguably not. I think that's where the rub lies. >It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet. really depends on the person. I would not have my current career nor WFH role without the internet. It doesn't mean I can't "live", but it would cause a radical enough shift in my life that I'd essentially become a different person. I'll leave that answer to the philosophers.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
Agreed. The server gets to decide whether to send data and what to send, and I get to decide how I use it when it is sent to me. In short protecting the users' right to run what they want on their computing device. Now just apply this general principle to copyrighted content as well and we would approach a sane legal system (at least in this specific area).
turquoisevar 3y ago
I’m pretty much with you on this almost word for word. I can’t have my cake and eat it too, and I’m fine with that. Maybe if at a certain point everything is locked down with the help of device attestation/DRM I might change my tune, but even then I’m sure there will be alternatives for me, whether online or offline.

by kleiba 3y ago

Xenoamorphous 3y ago

> Just don't think that I am going to turn off the adblocker for you as a consequence. Much more likely, I'm just going to go somewhere else for my kick. You’ll be saving them money (less infrastructure costs, like bandwith) without giving a penny to their competitors (because you’re using an adblocker); actually now you’re probably a net loss for their competitors. So they’re happy to lose you, I guess? We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, I know first hand. And I hate it.

lolinder 3y ago
I'm actually very excited to get back to the point where services compete for my money rather than for my attention. Advertising has created an internet that has an enormous amount of content, most of which is just... bad. It's hard to find good content because almost all of it is engineered to get clicks. A paywalled internet will mean I'll have to be choosier about what I consume, but what's available will hopefully be high quality because it's not competing for my attention when I'm at my weakest at the end of a long day, it's competing for my wallet when I rationally review the budget every month.
paulddraper 3y ago
> We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, If that's the intersection of need/demand, okay so be it. Like, I have preferences but I understand they might not be others'.
cschep 3y ago
There is so much good content on the internet that people put out because they just love it and don't expect any money for it. All of that won't change. Lots of the ad-ridden blogs and stuff will go away but I'll echo the sentiment found largely around these comments: good riddance.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  and my favorite content creators only post once in a blue moon when the stars align, likely because they don't have a need to post more often. Which is why my most frequent content creators tend to be the consistent ones who try to get something out at least once a week or month. Thing is, even with this ad-free model, the most motivated ones will be the ones on top. And They will just find other ways to monetize instead of ads, because they are motivated to capitalize on their audience. Donations (charitable or incentivized), merch, content paywalls, self-ads instead of sponsored ones. Same concept. Ads are a big problem, but not THE core issue.
JohnFen 3y ago
> We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, I know first hand. And I hate it. I'd be completely fine with that result. It would mean that commercial websites would be segregated off, leaving the rest of the web (the part I get real value from) more discoverable.

izzydata 3y ago

If something is not sustainable without ads that seems to imply that people are not willing to pay for it. If people aren't willing to pay for it then I'm not sure it is a good business model. Regardless of the consequences I'd rather see an ad free internet. If that means Youtube can't exist and Facebook can't exist and Google can't exist then so be it.

oh_sigh 3y ago
Except that users are willing to pay for it, since a vast majority of them look at the ads and some of them even click on the ads.
- neuralRiot 3y ago
  I wouldn’t have a problem with ads if they weren’t so intrusive and obnoxious. Imagine trying to read a magazine that would jump itself to the page with the “Axe” ad, you go back to the page you were reading and 10 seconds later it jumps to the “Chevy colorado” ad. Or asking the bookkeeper for “a book of holiday recipes” and on you way home in every corner a guy knocks your car window to sell you “holiday food”.
charcircuit 3y ago
Why not just ignore sites that use ads? If people find value in ad supported product they can use them and if they don't they can just avoid them and use an alternative without ads or nothing.
- izzydata 3y ago
  If there were no ads anywhere on the internet than everything would be on an even playing field. Currently a site that offers a paid service for something that someone else gives away for free is at a huge disadvantage.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Even if the web was on an even playing field it has to worry about being disrupted by other platforms that allow ads. That could take the form of Web2 which is the web + ad supported sites with backwards compatibility with the original web or it could take the form of mobile apps where users can get useful ad supported apps.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

crazygringo 3y ago

> But if content providers do not want to give me their stuff unless I watch their ads, I think that's fine. Exactly. I've got a right to block ads if I can figure out how to achieve that technologically. But they've got a right to not give me content if they can figure out, technologically, that I'm blocking their ads. This all seems very fair to me.

l0b0 3y ago
Agreed. As someone who could not use the web without an ad blocker, I wouldn't even be opposed to a `X-Blocks-Ads: true` request header or something, to just shut down the hue and cry between the two parties. Let's all be honest, then see where it gets us.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  If we could trust adtech to be honest we wouldn't have to vigorously block them. You and I both know X-Block-Ads would be nothing more than an extra wrinkle for your browser fingerprint.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Yes. The adtech industry is a hive of scum and villainy. They'll use every bit of data they have access to in order to screw you.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Right, because the Do-Not-Track flag was respected oh so well. The only people that seem to care about flags are an invading colonizing system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8
  - l0b0 3y ago
    It would be another bit for the fingerprinting, that's an important caveat. The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls, and let the market decide whether users are OK with that. The current situation is that ad blocking is a luxury, afforded by people like us with a decent Internet connection for the constant updates, and understanding of technology, to enable ad blocking in the first place.

andy99 3y ago

Yeah it's pretty simple, the world doesn't owe anyone a business model (something that's forgotten way to often) but nor are we owed free content. My understanding of a transaction is that there needs to be a "meeting of the minds" - if I value what you want to give me more than the price you want, we have trade and everybody wins. Unfortunately the ad economy is closer to begging. The consumer doesn't value what's being provided and the provider somehow tries to guilt or force users into "paying". And overall everyone loses - the content provider doesn't get the value they want for their content and the consumer doesn't get something they value. The only winner is advertising intermediaries. That unfortunately is the system we've set up.

genocidicbunny 3y ago

> But if content providers do not want to give me their stuff unless I watch their ads, I think that's fine. It's your right to do that. Just don't think that I am going to turn off the adblocker for you as a consequence. Much more likely, I'm just going to go somewhere else for my kick. To me, I think this is the more salient set of points. I accept that a company wants to show me ads to pay for the content they're serving. I accept that they may refuse to let me access content if I don't first view/consume the ads. And I also accept that if I am not happy with that specific arrangement, I am free to go elsewhere. What I do refuse to accept is that once they have sent me the data that they have any right to control how I consume it. If you want to prevent me from accessing your site unless I view ads, you have a very simple way to do that -- have your webserver return an error code unless I have viewed the ads. But once you have sent me the bytes, in my eyes, you lose any right to dictate how those bytes are processed or blackholed.

rollcat 3y ago
In my view, this falls under fair use. If you have a private copy of a printed newspaper, you're free to tear out a page, draw pen-mustaches, wrap a fish in it, make a paper airplane, solve the crossword puzzle incorrectly, wipe yourself, basically anything you like - for your own amusement. I don't see how your private copy of the webpage bytes should be any different. In both cases there are very clear boundaries: you can't redistribute derivative works without permission & attribution (copyright), you can't publicly broadcast, etc. Everything else should be fair game.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  One generally pays for the newspaper.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    And websites are free to put up a paywall in front of the content to get me to pay for it.
  - whstl 3y ago

mission_failed 3y ago

There is a grey area though when a company becomes the defacto monopoly over a service. Google and Microsoft email both have history of blocking email from other providers and have created a landscape where trying to run your own email server is a nightmare. But should they be able to refuse service to you if you block ads?

thfuran 3y ago
Unequivocally yes. If not, do you also think they should be required to serve all your requests while you dos them?

awiejtlaijwr 3y ago

Christ, this is why I don't even browse the web on my phone. I email myself reminders to look things up when I get home to my laptop. The absence of adblockers makes it unbearable. Three different videos selling three different products unrelated to my query all trying to talk over each other? Kill me please.

berkes 3y ago
Firefox mobile can run an AdBlock addon just fine. Firefox focus even has it built in.
technothrasher 3y ago
I leave my phone connected via OpenVPN to my corporate network with a PiHole server to filter out most web ads, trackers, etc. What I do try to avoid is using any apps where I can use the website instead.
matrix87 3y ago
Maybe use android then? Then you can use newpipe, AdAway, FF with desktop add-ons. I use it and don't have the same problem
suslik 3y ago
If you’re talking about iOS, ther is adblocking there. Adguard works well for me on Safari, and Orion browser even runs ublock origin. I honestly never see ads on mobile.
turquoisevar 3y ago
There are ad blockers available for both Android and iOS. Both free and paid. Personally I’ve got a great experience for years now with Wipr on iOS, but at this rate I should start asking for a commission because I literally just suggested it to someone else here on HN.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet." Maybe even more of a life without it. There is one fact that I learned immediately when I started using the internet in 1986 and then the www in 1993. There will always be an endless supply of free "content" on the internet and www. With or without advertising. The ads did not even start until 1994 or so. There was an internet without ads. A non-commercial internet. That's what I signed up for. That people today are paying for multiple "subscriptions" to view stuff on the internet is amazing but it will not make the free stuff disappear. It will not stop non-commercial use of the network. The internet did not come into existence for the purpose of advertising. But the companies exerting oversized control over it, that is all they are interested in.

foob 3y ago

I mostly agree with this in principle, but an important point is that, when you squint, the technology behind blocking ad blockers starts looking very similar to the technology behind blocking web scrapers. If you're capable of programmatically scraping content without a human user viewing ads, then you're capable of displaying the content to a user without the ads. So any solution for preventing ad blocking implies that the content can't be scraped programmatically. I know that web scrapers carry some negative connotations, but keep in mind that search engines like Google couldn't possibly exist without web scraping. A world where you can't block ads or scrape content for indexing is a world where only a few preordained companies have the ability to build search engines. Proposals like Web Environment Integrity (WEI) accomplish two goals for Google: they make ad blocking more difficult, and they kick down the ladder to prevent new innovative search engines from emerging. There are already many websites which only allow-list Google's IPs for indexing, and I think we should be very hesitant about anything that could further entrench their monopoly on search even if we support content creators being compensated through ads.

Bu9818 3y ago
I agree, I don't even care about ads in specific. I primarily use the tor browser which doesn't block ads due to fingerprinting (it's ok for casual browsing, though some sites are actually obnoxious and slow down the browser). More generally, I care about web scraping and being able to control the presentation of content: for internet archival, using a featureful video/music player (mpv) or library like a local imageboard, utilities like user scripts to add features/programatically do stuff, content blocking (filter rules for specific posts/users), creating RSS feeds for notifications if the site doesn't offer one, simpler/faster frontends like invidious/nitter, etc.

vasco 3y ago

> Heck, most of what you're in love with today wasn't even there 10 years ago. I wasn't in love with my girlfriend / kids / etc before I met her either but I wouldn't want to go without her just because there was once a time where it was true. That seems like weak argument.

kleiba 3y ago
Maybe because that particular sentence wasn't an argument at all but rather an illustration?

pyrophane 3y ago

I like it because it forces some decisions on various parties. Don't want to look at ads online? Block them but realize you yourself may be blocked from certain places. Don't want to allow ad-blocked users? Okay, but you lose those users unless you engage with the reason they are blocking ads and either give them an alternative or convince them to greenlist you.

franciscop 3y ago

> Everything on the internet is expendable. Trust me. Yes, even TikTok, son. Heck, most of what you're in love with today wasn't even there 10 years ago. This is unfortunately patently not true anymore. As the internet has gotten more intertwined in our lives, so has into the gvmt, corporations, society, etc. For example banking, for using my bank I need an internet connection. I literally work on the internet, but even if I didn't I cannot imagine any of the main jobs I would be remotely qualified to do that doesn't need internet, so I'd be back to minimum-skill minimum-wage jobs. Which wouldn't afford me my current home, and from which I'd be kicked out of the country I live at since I wouldn't qualify for either the job type or minimum salary. Note: I assume by "expendable" you mean "can be avoided without a huge impact in life", I _could_ live without internet but I'd also need to be working a minimum wage, wouldn't afford my home, and probably would even lose my visa.

irrational 3y ago

While I agree with you, I also am not sure what I should think about nearly every news article on here has a link that someone has posted that circumvents the paywall that has been put up prevent people from accessing the content without paying (either directly or via ads). Is it okay to use an adblocker and not pay for a subscription, but also circumvent walls so I can still access the content?

belorn 3y ago

There is one major aspect that I find troubling with companies blocking users with an activated adblocker. It removes the illusion that they are providing a service without any expectation for payment. Tax law, at least where I live, is very explicit on this. If a company provide goods or services with the expectation of payment, be that as a good or service, then that transaction trigger value added tax. Free samples and gratis products do not trigger this, including those that has advertisement, because those do not have an expectation of payment. In general it is the company that is selling a product that must manage payment of value added tax to consumers within the country, and the government has soft blocked imports from companies when that tax has not been paid. I don't know German law around value added tax so they might have different exemption rules. I do wonder however if the court acknowledged in the Axel Springer case that the viewing of advertisement is an payment for providing content.

Jensson 3y ago
Do you got any links to previous legal cases about that? Otherwise it is just baseless speculation.
recursive 3y ago
They're getting paid by advertisers, not viewers.

avazhi 3y ago

This echoes my thought process, too. I would go full Luddite and swear off YouTube, Twitch, etc if I absolutely had to watch ads to use their services. I already do this with twitch - once the unblockable ads start playing I close the tab and spend my time elsewhere, with nothing of value lost. There is literally no content that is worth being exposed to ads to access, from my point of view. I realise that many others don’t share such militant views on this, but for me it’s non negotiable.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>let me reassure you: you can. Everything on the internet is expendable. Every single thing on the internet is expendable. The internet as a whole is arguably not. I think that's where the rub lies. >It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet. really depends on the person. I would not have my current career nor WFH role without the internet. It doesn't mean I can't "live", but it would cause a radical enough shift in my life that I'd essentially become a different person. I'll leave that answer to the philosophers.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

Agreed. The server gets to decide whether to send data and what to send, and I get to decide how I use it when it is sent to me. In short protecting the users' right to run what they want on their computing device. Now just apply this general principle to copyrighted content as well and we would approach a sane legal system (at least in this specific area).

turquoisevar 3y ago

I’m pretty much with you on this almost word for word. I can’t have my cake and eat it too, and I’m fine with that. Maybe if at a certain point everything is locked down with the help of device attestation/DRM I might change my tune, but even then I’m sure there will be alternatives for me, whether online or offline.