4 ms·

My go-to analogy: I subscribe to a magazine. It has ads. I pay my butler to cut out the ads. Is that illegal? Now I have a robot butler doing the exact same th

My go-to analogy: I subscribe to a magazine. It has ads. I pay my butler to cut out the ads. Is that illegal? Now I have a robot butler doing the exact same thing. Is that illegal? The web server is serving you content. Your ad blocker is a robot butler cutting the ads out of the documents you're receiving.

unshavedyak 3y ago
Yup. If you reverse the situation it gets even harder to define. Ie to say you're not allowed to automate your avoidance of ads seems to bundle your consumption of content with your attention to ads. How much attention are we required to give these ads? How much annoyance in bypassing them is required? Are we only allowed to walk away from the TV to avoid ads? etc
- iamacyborg 3y ago
  Not only are you expected to put up with the ad, you’re expected to put up with your personal data being sent to hundreds/thousands of third parties whenever someone wants to show you an ad.
- userbinator 3y ago
  Indeed, either muting and doing something else or changing the channel was a common thing to do back when TV was an actual tube. From a similar era, it's also worth noting that some VCRs had automatic "adblocking" (pause recording, and resume once the ad breaks were over.) Personally, I think it boils down to: my eyes, my brain. I shouldn't be compelled to effectively lose the right to close my eyes when I want to.
IlliOnato 3y ago
The magazine is given to you for free, you don't pay for it. The magazine is able to detect that your butler is cutting out the ads. The magazine decides it does not want to send you its issues any more. Is that illegal?
- MiddleEndian 3y ago
  Neither one should be illegal. Not every conflict needs the court system to resolve it.
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  Cosmo isn't free.
- squigz 3y ago
  To continue this strained analogy, what is happening now would be like the magazine trying to prevent your butler from doing what you told him. Dropping the analogy, YouTube has every right to block me from using the site if I'm using an adblocker. They do not have the right to continuously try to circumvent my adblocker
  - berkes 3y ago
    I'd say they have that right to circumvent your blocker. And you have the right to circumvent that. Ad infinitum.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      I agree: they have the right to try to detect on their end that I'm not watching the ads, and then refuse to send me more videos. And I have the right to try to evade this detection with software on my end. They don't have the right to use the legal system to force me to watch ads on my equipment (for instance, by banning ad-blockers).
    - squigz 3y ago
      Should a company have the right to constantly harass you IRL with ads, even after you take actions to avoid seeing those ads?
      - berkes 3y ago
        I think your description is unfair. Yes, I think that, say, Mc Donalds has all the rights to bombard me with ads when I enter their "restaurant". Even ads for, say, cars, if they get some deal with a car-factory. So, yes, I think a company has the right to bombard me with ads when I visit their premises, even if I've taken actions to avoid seeing those ads. If I don't want that, I'm free to not enter their premises (i.e. visit their websites)
fxd123 3y ago
Yes, and the magazine company has a right to stop sending you more magazines if they don't like that
- astrobe_ 3y ago
  Depends on where you live. In my country refusing to sell is illegal, unless the company has good reasons.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    If it's free with ads is it really a sale?
    - astrobe_ 3y ago
      Don't really know, I was responding to the analogical version. But I'd say that a EULA that requires you to watch/see ads is something different in nature than usual EULAs that just cover legal-and-good-relationships things.
pndy 3y ago
That's a pretty charming analogy and it would be perfect some 15 years ago; nowadays adblocking extensions are more like a personal bodyguards that fend off all the leafleters and shady individuals in trentch coat and dark glasses who follow you.

unshavedyak 3y ago

Yup. If you reverse the situation it gets even harder to define. Ie to say you're not allowed to automate your avoidance of ads seems to bundle your consumption of content with your attention to ads. How much attention are we required to give these ads? How much annoyance in bypassing them is required? Are we only allowed to walk away from the TV to avoid ads? etc

iamacyborg 3y ago
Not only are you expected to put up with the ad, you’re expected to put up with your personal data being sent to hundreds/thousands of third parties whenever someone wants to show you an ad.
userbinator 3y ago
Indeed, either muting and doing something else or changing the channel was a common thing to do back when TV was an actual tube. From a similar era, it's also worth noting that some VCRs had automatic "adblocking" (pause recording, and resume once the ad breaks were over.) Personally, I think it boils down to: my eyes, my brain. I shouldn't be compelled to effectively lose the right to close my eyes when I want to.

IlliOnato 3y ago

The magazine is given to you for free, you don't pay for it. The magazine is able to detect that your butler is cutting out the ads. The magazine decides it does not want to send you its issues any more. Is that illegal?

MiddleEndian 3y ago
Neither one should be illegal. Not every conflict needs the court system to resolve it.
InCityDreams 3y ago
Cosmo isn't free.
squigz 3y ago
To continue this strained analogy, what is happening now would be like the magazine trying to prevent your butler from doing what you told him. Dropping the analogy, YouTube has every right to block me from using the site if I'm using an adblocker. They do not have the right to continuously try to circumvent my adblocker
- berkes 3y ago
  I'd say they have that right to circumvent your blocker. And you have the right to circumvent that. Ad infinitum.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    I agree: they have the right to try to detect on their end that I'm not watching the ads, and then refuse to send me more videos. And I have the right to try to evade this detection with software on my end. They don't have the right to use the legal system to force me to watch ads on my equipment (for instance, by banning ad-blockers).
  - squigz 3y ago
    Should a company have the right to constantly harass you IRL with ads, even after you take actions to avoid seeing those ads?
    - berkes 3y ago
      I think your description is unfair. Yes, I think that, say, Mc Donalds has all the rights to bombard me with ads when I enter their "restaurant". Even ads for, say, cars, if they get some deal with a car-factory. So, yes, I think a company has the right to bombard me with ads when I visit their premises, even if I've taken actions to avoid seeing those ads. If I don't want that, I'm free to not enter their premises (i.e. visit their websites)

fxd123 3y ago

Yes, and the magazine company has a right to stop sending you more magazines if they don't like that

astrobe_ 3y ago
Depends on where you live. In my country refusing to sell is illegal, unless the company has good reasons.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  If it's free with ads is it really a sale?
  - astrobe_ 3y ago
    Don't really know, I was responding to the analogical version. But I'd say that a EULA that requires you to watch/see ads is something different in nature than usual EULAs that just cover legal-and-good-relationships things.

pndy 3y ago

That's a pretty charming analogy and it would be perfect some 15 years ago; nowadays adblocking extensions are more like a personal bodyguards that fend off all the leafleters and shady individuals in trentch coat and dark glasses who follow you.