3 ms·

At the end of the day, you have no "right" to a site's content. You have the right to use an adblocker, and a site that depends on its revenue has the right to

At the end of the day, you have no "right" to a site's content. You have the right to use an adblocker, and a site that depends on its revenue has the right to refuse to serve you.

lolinder 3y ago
Yes, that's what the court ruled: > While user freedom means that users are able to use the tools that they wish to when browsing the World Wide Web, the court nevertheless preserved Axel Springer’s right to exclude users with an activated adblocker from accessing its content. This can be understood as an approval on the use of adblock detection tools by companies like Axel Springer. This sounds fine to me. If you want to put your content on the internet for all to see, great, but I'm not going to let my browser render the ads that you suggest that it render. If you want to put the content behind a paywall or otherwise block ad blockers, fine, I'll pay if it's worth my money or I won't if it's not. But I'm not going to turn my ad blocker off just because content publishers whine about it.
- phailhaus 3y ago
  Yep! I use an adblocker but I can't fault a site for trying to keep me out.
iamacyborg 3y ago
I’d happily put up with banner ads on websites, it’s the mechanism that serves that ad that I find contentious and is the reason I personally use an ad blocker.
simonblack 3y ago
and a site that depends on its revenue has the right to refuse to serve you. Certainly. But it's dumb on their behalf because you won't see any of their message at all. In practical terms, they might as well not exist.
- phailhaus 3y ago
  Not at all, because you ended up on their site anyways.
  - simonblack 3y ago
    You can end up on their site, but if they refuse you, you won't see anything there will you? And the next time, you won't even bother to follow a link to there.

3 ms·

At the end of the day, you have no "right" to a site's content. You have the right to use an adblocker, and a site that depends on its revenue has the right to

by phailhaus 3y ago

At the end of the day, you have no "right" to a site's content. You have the right to use an adblocker, and a site that depends on its revenue has the right to refuse to serve you.

lolinder 3y ago
Yes, that's what the court ruled: > While user freedom means that users are able to use the tools that they wish to when browsing the World Wide Web, the court nevertheless preserved Axel Springer’s right to exclude users with an activated adblocker from accessing its content. This can be understood as an approval on the use of adblock detection tools by companies like Axel Springer. This sounds fine to me. If you want to put your content on the internet for all to see, great, but I'm not going to let my browser render the ads that you suggest that it render. If you want to put the content behind a paywall or otherwise block ad blockers, fine, I'll pay if it's worth my money or I won't if it's not. But I'm not going to turn my ad blocker off just because content publishers whine about it.
- phailhaus 3y ago
  Yep! I use an adblocker but I can't fault a site for trying to keep me out.
iamacyborg 3y ago
I’d happily put up with banner ads on websites, it’s the mechanism that serves that ad that I find contentious and is the reason I personally use an ad blocker.
simonblack 3y ago
and a site that depends on its revenue has the right to refuse to serve you. Certainly. But it's dumb on their behalf because you won't see any of their message at all. In practical terms, they might as well not exist.
- phailhaus 3y ago
  Not at all, because you ended up on their site anyways.
  - simonblack 3y ago
    You can end up on their site, but if they refuse you, you won't see anything there will you? And the next time, you won't even bother to follow a link to there.