3 ms·

I disagree, because the 'processing' occurs on the local (my) machine. A user is not "visiting" a website, they're not stepping onto their property, they are s

I disagree, because the 'processing' occurs on the local (my) machine. A user is not "visiting" a website, they're not stepping onto their property, they are sending a request for data, and the website is replying to that request. A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine. In the case of DNS blocking, requests to advertising addresses aren't made, so no response is received. In the case of in-browser content blocking, the received reply is put through a filter to remove the elements of the reply that the user doesn't want. The concept of trespass just doesn't fit here.

thfuran 3y ago
>A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine. Not if you're telling their posted signage to go fuck itself and ignoring the terms under which it was provided.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Don't read this text. I understand the point of view you're coming from but, from my point of view it goes against the idea behind having a web presence in the first place (which is likely because I'm stuck on that old romantic view of the web from 20 years ago when people shared information for reasons of passion rather than profit). It's also a bit like a EULA, it's not enforceable it's just game-theory-esque attempts at claiming more ground than that to which they're entitled. If no one pushed back, they'd push further and harder.