4 ms·
Perhaps some of us choose not to rip off payments that are due to the people who provide a service that we're using. If I visit a website that's so infested wit
by AStonesThrow 1y ago
Perhaps some of us choose not to rip off payments that are due to the people who provide a service that we're using. If I visit a website that's so infested with ads that I don't like being there, it's on me to stop visiting that website.
I simply don't think it's fair to cheat service providers when we don't like their service. You have a choice, and that choice is to not use that service at all. They're providing it under the terms that it is ad-supported. If you don't want to support it, but you still want to use it, then you're cheating someone. That is dishonest and unethical.
- quesera 1y agoIf ad-supported sites would return an optional response header indicating such, and their opinion on adblocking visitors. E.g.: Advertisement-Permission: [required|requested] And my adblockers had a config option to abort pageloads with an appropriate error message, if `required` or `requested`, then I would use it happily. In the meantime, I'm browsing every site with all content blockers set at maximum, because any other choice is incomprehensible on the modern web. If I consequently visit some sites that want me to consume advertising of which I am unaware, then that is entirely their issue, not mine.