4 ms·

A friend raised what I consider a very valid point, that ad blockers are assistive technology for people with ADHD. They prevent the web from being an unusable

A friend raised what I consider a very valid point, that ad blockers are assistive technology for people with ADHD. They prevent the web from being an unusable mess of shiny distraction. And as such, in America, blocking ad blockers is a violation of the ADA. I’m being completely serious here and so is he. I can barely use the web without ad blockers. They make it possible for me to participate in online life. Remove them and you largely remove me. An attack on ad blockers is a direct attack on even the slightly neurodivergent, and should be treated as such.

ddmf 1y ago
I concur, some websites are so unusable now with the tiny portion of content surrounded by adverts.
Vinnl 1y ago
Yeah, that's also the main warning from the blog: the reasoning here is that adjusting how the website code executes on your computer is copyright infringement. The effects of that would go way beyond just adblockers.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  I strongly agree with that point, too. The notion that you can legally force me to run a bit of arbitrary code you transmit to me is absolutely bonkers.
  - dh2022 1y ago
    Nobody is forcing you to do anything. I am blocking your ads without your help.
- davorak 1y ago
  > adjusting how the website code executes on your computer is copyright infringement. I would be interested in how German law works to make this so, IANAL but pretty sure USA copy right law does not work that way. Modification for personal use is normally going to be 100% acceptable under USA copyright law. The DMCA Anti-Circumvention is one exception I know to this but it was and is a big deal for being an exception.
  - anonymousab 1y ago
    One of the things that came out of several Blizzard anticheat/Warden lawsuits back in the day is that, technically, the act of running an executable is copyright infringement, because the data is being copied from disk into memory, into registers and into caches. Running any software that then does anything with the same memory space (cheating software or, say, antivirus) is another, separate instance of copyright infringement on top of that.
    - davorak 1y ago
      If I own a book I can make as many personal copies of the book I want as long as I keep those copies personal. So it seems like there is more too this ruling than copying from disk to memory or it contradicts typical copyright low or maybe the ruling was about DMCA anti-circumvention?
  - xoa 1y ago
    Yes, in the US at least copyright is specifically about reproduction/distribution, not use. This goes to the core of things every HNer encounters like open source licenses vs EULAs for example. A copyright license only governs somebody's ability to legally make copies and reproduce/derive/distribute in turn, not to what use they put it to for themselves. Absent any other contractual agreement they're perfectly free to mark up/modify/cut up a book or painting or the like that they have acquired, and they can sell that specific copy too. But other then the exceptions of Fair Use they can't distribute that work or derivatives without a separate license. Granted, most proprietary software slaps on additional restrictions which sadly have been found legal despite the massive perversion of contract and society it has entailed, but that's not inherent.
- anthk 1y ago
  So, running old browsers with no JS support it's illegal too? OTOH, there's even gopher://taz.de in Germany.
- dh2022 1y ago
  Why is it copyright infringement? How is this different from playing music with different settings (more bass, less bass) or playing it at different speeds?
limagnolia 1y ago
While I am a huge fan of ad blockers, and as some one with ADHD I am very sympathetic to the argument, I suspect that your friend is not a lawyer, and/or is not very familiar with the limitations of the ADA.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  He is not, nor am I, but I don’t see a reason you and I shouldn’t get the same legal protections as other groups. What about blind people who pipe the output of a screen through text-to-speech? Or people with epilepsy who can’t use flashy screens? Or someone who needs to enlarge print or change its contrast? There are plenty of medical reasons to need to alter their browser presentations.
  - limagnolia 1y ago
    I agree with this in general, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is current law. Now, I will also say I am not a lawyer, and I can't say for certain its not, but having dealt with ADA claims and done a fair amount of research into it, I know that it is often a very misunderstood law. I believe that fighting to protect assistive technologies at all levels is a worthy fight.
  - brookst 1y ago
    IANAL, but the critical thing to know is that the ADA doesn’t mean that every assistive technology is mandated / required. Wheelchair users would benefit from dedicated elevators where their face is not butt-level with strangers in tight spaces; the ADA doesn’t mean not mandate this accommodation.
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      Is there an alternative technology that allows people to use websites without flashing ads?
      - woofcat 1y ago
        screen readers / text based browsers / etc.
mathiaspoint 1y ago
I feel like tools like screentime would fit that description better than adblockers.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  How do you figure? If a website takes me 5 minutes to visit with an ad blocker and 10 without, then answer isn’t to timebox that visit to 5 minutes. That just means I only get to accomplish half my goal of visiting it.
raphman 1y ago
Actually, the German copyright law explicitly allows people with limited vision or with limited reading ability (not defined precisely in the law) to use assistive technology in order to transfer a work into a more accessible version¹. So, ad-blocker companies might argue that they are just providing assistive technology to people with diagnosed ADHD. Copyright holders would then need to go after the users of such software. (IANAL) ¹) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__45b.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__45b.html
takeda 1y ago
I didn't have ADHD (or at least not diagnosed with it), but I tried to use Internet without adblocker and is unusable. I suspect owners of those sites either don't visit them or use ad blocker themselves.
perihelions 1y ago
The best possible outcome, in that hypothetical, would be gaining the right to pay money to visit ad-free versions of websites. ADA can't compel anyone to provide services to the public for free; only to provide non-discriminatory, reasonable accommodations.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  It does compel them to provide accessible entry to public spaces. You can't have a public store without allowing and supporting access to people with wheelchairs, for example.
webspinner 1y ago
They're assistive technology for me too, as a blind person. They make the modern web easier to navigate! I also use them for privacy reasons, of course!!

ddmf 1y ago

I concur, some websites are so unusable now with the tiny portion of content surrounded by adverts.

Vinnl 1y ago

Yeah, that's also the main warning from the blog: the reasoning here is that adjusting how the website code executes on your computer is copyright infringement. The effects of that would go way beyond just adblockers.

kstrauser 1y ago
I strongly agree with that point, too. The notion that you can legally force me to run a bit of arbitrary code you transmit to me is absolutely bonkers.
- dh2022 1y ago
  Nobody is forcing you to do anything. I am blocking your ads without your help.
davorak 1y ago
> adjusting how the website code executes on your computer is copyright infringement. I would be interested in how German law works to make this so, IANAL but pretty sure USA copy right law does not work that way. Modification for personal use is normally going to be 100% acceptable under USA copyright law. The DMCA Anti-Circumvention is one exception I know to this but it was and is a big deal for being an exception.
- anonymousab 1y ago
  One of the things that came out of several Blizzard anticheat/Warden lawsuits back in the day is that, technically, the act of running an executable is copyright infringement, because the data is being copied from disk into memory, into registers and into caches. Running any software that then does anything with the same memory space (cheating software or, say, antivirus) is another, separate instance of copyright infringement on top of that.
  - davorak 1y ago
    If I own a book I can make as many personal copies of the book I want as long as I keep those copies personal. So it seems like there is more too this ruling than copying from disk to memory or it contradicts typical copyright low or maybe the ruling was about DMCA anti-circumvention?
- xoa 1y ago
  Yes, in the US at least copyright is specifically about reproduction/distribution, not use. This goes to the core of things every HNer encounters like open source licenses vs EULAs for example. A copyright license only governs somebody's ability to legally make copies and reproduce/derive/distribute in turn, not to what use they put it to for themselves. Absent any other contractual agreement they're perfectly free to mark up/modify/cut up a book or painting or the like that they have acquired, and they can sell that specific copy too. But other then the exceptions of Fair Use they can't distribute that work or derivatives without a separate license. Granted, most proprietary software slaps on additional restrictions which sadly have been found legal despite the massive perversion of contract and society it has entailed, but that's not inherent.
anthk 1y ago
So, running old browsers with no JS support it's illegal too? OTOH, there's even gopher://taz.de in Germany.
dh2022 1y ago
Why is it copyright infringement? How is this different from playing music with different settings (more bass, less bass) or playing it at different speeds?

limagnolia 1y ago

While I am a huge fan of ad blockers, and as some one with ADHD I am very sympathetic to the argument, I suspect that your friend is not a lawyer, and/or is not very familiar with the limitations of the ADA.

kstrauser 1y ago
He is not, nor am I, but I don’t see a reason you and I shouldn’t get the same legal protections as other groups. What about blind people who pipe the output of a screen through text-to-speech? Or people with epilepsy who can’t use flashy screens? Or someone who needs to enlarge print or change its contrast? There are plenty of medical reasons to need to alter their browser presentations.
- limagnolia 1y ago
  I agree with this in general, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is current law. Now, I will also say I am not a lawyer, and I can't say for certain its not, but having dealt with ADA claims and done a fair amount of research into it, I know that it is often a very misunderstood law. I believe that fighting to protect assistive technologies at all levels is a worthy fight.
- brookst 1y ago
  IANAL, but the critical thing to know is that the ADA doesn’t mean that every assistive technology is mandated / required. Wheelchair users would benefit from dedicated elevators where their face is not butt-level with strangers in tight spaces; the ADA doesn’t mean not mandate this accommodation.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    Is there an alternative technology that allows people to use websites without flashing ads?
    - woofcat 1y ago
      screen readers / text based browsers / etc.

mathiaspoint 1y ago

I feel like tools like screentime would fit that description better than adblockers.

kstrauser 1y ago
How do you figure? If a website takes me 5 minutes to visit with an ad blocker and 10 without, then answer isn’t to timebox that visit to 5 minutes. That just means I only get to accomplish half my goal of visiting it.

raphman 1y ago

Actually, the German copyright law explicitly allows people with limited vision or with limited reading ability (not defined precisely in the law) to use assistive technology in order to transfer a work into a more accessible version¹. So, ad-blocker companies might argue that they are just providing assistive technology to people with diagnosed ADHD. Copyright holders would then need to go after the users of such software. (IANAL) ¹) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__45b.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__45b.html

takeda 1y ago

I didn't have ADHD (or at least not diagnosed with it), but I tried to use Internet without adblocker and is unusable. I suspect owners of those sites either don't visit them or use ad blocker themselves.

perihelions 1y ago

The best possible outcome, in that hypothetical, would be gaining the right to pay money to visit ad-free versions of websites. ADA can't compel anyone to provide services to the public for free; only to provide non-discriminatory, reasonable accommodations.

kstrauser 1y ago
It does compel them to provide accessible entry to public spaces. You can't have a public store without allowing and supporting access to people with wheelchairs, for example.

webspinner 1y ago

They're assistive technology for me too, as a blind person. They make the modern web easier to navigate! I also use them for privacy reasons, of course!!