3 ms·
I'm not sure I agree with that. When you load the NY Times website, you use up their resources (hosting, delivery, etc) and they're paying some fee to give you
by kloncks 14y ago
I'm not sure I agree with that.
When you load the NY Times website, you use up their resources (hosting, delivery, etc) and they're paying some fee to give you the privilege of viewing that page.
They pay for that using ads. Their choice.
You don't like that? Great. Stop visiting that website. That's your prerogative. But to visit the website, use their resources, AND block their way of generating revenue to pay for that...well, that's both immoral and wrong.
- fleitz 14y agoThe NewYork times servers send information to an information processing device, they are going to have to accept the fact that the data they send back is not the webpage on your screen and instead must be processed by the browser and other software. If the NYT doesn't like it, they can stop serving content to devices that don't render the content the way they prefer.
- icelancer 14y ago"You don't like that? Great. Stop visiting that website. That's your prerogative. But to visit the website, use their resources, AND block their way of generating revenue to pay for that...well, that's both immoral and wrong." That's a summary opinion without the backing of law or even a thorough examination of the ethics involved. What is unethical/annoying to you may not be to someone else. The poster is free to use AdBlock and other scripts to improve his browsing experience and the NYT is free to install ways to get around ADB (of which many exist) or make content available to those who want it for free.