3 ms·

>You don't consent to it, you don't want it. By viewing ad supported content, you are inherently agreeing to see ads. That is the product being sold. If you do

>You don't consent to it, you don't want it. By viewing ad supported content, you are inherently agreeing to see ads. That is the product being sold. If you don't want to see ads, don't load the content. It's very simple and plainly understandable. People using all manner of backdoor techniques to sidestep the parts that they don't want, kills the demand to create a product they do want. So rather than a paywalled news org that has no ads on the other side of the wall, we have ublock origin and archive.is

matheusmoreira 3mo ago
> By viewing ad supported content, you are inherently agreeing to see ads. I agree to absolutely nothing, least of all "inherently". Following a link to a website gives exactly no one the right to assault me with advertising. If they try, I will defend myself with every single technology at my disposal. > That is the product being sold. Not a single thing is being sold here. Browsers make requests, servers can decide whether to reply or not. They're the ones who send web pages to anyone who asks for free. They do so under the assumption that we'll look at the ads they bundled with the pages. We're under exactly zero obligation to validate that assumption. If they want money, they should charge people directly. If they send us ads, we'll delete them. > If you don't want to see ads, don't load the content. I'm under no obligation to "not load" anything whatsoever. Browsers make requests, that's how the web works. If they reply with free web pages, I'm only too happy to consume them. If they don't like it, they're free to return HTTP 402 Payment Required. > It's very simple and plainly understandable. Apparently not, since you believe they are "selling" web pages. They're making a bet that giving us free web pages loaded with ads will pay off. They're not entitled to win that bet. > People using all manner of backdoor techniques to sidestep the parts that they don't want As is our god given right. Nothing "backdoor" about it either. If someone hands me a magazine for free, I'm not obligated to look at the ads to "pay them back" or anything of the sort. In fact I can just rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash, where they belong, and then fully enjoy my free gift.
- WarmWash 3mo ago
  Ok, I follow. Now why doesn't that logic apply to roadside farm stands? Really I'd just like a general rule that we can apply to any [value transaction] to determine when compensation for that value is optional. So I can quickly evaluate that I should leave money for the produce I take, but I optionally can leave money for the articles I read. Or perhaps roadside stands are fair game for "they could put a lock and on door and a phone to the house if they want compensation for their goods"?
  - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
    > Now why doesn't that logic apply to roadside farm stands? Because they are completely different categories of business. Stands don't give out free products to anyone who asks. Unlike web servers, they are actually selling stuff. You don't get products unless you pay for them. There is no "I'll give everyone free stuff then hope it comes back to me" deal. > Really I'd just like a general rule that we can apply to any [value transaction] to determine when compensation for that value is optional. If they give you the product for free, then compensation is optional. If they charge you money before giving you the product, then compensation is not optional.
    - WarmWash 3mo ago
      ..but they are not giving the product for free, they are putting ads on it. You're the one deciding to ignore the money basket because no one stops you from taking the product for free.
      - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
        > ..but they are not giving the product for free They are. Not a single cent changed hands. > they are putting ads on it Still free. Attention is not a currency you can pay for things with. Bundling advertisements with free products doesn't magically turn them into paid products. Further discussion is not possible unless you accept this.
        3mo ago

matheusmoreira 3mo ago

> By viewing ad supported content, you are inherently agreeing to see ads. I agree to absolutely nothing, least of all "inherently". Following a link to a website gives exactly no one the right to assault me with advertising. If they try, I will defend myself with every single technology at my disposal. > That is the product being sold. Not a single thing is being sold here. Browsers make requests, servers can decide whether to reply or not. They're the ones who send web pages to anyone who asks for free. They do so under the assumption that we'll look at the ads they bundled with the pages. We're under exactly zero obligation to validate that assumption. If they want money, they should charge people directly. If they send us ads, we'll delete them. > If you don't want to see ads, don't load the content. I'm under no obligation to "not load" anything whatsoever. Browsers make requests, that's how the web works. If they reply with free web pages, I'm only too happy to consume them. If they don't like it, they're free to return HTTP 402 Payment Required. > It's very simple and plainly understandable. Apparently not, since you believe they are "selling" web pages. They're making a bet that giving us free web pages loaded with ads will pay off. They're not entitled to win that bet. > People using all manner of backdoor techniques to sidestep the parts that they don't want As is our god given right. Nothing "backdoor" about it either. If someone hands me a magazine for free, I'm not obligated to look at the ads to "pay them back" or anything of the sort. In fact I can just rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash, where they belong, and then fully enjoy my free gift.

WarmWash 3mo ago
Ok, I follow. Now why doesn't that logic apply to roadside farm stands? Really I'd just like a general rule that we can apply to any [value transaction] to determine when compensation for that value is optional. So I can quickly evaluate that I should leave money for the produce I take, but I optionally can leave money for the articles I read. Or perhaps roadside stands are fair game for "they could put a lock and on door and a phone to the house if they want compensation for their goods"?
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  > Now why doesn't that logic apply to roadside farm stands? Because they are completely different categories of business. Stands don't give out free products to anyone who asks. Unlike web servers, they are actually selling stuff. You don't get products unless you pay for them. There is no "I'll give everyone free stuff then hope it comes back to me" deal. > Really I'd just like a general rule that we can apply to any [value transaction] to determine when compensation for that value is optional. If they give you the product for free, then compensation is optional. If they charge you money before giving you the product, then compensation is not optional.
  - WarmWash 3mo ago
    ..but they are not giving the product for free, they are putting ads on it. You're the one deciding to ignore the money basket because no one stops you from taking the product for free.
    - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
      > ..but they are not giving the product for free They are. Not a single cent changed hands. > they are putting ads on it Still free. Attention is not a currency you can pay for things with. Bundling advertisements with free products doesn't magically turn them into paid products. Further discussion is not possible unless you accept this.
      - 3mo ago