5 ms·

> we're not really entitled to escape banner advertising. "Oh, really?" I type into my heavily modded Firefox browser because some computer graphics give me br

> we're not really entitled to escape banner advertising. "Oh, really?" I type into my heavily modded Firefox browser because some computer graphics give me brain seizures. (Too bad I cannot log into HN from my Lynx browser.) Last time I checked, the industry term for a browser is "user agent," and page rendering is under the control of the user agent. I can use whatever user agent I want, and so can you. I can fiddle with my user agent as I see fit, and so can you. That's what your browser's Options dialog is for. Sorry I'm getting really testy here, but I get tired of pointing out to the world that it's the user who is in control, not marketers, not page designers, not Yahoo! CSS Reset...

tptacek 18y ago
The same logic says that I should be able to strip the DRM off a movie I download from iTunes and share it to the world as a torrent; after all, it's my computer, and I'm the user, and I'm the one in control.
- akkartik 18y ago
  I remember reading about a court ruling that copyright circumvention is different from skipping ads. So you can't pirate the DVD you just bought, but it's ok to fastforward past the previews. Somebody help me out..
- sci 18y ago
  That's not, imho, a fair comparison - the user agent has the right to alter their perception of the content (strip ads, enlarge font size, have a screen-reader read it) - nowhere in that did the poster suggest that they are then free to re-distribute that content on to other users as your post suggests. I (humbly) put it that your logic is flawed.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Hm, I think that's right.
    - sci 18y ago
      Well sorry, it simply isn't. It's a very basic logical flaw, a fallacy of extension (it's extremely common, oft referred to as the straw man argument) - instead of arguing against the issue, namely the right of the user to alter their perception of received content to better suit their person, you are suggesting that the poster (and their argument) inherently supports the redistribution of that altered content to third parties without the content producer's permission - nowhere in the the post was that assertion made - you made it up all by yourself and then attacked that. So Yes, your logic is flawed, awfully sorry, I know, it's so annoying when that truth thing gets in the way.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        Um, message board geek? I just agreed with you. Take a xanax.
scott_s 18y ago
In the technical sense, sure, you're allowed (entitled) to do whatever you want. But that's not what tptacek is referring to. He's referring to the "I want something for nothing" sense of entitlement. You have no moral right (entitlement) to read their content without viewing the ads the put up. That's why ad-blocking has never sat right with me: it's implicitly accepting that the model of ad supported, free content can not work on the internet.
- pixelmonkey 18y ago
  How about free content that isn't ad-supported? Shouldn't sites like Wikipedia and dmoz give you more pause than an ad-blocker?
  - scott_s 18y ago
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Ad-supported sites have an implicit agreement: view these ads, and you can get access to the content. I feel that disabling the ads violates that agreement. Further, I'm worried about what would happen if everyone blocked the ads. These sites need to make money, and if they don't, the content goes away. Sites like Wikepedia are donation based, and run as non-profits.
    - cellis 18y ago
      Heres an analogy that most hackers can identify with-- the local coffee shop. The agreement there is implicit as well (and sometimes explicit): buy this coffee, and you can use the internet. Should you get free internet without buying the coffee?
      - scott_s 18y ago
        Except coffee shops are for-profit. I'm not concerned Wikipedia will disappear. I am concerned that the NY Times online will disappear, because it needs to sustain a profit. (For the record, I actually worry if my coffee purchase really does offset my resource usage when I stay for 3-4 hours in my local coffee shop on weekends.)

tptacek 18y ago

The same logic says that I should be able to strip the DRM off a movie I download from iTunes and share it to the world as a torrent; after all, it's my computer, and I'm the user, and I'm the one in control.

akkartik 18y ago
I remember reading about a court ruling that copyright circumvention is different from skipping ads. So you can't pirate the DVD you just bought, but it's ok to fastforward past the previews. Somebody help me out..
sci 18y ago
That's not, imho, a fair comparison - the user agent has the right to alter their perception of the content (strip ads, enlarge font size, have a screen-reader read it) - nowhere in that did the poster suggest that they are then free to re-distribute that content on to other users as your post suggests. I (humbly) put it that your logic is flawed.
- tptacek 18y ago
  Hm, I think that's right.
  - sci 18y ago
    Well sorry, it simply isn't. It's a very basic logical flaw, a fallacy of extension (it's extremely common, oft referred to as the straw man argument) - instead of arguing against the issue, namely the right of the user to alter their perception of received content to better suit their person, you are suggesting that the poster (and their argument) inherently supports the redistribution of that altered content to third parties without the content producer's permission - nowhere in the the post was that assertion made - you made it up all by yourself and then attacked that. So Yes, your logic is flawed, awfully sorry, I know, it's so annoying when that truth thing gets in the way.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Um, message board geek? I just agreed with you. Take a xanax.

scott_s 18y ago

In the technical sense, sure, you're allowed (entitled) to do whatever you want. But that's not what tptacek is referring to. He's referring to the "I want something for nothing" sense of entitlement. You have no moral right (entitlement) to read their content without viewing the ads the put up. That's why ad-blocking has never sat right with me: it's implicitly accepting that the model of ad supported, free content can not work on the internet.

pixelmonkey 18y ago
How about free content that isn't ad-supported? Shouldn't sites like Wikipedia and dmoz give you more pause than an ad-blocker?
- scott_s 18y ago
  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Ad-supported sites have an implicit agreement: view these ads, and you can get access to the content. I feel that disabling the ads violates that agreement. Further, I'm worried about what would happen if everyone blocked the ads. These sites need to make money, and if they don't, the content goes away. Sites like Wikepedia are donation based, and run as non-profits.
  - cellis 18y ago
    Heres an analogy that most hackers can identify with-- the local coffee shop. The agreement there is implicit as well (and sometimes explicit): buy this coffee, and you can use the internet. Should you get free internet without buying the coffee?
    - scott_s 18y ago
      Except coffee shops are for-profit. I'm not concerned Wikipedia will disappear. I am concerned that the NY Times online will disappear, because it needs to sustain a profit. (For the record, I actually worry if my coffee purchase really does offset my resource usage when I stay for 3-4 hours in my local coffee shop on weekends.)