3 ms·
> Forget the "do you have a product" economic argument, it's a simple matter of fairness/reciprocity: Do you gain anything from reading/viewing their content?
by thomaskcr 11y ago
> Forget the "do you have a product" economic argument, it's a simple matter of fairness/reciprocity:
Do you gain anything from reading/viewing their content?
Yes? (You wouldn't have requested their site if you didn't) Then why should they not gain something in return?
> as I defend myself from those dangers that they have unilaterally introduced.
You were "unilaterally introduced" to dangers from the site you specifically requested by either clicking the link or typing into your browser?
This is all pretty dramatic - they're ads.
- daviross 11y agoConsidering how often ad networks are vectors for malware... that sounds like a pretty unilateral introduction of risk. If a site can prove itself to be a good Internet citizen and prove its value, I have no problems whitelisting it. (Or preferably, tossing a buck a month into their Patreon or so)
- Terr_ 11y ago> should they not gain something in return? That's an completely separate argument from whether what they're actually trying to get is proportional, reasonable, and safe. I don't care how good your TV show is, if you insert commercials that advertise fraudulent products, try to hack my DVR with malformed data, or are even just ridiculously loud... you've already broken the "implicit contract" and I don't have to feel any guilt about defending myself. > You were "unilaterally introduced" to dangers from the site No I wasn't. Why? Because I disabled javascript, plugins, etc. before visiting. > This is all pretty dramatic - they're ads. First, it's no more dramatic than people talking about ad-blockers being immoral or "theft". Second, ad-networks are exploited to serve malware all the time.