2 ms·

I view it as a negotiation, and this is me blowing out their proposed deal. Imagine you're sitting at the bargaining table and the first offer the person on the

I view it as a negotiation, and this is me blowing out their proposed deal. Imagine you're sitting at the bargaining table and the first offer the person on the other side gives you is an order of magnitude more than you're willing to pay. Say, they want you to pay $50,000 for a car that you know is only worth $5,000. This is the point at which you "blow out" their offer. You could say something like, "I don't think we're on the same page at all about the value of this good. I have to walk away if you consider that a reasonable offer." The other party can counter with, "OK, what are you comfortable with?" So, right now, in the ads vs. privacy negotiation I've said, "No. You're not even on the right page. You are asking an order of magnitude more than I'm willing to give you for this product." They, of course, have the right to let me walk away. They can block me, if they'd like, and put such things in their terms of service. But, the fact is, they engaged in this first. The advertisers created this arms race, a race for the most tasteless, obnoxious, privacy-invading, and intrusive ads they could design. I am merely implementing my own disarmament plan and imposing it on them, whether they like it or not (they don't, obviously...but, again, I don't care; advertisers have destroyed any sympathy I may have had for them). As I mentioned, I took years to install an ad blocker. I am willing to negotiate, but I gave them an inch and they took a mile. They didn't respect "do not track", they took steps to insure that I would be interrupted, even if I wasn't even looking at the tab where they're spewing their garbage with auto-starting audio ads (this was my personal tipping point, I had four or five of them happen in one day of browsing and decided "Never again."). Advertisers did this to themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves. I don't know what comes next, but I've opted out of their system, and I'll continue to do so as long as the technology is used in the most nefarious ways possible.

throwawaykf05 11y ago
This is the same argument from many people who pirate content, but here's the thing: Consuming the content if you find the negotiation unacceptable is not "walking away" from the deal. It's like they ask for 50000 for a car that's worth 5000, so you just take the car regardless. Neither side is right, but I would say taking something you find value in without the requested payment is more wrong. The better way of walking away is to just not consume the content. That way the other side realizes their position is unacceptable without feeling ripped off.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  "This is the same argument from many people who pirate content" I disagree with this (utterly and without room for discussion), and the courts disagree with this as well. The content in question has been made available publicly on the open web. It is up to me and my browser to decide which parts of the content I download and look at. Further, I'm unaware of any site which includes in their terms of service that they require visitors to view ads in order to see the content (even without bringing up the technical methods of enforcing such a rule). I strongly suspect that most sites with ads would rather people visit than not, even if they don't see the ads. I certainly feel that way about all of my websites (though admittedly very few of my websites rely on ads for their value). "The better way of walking away is to just not consume the content." Which I also do. But, when it comes to browsing HN and reddit and clicking links off to sites I don't know, I have every right to proactively protect my privacy and peaceful browsing free of intrusive/noisy ads.

throwawaykf05 11y ago

This is the same argument from many people who pirate content, but here's the thing: Consuming the content if you find the negotiation unacceptable is not "walking away" from the deal. It's like they ask for 50000 for a car that's worth 5000, so you just take the car regardless. Neither side is right, but I would say taking something you find value in without the requested payment is more wrong. The better way of walking away is to just not consume the content. That way the other side realizes their position is unacceptable without feeling ripped off.

SwellJoe 11y ago
"This is the same argument from many people who pirate content" I disagree with this (utterly and without room for discussion), and the courts disagree with this as well. The content in question has been made available publicly on the open web. It is up to me and my browser to decide which parts of the content I download and look at. Further, I'm unaware of any site which includes in their terms of service that they require visitors to view ads in order to see the content (even without bringing up the technical methods of enforcing such a rule). I strongly suspect that most sites with ads would rather people visit than not, even if they don't see the ads. I certainly feel that way about all of my websites (though admittedly very few of my websites rely on ads for their value). "The better way of walking away is to just not consume the content." Which I also do. But, when it comes to browsing HN and reddit and clicking links off to sites I don't know, I have every right to proactively protect my privacy and peaceful browsing free of intrusive/noisy ads.