4 ms·

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 "walk

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.