4 ms·

So your "no problem" isn't really "no problem, I'll respect that", it's "no problem, I'll just work around it". IMO - it goes both ways - if I want to use bloc

So your "no problem" isn't really "no problem, I'll respect that", it's "no problem, I'll just work around it". IMO - it goes both ways - if I want to use blocking software, it's not reasonable to disregard the wishes of sites who won't show me content if you do. They didn't publish that content in anticipation of getting no return from it, so if they state [via site policy to block blockers] that it's not ok to do so, then how could I justify ignoring that wish? To me, crossing that line means crossing from a principled stand against trackers over to consuming content that's not mine to consume.

wtallis 11y ago
On the web, fine print policies don't matter in the end. You can fuss about them in court, but ultimately what matters is whether you send the data the other party requests. If you as a user let your user agent send identifying information to sites that request it, you bear some responsibility for that. If you as a server operator configure your server to send content without first requiring identification and authentication, then you're putting it out there for the public to consume. Any trusting of the other party (client trusting the server to not abuse information collected, server trusting client to also fetch and display ads from third-parties) is going to be imperfect. The servers have largely proven themselves to be untrustworthy in general, but they still mostly trust the client. As users wise up and start exercising their power over their own computers, the server operators will have to compensate by first squeezing the most value they can out of the users who are too trusting, but then by actually charging money. There's simply no other end-game possible unless someone figures out how to prevent servers from being untrustworthy in the first place.
mirimir 11y ago
If anyone is on shaky moral ground here, it's sites that are tracking visitors and selling information about them to unknown third parties with unknown goals. That's awfully near CFAA territory, as I see it. Also, dishonest contracts are invalid and unenforceable.

wtallis 11y ago

On the web, fine print policies don't matter in the end. You can fuss about them in court, but ultimately what matters is whether you send the data the other party requests. If you as a user let your user agent send identifying information to sites that request it, you bear some responsibility for that. If you as a server operator configure your server to send content without first requiring identification and authentication, then you're putting it out there for the public to consume. Any trusting of the other party (client trusting the server to not abuse information collected, server trusting client to also fetch and display ads from third-parties) is going to be imperfect. The servers have largely proven themselves to be untrustworthy in general, but they still mostly trust the client. As users wise up and start exercising their power over their own computers, the server operators will have to compensate by first squeezing the most value they can out of the users who are too trusting, but then by actually charging money. There's simply no other end-game possible unless someone figures out how to prevent servers from being untrustworthy in the first place.

mirimir 11y ago

If anyone is on shaky moral ground here, it's sites that are tracking visitors and selling information about them to unknown third parties with unknown goals. That's awfully near CFAA territory, as I see it. Also, dishonest contracts are invalid and unenforceable.