Live data from Hacker News

German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

arstechnica.com

251–260 of 273 posts

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#251
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it seems to me that your model is "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else". No, that's putting the cart in front of the horse. The World Wide Web was built for users by users, not for publishers by publishers. It's nice that publishers, who are themselves users, can make use of it. Good for them. If they can support themselves, even better. However, any user has the moral right to filter any content delivered…

The internet does not belong to the users . It's an inter net - a large collection of networks that have decided to interoperate using common protocols. The internet belongs to the people who own the networks. Hence the whole "get your own internet" argument is begging the question. We're all in this shit together, and we need to give content providers the ability to earn money off that. At the moment most of us get…

> The internet does not belong to the users. It's an inter net - a large collection of networks that have decided to interoperate using common protocols. The internet belongs to the people who own the networks. Hence the whole "get your own internet" argument is begging the question.

Right. And my network blocks advertisements. Deal with it.

> We're all in this shit together, and we need to give content providers the ability to earn money off that. At the moment most of us get away with being parasites, but it's not sustainable if we want to maintain quality content. The moral obligation, if any, is 'play fair'. If someone asks that you see an ad along with the rest of the content, then the moral answer is to view that ad if you want to access the content. It's 'play fair', not 'play selfishly'. If you don't want to play fair, then either don't consume the content, or don't pretend you're being moral.

It's not really a moral issue. There's a moral obligation to spend 2 minutes trying to punch the monkey or whatever ridiculous thing they're doing now? Give me a break.

The rest of that doesn't hold water, either. People will pay straight away for quality content. The pre-internet movie, music, and publishing industries are proof of it. Quality content will survive because if people have to pay for it they will.

There's a ton of shit on the internet these days funded via advertisements, and I won't mind if most of it dies.

> Also, just because you can access certain content streams with technical trickery doesn't mean you're morally clear to do so. A clear example is private data. Just because I might be able to get someone else's private data with a few http requests doesn't make it moral for me to do so.

If a company has private data publicly accessible to the internet then the moral thing to do would be to tell them so that they can fix it, not for everybody to close their eyes and pretend there's not a problem.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#252
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a cat and mouse thing. If they add some js to check for ad blockers then ad blockers block that too. They could check over time if a user has seen as many ads as page views and block them then but users would just need to delete their cookies.

Until recently I've not had problems using ad blockers but in the last month http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ has become good at telling if I'm using one and not returning content if so. I wonder if this is the start of a more general fight back. I guess as blockers stop ads downloading they just need to have something like an ad or an actual one and check if it's downloaded.

Daily telegraph has recently switched to a stronger freemium model with a lot of premium content only visible to subscribers.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#253
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet does not belong to the users . It's an inter net - a large collection of networks that have decided to interoperate using common protocols. The internet belongs to the people who own the networks. Hence the whole "get your own internet" argument is begging the question. We're all in this shit together, and we need to give content providers the ability to earn money off that. At the moment most of us get…

> The internet does not belong to the users. It's an inter net - a large collection of networks that have decided to interoperate using common protocols. The internet belongs to the people who own the networks. Hence the whole "get your own internet" argument is begging the question. Right. And my network blocks advertisements. Deal with it. > We're all in this shit together, and we need to give content providers the…

> There's a moral obligation to spend 2 minutes trying to punch the monkey or whatever ridiculous thing they're doing now? Give me a break.

Good thing that that isn't what I said.

> People will pay straight away for quality content.

No, no they won't. The fact that you had to say 'pre-internet' proves that the convenience factor is significant. People paid for movies because that was the only way to get movies. To claim that paid-for movies were therefore 'quality' is arse-backwards.

> Right. And my network blocks advertisements. Deal with it.

That's fine. You're not the one claiming it's moral what you do (that was another user that I was responding to). I'm also of the opinion that your model is the "I get free stuff, fuck everyone else" model.

I'm midway on this myself, by the way. I use NoScript and no ad-blocker. Plain ads get through, but obnoxious ads don't (like the ones that cover text while you're reading). What I don't pretend, however, is that I'm choosing some sort of moral path in doing this.

> private data

My comment on private data was just an illustration that just because you can access something online, doesn't mean it's moral to do whatever you want with it. Another example of such is revenge porn.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#254
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But newspapers have been doing this with printed ads for, literally, centuries...

They were not counting page views and charging accordingly.

They were they just had crude metrics for doing so.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#255
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point 1 is basically what your personal preference is. I prefer it opt out as this will lead to more people supporting websites with ads. (defaults matter, check out organ donor studies on this) While I admit that ublock is faster, Adblock plus has much better integration and looks better. When it's installed it presents me with very few options and I'm basically good to go without changing and settings. Additionally…

>Additionally I use umatrix which covers and options abp does not,which helps abps speed to almost not matter anymore. you realize running abp on top of umatrix is completely redundant, right?

Not at all.

I utilize uMatrix to block unwanted scripts on websites, like some trackers that ABP doesn't catch.

I find uMatrix' AdBlocking potential to be rather lacking, I rely on ABP for that.

They work in perfect harmony.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#256
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a site as big as Wikipedia has to spend a large chunk of each year begging for handouts, I have trouble buying your suggestion that alternative business models are generally viable.

This counter argument would be valid if wikipedia model had failed but it actually manage to fund the project for 10+ years. The day the usual website will receive 12 to 20Billions views a month and occupy 10TB of disk space, then we could use wikipedia as a representative example. Until then wikipedia should not be used as an example of how well the usual ad-supported website would fare with an alternative revenue m…

> The day the usual website will receive 12 to 20Billions views a month and occupy 10TB of disk space, then we could use wikipedia as a representative example. Until then wikipedia should not be used as an example of how well the usual ad-supported website would fare with an alternative revenue model.

Yes, that was my point — Wikipedia is probably the absolute best-case scenario for a free website that isn't supported by ads, and they're still panhandling. The usual ad-supported website would fare much, much worse, and would probably just stop providing its service to the world.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#257
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The internet does not belong to the users. It's an inter net - a large collection of networks that have decided to interoperate using common protocols. The internet belongs to the people who own the networks. Hence the whole "get your own internet" argument is begging the question. Right. And my network blocks advertisements. Deal with it. > We're all in this shit together, and we need to give content providers the…

> There's a moral obligation to spend 2 minutes trying to punch the monkey or whatever ridiculous thing they're doing now? Give me a break. Good thing that that isn't what I said. > People will pay straight away for quality content. No, no they won't. The fact that you had to say 'pre-internet' proves that the convenience factor is significant. People paid for movies because that was the only way to get movies . To c…

> No, no they won't. The fact that you had to say 'pre-internet' proves that the convenience factor is significant. People paid for movies because that was the only way to get movies. To claim that paid-for movies were therefore 'quality' is arse-backwards.

They were "quality" in the sense that people willingly paid for them. The sad reality is that a huge amount of web content doesn't even meet that low bar.

And I said "pre-internet" mainly to avoid the issue of piracy from bit-torrent, but it probably wasn't necessary. A ton of movies here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films...) were made post-internet and they still made hundreds of millions of dollars. Likewise, the music industry is doing great.

The news industry is in the dumps because they were the ones stupid enough to devalue their content by giving it away for free on the web along side trashy advertising.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's why I swear in Nepali /s That's obviously bullshit, the actual reason is the omnipresence of the word fuck in the english language, and the omnipresence of the english language everywhere in the world. You just adopt it.

The omnipresence of English explains why in Germany they swear in English instead of French, but it does not explain why they swear in English instead of German. Why swear in a different language at all?

What I'm trying to say is that that the language is different is irrelevant. It's a word that you hear ALL THE TIME, and so you use it, like all words that you hear all the time independently of the language. If you're German, those words are the German words, plus a couple of English words like "shit", "fuck", "yeah".

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite the opposite. Ads led to all these fake news sites. Ads disable the concept of people paying for something they consider valuable. Instead all you need to make profit is to get people to look in your direction long enough to show them something they might actually consider spending money on. You don't need facts and journalism for that. You only need facts and journalism to build trust with your customers so th…

"Ads disable the concept of people paying for something they consider valuable" Nobody pays for news anymore, so sites are forced to get money through ads. The concept that everything needs to be free has also led to the abundance of advertisements. "You only need facts and journalism to build trust with your customers so they might consider paying you directly." In the past 5 years, many local, paid, newspapers have…

News had the same shake-up the musicindustry had and now people are paying for music again. If news are valuable to people you will get them to pay for quality. It's not my fault they can't figure out a working business model that doesn't involve selling the trust they built with their readers and viewers to corporations.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#260

Since this submission relates to blocking ads and trackers, I think it's worth bringing up that uBlock Origin [0] is better than Adblock Plus in (all?) ways (see the README for more details). I migrated to it a few years ago and overall I've been very happy with the outcome. I'm opposed to all tracking that isn't opt-in by default. I haven't thought about the topic at great lengths, so there may be cases which I'm fa…

> I'm opposed to all tracking that isn't opt-in by default

As another poster said 'defaults matter'. If you want a representative sample of usage then "opt-in" taints your data. I would argue that there is nothing wrong with correctly anonymised, aggregated, opt-in tracking. I want most websites to track my usage and I hope they use the data to make their site better. Any time I don't want to be tracked I can switch to incognito.

However - there are many issues around data-sharing between 3rd parties and deanonymising techniques. It's also fairly hard to trust that companies stick to their word so I'm not entirely complacent.

Post reply on HN