The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers • Hacker News Board

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#51

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:09 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #39

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…

Even worse, associating blocking ads as something akin to stealing is morally bankrupt.

It's an incredibly slippery slope that leads to complete loss of autonomy for individuals.

If I refuse to read roadside billboards, am I now stealing?

If I tear up newspaper ads and throw them away, am I now stealing?

If I turn off my tv during ads on a cable show, am I now stealing?

I think any sane person would definitively say "NO!", I think it's an incredibly dangerous line of thought that associates loss of attention as theft.

Fundamentally, we have the right to choose what we pay attention to. Some sites block me when I have adblockers enabled, I think that's fine. But don't serve up your content and then complain that I choose to ignore parts of it. I have free will and autonomy.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#52

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

jasonkostempski wrote: post #49

darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

"Of course it's stealing. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site." No it's not and no you aren't. Entering a public area isn't trespassing and there's no such thing as a contract you implicitly agree too.

...you consider private websites to be public areas?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#53

Post by TremendousJudge » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #44

koolba wrote: post #39

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

>if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"?

You have the right to say it, and I have the right to ignore it, because that's the way the Internet is implemented. You may pretend that it works differently, but until the day it works like broadcast TV, users will have the right to pull whatever content they want from servers.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#54

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #48

darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

This attitude is ridiculous. It's akin to saying I'm obliged to read a whole book.

You are if the author makes it a term of the sale.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#55

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #47

darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

I'm going to need a Poe's Law check on this one. Sincere or satire?

Sincere.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#56

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

TremendousJudge wrote: post #53

darawk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

>if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? You have the right to say it, and I have the right to ignore it, because that's the way the Internet is implemented. You may pretend that it works differently, but until the day it works like broadcast TV, users will have the right to pull whatever content they want from serv…

You have the right to possess it, and I have the right to take it by force, because that's the way physical reality is implemented. Arguing that implementation implies natural rights is a pretty silly path.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#57

Post by Glyptodon » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:12 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #44

koolba wrote: post #39

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

No, I think if creators release their content in the world it becomes the world's. If you want to set terms rent a shed in the Nevada desert, charge admission, and make people leave their phones outside.

The idea that there are "terms" when there's never even been a negotiation is absurd.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#58

Post by yoz-y » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #44

koolba wrote: post #39

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

I agree with you. The thing I do not like with the current ads on the internet is that you are implicitly agreeing to a contract which is written nowhere and that you have no way of reading.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#59

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #44

koolba wrote: post #39

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?…

> If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms?

We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period.

If you'd like to chose to not display your content when I have a blocker enabled, so be it, I'll leave and never come back.

But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off.

I'm not stealing when I drive by billboards without reading them, I'm not stealing when I turn my tv off when commercials come on, I'm sure as fuck not stealing when I block your ads.

If you'd like to enter into a contract that actually tries to enforce your ludicrous idea that my attention is implicitly yours to demand, I'd suspect you'll find very few takers...

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#60

Post by sbarker » Thu, May 10, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #52

jasonkostempski wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Of course it's stealing. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site." No it's not and no you aren't. Entering a public area isn't trespassing and there's no such thing as a contract you implicitly agree too.

...you consider private websites to be public areas?

is browsing an open s3 bucket hacking?