Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 299 posts

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#111

Post by mnm1 »

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?…

In my terms of service for my website, I state clearly that all visitors must pay me a billion dollars when viewing my page. You think that is stealing too? There's zero difference between the two. If blocking ads is stealing, then certainly, not paying me a billion dollars for every page view is massive theft. I not only want to recover the billions that people owe me, but I now should have the right to get the state to prosecute them and they should spend a significant portion of their lives in jail for such felonious theft. Or, maybe blocking ads isn't stealing, only suggesting that it is is clearly an argument that hasn't been through through at all.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#112

Post by darawk »

jdietrich wrote: post #83
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 is an old argument. If I record a TV program off-air and fast-forward through the commercials, am I stealing? If I arrive at the movie theater 20 minutes late to skip the trailers, am I stealing? If I change radio stations during the commercials, am I stealing? If my DVR automatically skips commercials, am I stealing? If I'm an eccentric billionaire and have my butler clip the advertising from my magazines and n…

That depends on the nature of the agreement. If the content creator says "yes you must consume the ads in order to view the content", then you are stealing. If they don't say that, then you aren't.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#113

Post by darawk »

horsawlarway wrote: post #77
darawk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, but that's a non-sequitur. A privately owned store has a public entrance, but we also are happy to accept the right of the store owner to charge admission or kick out people who cause trouble. Entering the store is not burglary, but staying there against the wishes of the owner is trespassing.

Sure, but they haven't expressed any wishes at all. If a site blocks me because I have an adblocker, I happily leave. But if a site sends content to my machine... that's on them.

> But if a site sends content to my machine... that's on them.

Do you apply this moral principle in other areas? If your friend leaves their wallet at your house, do you consider the money in it to be yours?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#114

Post by mikestew »

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?…

What makes you think you have the right to the content

The fact that my web browser received a 200 from the server. Server seemed to think it's okay to give it to me.

You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site.

I will once again remind those that pull out this argument that the "implicit agreement" is that my web browser sends a request, and if the server thinks I am worthy of viewing the content, it sends said content along with a "200: everything is A-Okay! Happy to be of service!". If the server thinks me unworthy, it can send a 403.

If someone wishes to redefine the "implicit agreement", please include a reference to the relevant RFC. Because otherwise it's just some marketing person trying to redefine the world the way they wished it were. Should someone care to redefine the World Wide Web experience such that I do not control what my browser displays, well, maybe the WWW isn't appropriate for their business.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#115

Post by darawk »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #84
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?…

> What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? To state the same points others already did in a different way - you put out data on the Internet, over HTTP protocol. You agreed to abide by the terms of the involved protocols, which say that if I send a proper HTTP request to your public server, and your server responds with data, then you gave me that data and it's now mine to vi…

> you have no right or way to dictate to me what program should I use to render the data

Why not? Why am I not allowed to say "If you want to consume my content, you need to view it in Firefox", if you don't want to agree to my terms, don't view my content. This is how all contracts work. This is how all business works. Why is the internet different?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#116

Post by craftyguy »

alkonaut wrote: post #110
craftyguy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet piping to bash is being advertised boldly as the 'one-liner install process' In other news, eating rat poison might kill you, but there's a tiny warning printed on the back so no one will do ever do it.

What people do to install software 98% of the time is download a proprietary windows binary and executing it - occasionally also with elevated privileges. Piping to bash is dangerous but it’s not more dangerous than software installation in general. I think this point is some times lost on e.g people who run software from vetted repositories like apt or often make their open source apps from source. Computer programs…

> What people do to install software 98% of the time is download a proprietary windows binary and executing it

Not people who avoid Windows. Every respectable Linux distro has package signing by default these days. And none support a default install process of piping arbitrary scripts from the internet to a shell.

There's no reason the pi-hole folks, who made a thing that runs on Linux, to ignore the security implications and recommend something dangerous for a device with a lot of potential power.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#117

Post by yoodenvranx »

rb808 wrote: post #6

Surely the next step is for websites to host their own ads again? They can even forward cookies on to ad networks etc.

The next step would be to do render the whole page including ads directly into a canvas/opengl element using some heavily obfuscated wasm binary in order to circumvent the DOM and any DOM/JS-based ad blocker.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#118

Post by [deleted] »

mikestew wrote: post #114
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?…

What makes you think you have the right to the content The fact that my web browser received a 200 from the server. Server seemed to think it's okay to give it to me. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. I will once again remind those that pull out this argument that the "implicit agreement" is that my web browser sends a request, and if the server thinks I am worthy of viewi…

[deleted]

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#119

Post by [deleted] »

Freak_NL wrote: post #108
tombrossman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past, when people have asked me about the ethics of using an ad blocker, I always ask the same question: "When you are watching TV, do you wait for the commercial break to go take a leak?" (Not my line, wish I remembered the origin so I could give proper attribution). The strange thing is it's one of those conversation stoppers, the other person usually gives me a funny look and does not reply at all. This is…

That's a good comparison. It's a shame that a lot of people will now answer that they just pause Netflix and go, and rarely bother with broadcast television.

[deleted]

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#120

Post by BonesJustice »

darawk wrote: post #107
BonesJustice wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course it's stealing. Oh, really? What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. And what about data brokers? My browsing history is my work product ; I create it through my own actions. Much of the information that data brokers sell about me would not and could not exis…

> What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. Yes, even then. You have no right to the content they produce. They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It…

> They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple.

What 'terms'? They're essentially giving third parties the ability to inject anything they want into their websites. How can they meaningfully establish 'terms' if they have willingly given up the ability to hold up their end of those terms?

If, the first time I visit a website, they actually bother to:

  1. Disclose everything they and their affiliates will do with my information;
  2. Disclose the sources of any and all content that will be served;
  3. Get my affirmative consent before allowing me in;
  4. Not share *any* information until I consent;
Then, and only then, would there be some reasonable semblance of 'terms'. As things are now, they couldn't possibly do any of that, because they themselves don't even know what they're serving up, or what will be done with my information.

If your 'terms' are, "we can do anything we want with your device and Internet connection when you visit our website, but you can't do anything except view what is served to you, as it is served", then you do not have terms; you have a farce.

Post reply on HN