The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers • Hacker News Board

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#151

Post by danShumway » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #137

mikestew wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You seem to think technical implementations matter for some reason. I find that rather odd. Do you think that someone leaving their front door open entitles you to the contents of their home?

If they put up a public sign in front of it that says "come on in and take anything you want" then... kind of.

It's not that access implies consent, it's that the technical standard is the methodology by which a company grants consent.

The fact that there's ink on a piece of paper is meaningless by itself, but if it forms my signature on a contract, then it does have meaning. The fact that I can get to a server is meaningless by itself, but if the server returns a 200, explicitly designated as "yes, you can access this", then that's a different story.

Of course there are gray areas there. If someone faked my signature, or if someone accidentally made their server return a 200 code without meaning to or understanding what they were doing... then fine, I'll concede that they haven't really offered informed consent.

But that's not the position that any news site is in. No news site is accidentally returning a 200 code when my computer asks "can I have this content?"

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#152

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:31 PM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #88

darawk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This isn't correct. I believe there are extensive restrictions on what type of terms are considered "reasonable", especially between consumers and corporations. Arbitrary contract terms aren't automatically viewed as valid and binding by the courts.

You're correct, and this is the path to the primary legitimate argument against the view that you're morally obligated to view ads. None of the things other people are saying in response to me represent correct understandings of the issue. This is its crux: Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#153

Post by orwin » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:31 PM UTC

tobltobs wrote: post #25

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.

Would be great if this would be an option, especially with the GDPR coming. But for small to medium sized publishers there are no ads you could host your own.

This is simply not true. i spoke two years ago with the CEO of a small publisher company (~3 employees). This company was focused on mobility, from train to skateboard, with cars being obviously the main focus. Affiliated links for small stuff like electric monocycles and/or sponsored tests for cars was enough to pay himself, his author, IT guy and tester.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#154

Post by politician » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #138

BonesJustice wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ter…

> 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? The terms are that you run the code they give you. If you don't like those terms, don't go. Simple as that.

I understand you to be suggesting that it's like as if you went to a restaurant whose terms were that you must eat the food you're served -- force fed -- and that if "you don't like those terms, you shouldn't have come to this restaurant". However, these terms are not disclosed until you visit.

Is that the position you're trying to advance?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#155

Post by bllguo » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:32 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…

The only reason we have free online content to consume is because content creators expect to be reimbursed through ads. When I block ads I am free-riding off of people that don't. Whether this is stealing or not is semantics, and I don't care to get into that discussion. But I do see a moral problem here.

I personally do block most ads, which is kind of justifiable to me because of malware concerns, but I'm not going to pretend I'm doing nothing wrong. I try to pay for content when possible. I support non-advertising business models.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#156

Post by Chaebixi » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:33 PM UTC

64kbisalluneed wrote: post #146

gruez wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how does that work with https?

Just install nginx that answers to http and https and return empty gif or 204.

Would that fail because your sever can't provide the right cert? You'd probably have to install a custom root certificate on your machines that you https ad blocker could use to forge certs.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#157

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:33 PM UTC

darkmighty wrote: post #87

darawk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case there is no contract. The websites are really giving their things away for free, only with the expectation , but no guarantee, that some users will see ads. The societally agreed upon principles, that constitute the law, place no responsibility on the receiver of free content (an easily justifiable principle in fact). They have all the right and power to refuse to give their content away for free. You ha…

> In this case there is no contract. The websites are really giving their things away for free, only with the expectation , but no guarantee, that some users will see ads.

This does seem to be the crux of our disagreement. You think that offering up your content merely represents a non-binding expectation. In other domains, we don't take that position. If I weave you a scarf, and I say "Hey, i'll give you this scarf if you go to the store and pick up some cough medicine for me", and then you take the scarf and refuse to go to the store for me on the grounds that I "merely had the expectation, but no guarantee that you would go to the store for me", that seems pretty odd. I'm curious:

A) Whether you believe these situations are different

And

B) If you believe they're different, why.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#158

Post by Jasber » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

bglusman wrote: post #129

Jasber wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't this come up with TiVo commercial skipping? The issue was with TiVo, the customer never even had a chance to see the ad, not that ads are mandatory to watch. Doesn't that apply here?

Do you mean ReplayTV? I owned a Tivo at some point but replayTV was great because it auto-detected ads and had an option (or default behavior?) of skipping them automatically. Tivo you had to manually push 30 second skip 6 times.

I think the original TiVo's had this "auto-skip" feature but had to be removed due to this issue.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#159

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

TremendousJudge wrote: post #78

darawk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Humans didn't implement physical reality, you have no choice but to live in it. If you use the internet to distribute your content however, you agree to its rules. And unlike physical reality, you may choose another platform to distribute it that conforms to your views. You may say that the internet is the most popular way to distribute content, but it didn't get there by accident.

You believe that protocols ought to represent binding contracts, then? Does that mean that exploiting bugs and stealing people's money is a perfectly legal and justifiable use of the internet?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#160

Post by c22 » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #104

c22 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about this point of view. Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop? If I buy a newspaper, read it, and then give it to a friend, would that be a form of theft? Is using a Tivo to prerecord a show then fast-forwarding through…

> Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop? Reading through the glass may be a bit different, because the glass is transparent on purpose to entice you to buy the paper, so they intend for you to do that. That is, it's part of the deal…

Thank you for the response, I found it illuminating. You seem to contradict yourself, though, you claim you view Tivo use as stealing but later you make a concession to my view:

> If the website does not say that you have to watch the ads to view the content, then i'd say that it's not stealing. Same with television, by the way.

I have never seen a TV program imply that I must watch the ads in exchange for consuming the content. Given this, how do you support your claim? Or are such messages common on television in your locality?

Also I have a follow up question for you: You say using the mute button during the ads qualifies as stealing (for the moment, let's assume the program has come with explicit terms requiring you to watch the ads), would you still consider it stealing if I had left the television muted for the entire show? Am I obliged to unmute the TV when the ads come on? Does the answer change if I have been selectively unmuting parts of the program (for instance if I was just interested in watching the daily doubles on Jeopardy)?