The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers • Hacker News Board

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#161

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

darawk wrote: post #139

rdiddly wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Sound ridiculous? That's because a web request and response is a collaborative effort of the two computers. The World Wide Web wasn't built for this kind of shitty, vaguely-adversarial,…

> Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Great, and if those are your terms and conditions, guess what, nobody forces you to visit their websites.

Look, the only implicit conditions on the Web are those of networking protocols - which work in the following way: I can request whatever I want. You can do whatever you want with my request - namely serve it (e.g. HTTP 200 + data), refuse to serve it (e.g. HTTP 4xx / 5xx), or ignore it (just terminate the TCP connection, or not accept it in the first place). Whatever you choose, our interaction ends there. Whatever you sent me is now mine to interpret the way I want.

Anything beyond that is defined by laws, and there are no laws that tell me I have to use a Typical Browser in a Typical Configuration to render all the data you sent me with a HTTP 200 response. There are no such laws, and there can't be, because they would be completely ridiculous.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#162

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

a1369209993 wrote: post #75

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?…

> Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? That is it exactly. If you (knowingly/willingly) transmit information to a person, what they do with their copies of it is entirely up to them. This is items zero and one in (my particular ordering of) the set of inalienable right fundamental to sapient beings. If you don't want people to read your art…

So, if someone tells you the password to their bank account, does that entitle you to the money in it?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#163

Post by dingaling » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:37 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?

Analogy time!

It's more like a robot that the householder has placed at their front gate that responds to arbitrary requests from visitors

"Can I have a table lamp?" "AFFIRMATIVE OK"

"Can I have a list of all retrievable objects?" "AFFIRMATIVE OK"

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#164

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

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.

I wonder why Netflix, and not one of the many free streaming sites serving pirated content. Might have something to do with ads.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#165

Post by danShumway » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:38 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.

> The terms are that you run the code they give you.

Just like if I hand you a box of donuts on the street you have to eat all of them, right now, in front of me, and hope that none of them contain battery acid.

Seriously though, a requirement to run code has never been an implicit TOS on the web - if a site wants to introduce those terms, it needs to actually propose them when I visit the site.

A website can't retroactively propose terms after I've visited.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#166

Post by BonesJustice » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

politician wrote: post #154

darawk wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Also, if you get some horrible disease from eating our food, we're totally not responsible. I mean, yeah, we let randos walk in off the street and sprinkle whatever they want in your food, but you really should have expected that. We're sorry your daughter died, but maybe next time you'll read the thousand pages of terms and conditions that we buried out in the back yard.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#167

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:41 PM UTC

politician wrote: post #154

darawk wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Close. I believe that uninformed consent is not consent. In order to meaningfully enter any agreement both parties must understand what they're agreeing to. However, what that means is that a website ought to have the right to put up a page that says "Hey, if you want to proceed and view our content, we require that you turn off ad blockers. If you don't, then please do not view our content", and that to proceed anyway is theft.

To modify your analogy: If a restaurant says to you when you arrive "If you want to eat here, you must eat the food you're served, force fed. Do you still want to eat here?" And then you say "Yes", then yes, you are obligated to abide their terms.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#168

Post by politician » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #167

politician wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Close. I believe that uninformed consent is not consent. In order to meaningfully enter any agreement both parties must understand what they're agreeing to. However, what that means is that a website ought to have the right to put up a page that says "Hey, if you want to proceed and view our content, we require that you turn off ad blockers. If you don't, then please do not view our content", and that to proceed anyw…

Do you believe the operator is liable for any damages their website causes to computers whose owners disable their content protection software (e.g. ad blockers) in order to comply the the site agreement?

Do websites take on a duty to protect visitors from the foreseeable harm that malicious ads cause to unprotected computers by requiring content protection software to be disabled?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#169

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:44 PM UTC

c22 wrote: post #160

darawk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I consider it stealing if and only if that agreement is made explicit. Most television channels i'm aware of do not do this. So fast forwarding / muting is not stealing. But in principle it could be, if they specifically requested that you not do it.

> 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)?

This is an interesting question to explore. In some sense, you're consuming a fractional portion of the content (i.e. the visual portion), and you are consuming the same portion of the ads. So, there is some sense of symmetry there, which seems intuitively appealing as a standard to me. If I were adjudicating this personally, i'd say that seems acceptable, unless the terms of the content delivery explicitly forbid decoupling the audio/visual channel in this way.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#170

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #150

TeMPOraL wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is the internet different? The Internet isn't really different, it's just people are bending over backwards to have their cake (send free content) and eat it too (tell people how they're supposed to view that content). When you're serving stuff over HTTP, you're giving me data in response to a valid HTTP request. That data is a binary/text blob. The HTTP protocol does not include any technical or legal provisio…

> So a real-world analogy would go like this: you've set up a stand on the street, with a big sign saying "FREE BOOK ABOUT CATS". I come to you, and ask if I can have that book (GET request). I think the substance of our disagreement comes down to this. You think that a website is a sign that says "FREE CONTENT", whereas I don't believe the HTTP protocol represents any particular specification regarding the terms of…

The HTTP doesn't just allow access to data. It mediates the entire exchange.

As others pointed out, a HTTP 200 response is an action that's explicitly defined to mean "here, have this data, we're done here". If a physical storefront was running on HTTP, then the 200 response would contain just the image of the storefront (I get to view it how I like - maybe through glasses, maybe through rose-tinted glasses, or maybe via touch if I'm blind; and I definitely get to not look at advertisements if I don't like them). If I ask the store clerk for an item, they would usually respond with something like 402 Payment Required or 403 Forbidden, and that response would not contain the item I asked for. This would indicate I need to meet extra conditions to access the resource (like giving them cash along with my request).

Fundamentally it all boils down to this: on the Internet, if you send some data, you give it away. You can't, by default, dictate what I do with that data. The time to make those demands is before you hand over the data.