The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers • Hacker News Board

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#191

Post by DmenshunlAnlsis » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #186

TeMPOraL wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Not true. There exists a thing called contracts. Contracts allow two (or more!) parties to come to complex agreements about the manne…

That’s... not how contracts work. Contracts require signatories and notiries and so on. There is no debate to be had here, unless you’re making some wild claims about what people are agreeing to. Informal agreements between computers or even people are not legally binding contracts, and neither are Get requests.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#192

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

danShumway wrote: post #185

darawk wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

In your scarf example, you gave me the scarf after you gave me the terms. Let me flip it on you. Let's say you bake me a cake and give it to me. The following week you say, "Hey, you need to go to the store and pick up some cough medicine for me, because I gave you that cake." If I then refuse, would it be valid for you to claim I stole your cake? In your scarf example, I also probably indicated to you that I would a…

> In your scarf example, you gave me the scarf after you gave me the terms.

I didn't intend that interpretation. However, if you believe that's the crux of our disagreement, then we in fact do not disagree. If a site does not make clear its expectations, then there's no theft. If they do, then there is. And certainly you cannot be expected to turn off your adblocker before seeing those terms - that's silly. Uninformed consent is not consent. But once you are informed, to proceed with content consumption without abiding the clearly stated terms is theft.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#193

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

darawk wrote: post #152

dwaltrip wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit?

Yes, of course. But the issue isn't with that, but with how these terms work. The terms start to apply after the user has read and considered them. If you want to limit access to some content unless the user agrees to your terms, you're free to do so. But you can't give the content, and then retroactively ask user to accept the terms and expect them to agree because they already got the content.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#194

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

politician wrote: post #168

darawk wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Tricky question. I think I would come down on the side that they are liable for that, perhaps unless they very explicitly and clearly disclaim liability before exposing you to the risk.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#195

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

bllguo wrote: post #155

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…

> 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.

It's not just semantics. Words matter. It's important semantics. Using an ad-blocker is neither stealing, nor free-riding (web-content is excludable and other consumer are not paying for it.)

This is much more akin to making use of a facility with a suggested donation and not making a donation. The morality here is fairly grey and heavily circumstantial. If you can easily afford the donation and the facility is the verge shutting down due to lack of funds, the the immorality seems fairly clear cut. If making a donation would preclude you from being able to use the facility or the facility is sufficiently funded, then few people would fault you from making use of it, especially if you make a point of picking up trash or making other efforts to improve the facility.

Online advertising not a clear cut case. Do we need to make sure our content creators get paid? Certainly. Does online advertising do a good job of rewarding skilled content creators? Sometimes. Does encouraging content creators to use advertising for reimbursement lead to access to better content? Doubtful.

I think you can easily offset any moral qualms you have about using an ad-blocker by funding direct donations, patreons, kickstarters or any of a number of other means of funding content creators and publishers directly.

Overall, I think paid advertising is an inherently immoral way of funding the content I consume. Why should I force the customers of companies I'm never going to buy anything from to pay for my entertainment?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#196

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

darawk wrote: post #172

danShumway wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 me…

> If they put up a public sign in front of it that says "come on in and take anything you want" then... kind of. Do you believe that putting up a website is the equivalent of that sign?

Yes.

https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-stat...

It's hard to describe an HTTP status as anything other than a sign. If it was purely technical, we wouldn't distinguish between 402 (payment required) and 403 (forbidden).[0]

While HTTP status codes can be understood by a machine, they're also designed to be highly semantic and understandable by humans. I would argue that the burden is on people who argue that they are not contractual to justify why, in the same way that I would expect them to justify why a handshake isn't contractual.

Edit: Potentially interesting as well is a semi-recent court ruling about web scraping[1], where courts effectively ruled that once LinkedIn made their information public, they couldn't block web scrapers from accessing that information, which suggests that the law also agrees with the web community on this one.

> "But Judge Chen concluded that the issue isn't so simple. When you publish a website, you implicitly give members of the public permission to access it, he ruled."

[0]: Although admittedly, nobody really makes much use of 402.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/court-rejects-li...

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#197

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

darawk wrote: post #173

dingaling wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

What if they put a sign up next to that robot that says the robots answers do not constitute a legally binding agreement to ownership transfer of any property herein?

It's fine as long as the robot, when asked "Can I have a table lamp?", doesn't fetch that lamp, give it to you and say "ok, take it". If it does, then the whole example breaks down, and the judge would just laugh and tell you it's your own fault that you got your apartment cleaned out.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#198

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

DmenshunlAnlsis wrote: post #191

darawk wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Not true. There exists a thing called contracts. Contracts allow two (or more!) parties to come to complex agreements about the manne…

That’s... not how contracts work. Contracts require signatories and notiries and so on. There is no debate to be had here, unless you’re making some wild claims about what people are agreeing to. Informal agreements between computers or even people are not legally binding contracts, and neither are Get requests.

> That’s... not how contracts work. Contracts require signatories and notiries and so on.

While that is a common misconception, it is false. Contracts do not require signatures or notaries. Signatures and notaries help to make a contract more enforceable, but they are not required for a contract to be enforceable. An email exchange can constitute a legally binding contract. Even a verbal exchange. The notion that signatures or notaries or any such formalities are required is simply untrue.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#199

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #177

mikestew wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether if it's the contents of a home or the contents of a text file sitting on a web server, if I ask, "can I have the contents of that, please?" and they answer in the affirmative then the answer to your question is, umm, yes? And should I decide to leave items that I don't want, I don't see where the homeowner has reason to complain.

So, you consider a GET request to be the equivalent of an unconditional request for content. That's an interesting perspective. What if the GET request delivers you the terms of a contract, that then requires a POST request containing "agree=yes" to the terms of the initial GET request to obtain the actual content, and the terms of that first stage GET request say "You must not use an ad blocker when viewing the seco…

YES! That would start to make sense. With such a setup, if I answered POST "agree=yes" and proceeded to GET your content while using an ad blocker, you'd have a right to call me an asshole breaking a social contract, and - if the content of that initial GET with contract met appropriate legal standards - you could probably even sue me for misuse of computer resources and win. Might be a hard case to win, given that nothing on the Internet is built with expectation of users having to fetch more than they want, but at least you'd have a basis for a case, because I did enter a contract with you and didn't held to my end.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#200

Post by darawk » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:17 PM UTC

c22 wrote: post #182

darawk wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Content creators often have specific, limited legal rights to specify how their content is consumed, none of which are absolute and most of which vary wildly between different jurisdictions. Not really. What's limited is not content creators ability to specify consumption, but rather the assumption of the ability of the counter-party to understand and agree to the terms. There are some genuine content restrictions,…

You could argue that web users with adblockers are rejecting these agreements by refusing to HTTP GET the linked ad content and that the sites are accepting the modified terms if they subsequently serve the requested non-ad content.

Yep, that'd be a reasonable case to make. Although the site could simply augment its terms with "Serving the content any way does not represent a change in terms; proceeding to consume our content remains in violation" to clarify.