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

Lea Verou: “AdBlock is morally equivalent to theft IMO”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Lea Verou: “AdBlock is morally equivalent to theft IMO”

#11

Post by agapos »

I am curious, is he willing to compensate me in case I am infected through ads on my PC/mobile, can he protect my online life from advertisers monitoring and tracking my movements, or any other similar direct or indirect malicious case?

Edit: Also, I believe I have not been informed by a single site ever, saying that "This site uses ads as a revenue source, in case you disagree with the method please move on." Usually it just shaves those ads down my browser and if I don't like it, apparently 'I am the thief'.

Re: Lea Verou: “AdBlock is morally equivalent to theft IMO”

#12

Post by Terr_ »

okey wrote: post #10
viggity wrote: post #7

I agree with her completely and didn't use adblock until ~6 months ago. But, the click bait "one weird trick" and "you'll never believe what XYZ did to ABC" horseshit ads made me crack. I just couldn't deal with seeing that nonsense anymore. I'd be happy to do micropayments, but at this point it looks unlikely to happen.

You agree that when viewing a public site whose main revenue model is ads, you enter an implicit contract to view those ads? If so, why? If not, why do you agree that being selective about what HTTP reqs you make is morally equivalent to theft just because the site owner expects you not to be and hopes to gain money off that?

Because they--content providers in general--continue to violate all sorts of implicit conditions of the "implicit contract".

The "implicit contract" says they shouldn't be attacking my computer with malware or attacking me with scams.

The "implicit contract" says the ads for a single page should not "take over" the rest of my computing-experience with stuff like auto-playing sound.

The "implicit contract" says one site's ads should not be part of a global panopticon secretly spying on my internet-wide activity through a thousand sources.

The "implicit contract" says the ads should not drastically change the page-loading time or cause the experience to stutter.

I believe at least 90% of all ad-blocking is attributable to these systematic violations of the users' trust.

Re: Lea Verou: “AdBlock is morally equivalent to theft IMO”

#14

Post by jordanpg »

FYI, this is interesting because of who the tweet is coming from. About the author:

> I’m currently a Research Assistant at MIT CSAIL, in David Karger’s Haystack group and an Invited Expert in the W3C CSS Working Group.

Unfortunately, reading the whole conversation does not give much insight as to the logic behind this moral claim. It's just asserted. The author takes it as self-evident that viewing ads is the cost of visiting some websites.

Re: Lea Verou: “AdBlock is morally equivalent to theft IMO”

#15

Post by okey »

Terr_ wrote: post #12
okey wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You agree that when viewing a public site whose main revenue model is ads, you enter an implicit contract to view those ads? If so, why? If not, why do you agree that being selective about what HTTP reqs you make is morally equivalent to theft just because the site owner expects you not to be and hopes to gain money off that?

Because they--content providers in general--continue to violate all sorts of implicit conditions of the "implicit contract". The "implicit contract" says they shouldn't be attacking my computer with malware or attacking me with scams. The "implicit contract" says the ads for a single page should not "take over" the rest of my computing-experience with stuff like auto-playing sound. The "implicit contract" says one si…

Ah, I wanted to know why viggity agreed with Lea, not for a list of reasons to use ad-block, but you make some good points... although I disagree about the presence of an implicit contract in the first place.
Post reply on HN