AdBlock Plus wins in court • Hacker News Board

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#101

Post by d_theorist » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:16 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #90

eli wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think jumping a turnstile is self-evidently stealing. It is also the case that it becomes a problem for everyone when enough people do it, but it would be stealing either way.

So please lay out your definition of stealing and explain why it would apply to this case. "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it." No property is taken. It's not stealing. There are other correct terms to describe these things like theft of service.

(responding here to eli since we've reached the depth limit)

>My definition of stealing includes theft of services.

That's fine. You can go off and speak your own private language.

The rest of us don't get to redefine words arbitrarily. This is necessary for us to be able to communicate in a common language.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#102

Post by teaneedz » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:28 PM UTC

cfinke wrote: post #100

kazinator wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I stealing if I pick out the nice apples from the bin at the grocery store, and leave behind the ones with rotten spots?

Ad-blocking is more akin to eating the good parts of an apple and then not paying the grocery store because you didn't want the rotten spots.

Only if the store sold Apples under the expectation that everyone could eat their Apples first before paying and genetically modified the Apples to have hidden rotten parts.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#103

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:32 PM UTC

cfinke wrote: post #100

kazinator wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I stealing if I pick out the nice apples from the bin at the grocery store, and leave behind the ones with rotten spots?

Ad-blocking is more akin to eating the good parts of an apple and then not paying the grocery store because you didn't want the rotten spots.

No it isn't, because no payment is required to view the page in question.

How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks to blocking software working on your behalf, the browser picks and chooses what of that cruft it should activate and what it should ignore.

Nobody has a right to make your computer fetch unwanted content and throw it in your face.

It's like looking at a tray of hors d'oeuvres, and choosing a few that you like, avoiding ones you don't find palatable.

Anyway, not long ago, I obtained a full refund for a bag of apples that were rotten, even though I ate some of it. That is normal.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#104

Post by eli » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:44 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #56

roma1n wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a piece of software on my machine needlessly be under remote control ?

It wouldn't control anything on your machine. It allows the web site to control whether they send content to you or not. I use AB Edge. I've visited Reddit, they posted a "we notice you use an ad blocker, if you like us, please think about whitelisting us." They could have just refused to serve the content. Either way would have been acceptable; it's my browser and I control what I see, it's their content and they co…

Unfortunately for publishers, it's pretty hard to implement that sort of ad block detection reliably.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#105

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:50 PM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #10

sparaker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use AdBlock Plus but i do use AdBlock. I think its my decision to choose which ads i watch and which i don't. It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.

> It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not. So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock?

> So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock?

It's the web equivalent of an a entitled-feeling child throwing a tantrum.

People who use ad-blocking software, and temporarily disable it on your page just to view the content, are not going to click on the ads.

Furthermore, if you take additional measures to make them click on the ads ("please visit our sponsor first"), that constitutes click fraud. Users who click on an ad just to view the content are not interested in what is being advertized at all, and will not convert to buyers.

Morally, it is within a hair's breadth of sending Javascript to the user's browser which simulates that user clicking on the ad (so that it looks like a real visit, as the ad syndicate knows), which would be blatant click fraud.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#106

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:57 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #41

eis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not stealing because nothing is stolen. Or what is your definition of stealing?

Is jumping a subway turnstile stealing? The same train leaves whether you're on it or not. But if enough people don't pay the fare, the whole system breaks down.

Jumping the gates is a form of trespassing.

This is more like watching the trains come and go, from outside of the station, but ignoring the ads which are painted on the train.

Speaking of looking at printed ads, imagine you had a car which, instead of a windshield, had a high resolution camera and a display. This display would contain image processing which identifies billboards and blackens them out, while leaving traffic signs intact.

Would that be stealing?

Basically, the argument is that not looking at something is stealing.

Where does it stop? What if you're looking, but not processing it congnitively? That must be, in Orwellian terms, a "thought crime": you're looking at the ad, but staring blankly, and its semantics isn't sinking in; you're not allowing the ad to turn into meaning in your mind make you want the product.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#107

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:58 PM UTC

baldfat wrote: post #4

Personally I don't use Ad Blockers just due to the fact my own personal ethics feels I am stealing when I do use it. When I am teaching I have ad blocker installed because I don't want to get in trouble for what advertisement will be shown, especially YouTube. AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them.

Does your personal ethics allow you to go to the washroom during a commercial break?

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#108

Post by deepnet » Thu, May 28, 2015, 5:04 PM UTC

I read a lot on a screen.

This is tiring.

Adverts make it impossible to read the web - they are designed to catch the eye - even when still they are eye catching.

To concentrate on text near an advert takes extra mental resources and I tire very much quicker.

Not to mention loading hangs as pages wait for badly overloaded ad-servers before they show the page.

So I am getting exhausted so websites can get $0.003 - this model is a lame duck.

My attention is worth a lot more than $0.003 so figure out a better way because I cannot afford look at that dross.

Text Ads in a similar font - that attract my interest because they are relevant - no problem - your site is unblocked.

Subtly Sponsor content I want then I will look favorably on your brand.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#109

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 28, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #99

eis wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So please lay out your definition of stealing and explain why it would apply to this case. "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it." No property is taken. It's not stealing. There are other correct terms to describe these things like theft of service.

My definition of stealing includes theft of services.

There is no theft of service until you take a train to another station, and then jump the gates there to exit.

If you want to get around the gates to enter a station without a ticket, you can just ask the staff. I've done it a couple of times in Japan. You can get inside to look for a lost item or whatever. They even let people in to access the station shops. I watched one tourist ask for that and be granted.

Also, one time I entered a station without swiping my Suica card through the machine. I explained that at the destination station and where I had boarded; they cheerfully fixed it up and let me exit. There is room for mistakes without being automatically branded a thief just for being there.

Re: AdBlock Plus wins in court

#110

Post by infamouscow » Thu, May 28, 2015, 5:45 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #97

infamouscow wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you might discover that your content is not valuable. People are willing to pay for content that is valuable. LWN [1] and the No Agenda Show [2] prove that you don't need ads to produce content that is leagues beyond any ad-supported content. The underlying reason most newspapers are dying is because they aren't doing anything but regergitating the Associated Press and Reuters. There's no difference between…

I got lost. Your content is not valueable, ok plausible. Then, newspapers are dying because they only show (valuable) articles? I think rather, its not the value of the information that's at issue. Its the monopoly on the source that's valuable. Once the monopoly is gone, once you can get the same stuff for free somewhere else, then nobody pays. And all information on the web is free somewhere.

I think if you remove the ads on your website and put up a donations/patreon link you may be pleasantly surprised that nobody feels that your content is worth paying for.