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

The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–299 of 299 posts

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#291

Post by ryandrake »

darawk wrote: post #105
annabellish wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>TOS are enforceable to some degree You cannot state "by reading this notice you have accepted our terms and conditions". Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral. The ability to control what code executes on one's computer is a fundamental freedom of…

> Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral. What moral rule exactly does that contravene? You can simply not load their content. What gives you the right to load their content on terms other than theirs?

By reading this content, you agree to record yourself doing 10 jumping jacks and reply to this message with the link to the video. If you don’t agree to these terms, you may not load this content or read it.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#292

Post by [deleted] »

ionised wrote: post #278
mozumder wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all of those cases you're paying elsewhere for the service. In the case of web ads, you're not usually paying for the content, and so they're expecting you to see the ads. I don't know why people go to websites to read their content for free while block their ads. To me that just says "I am consuming too much shit." You don't HAVE to go to these websites and consume everything in the world, you know? Life will go…

> In all of those cases you're paying elsewhere for the service. Recorded and enforced by a contract. > In the case of web ads, you're not usually paying for the content, and so they're expecting you to see the ads. It doesn't matter what they expect. I'm not obliged to view their ads.

[deleted]

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#293

Post by TheCoelacanth »

darawk wrote: post #263
shkkmo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must get somebody to agree to the terms, not just state them. If you say "I'll give you this scarf if you go to the store for me" and then drape it over my shoulder, I haven't broken any agreement or stolen anything if i walk away. You gave me your scarf without any agreement on my part and will have a hard time enforcing that agreement in court. Similarly, I suspect that the "by using this site you agree to..."…

> Similarly, I suspect that the "by using this site you agree to..." declaration that is widely used has fairly limited legal efficacy precisely due the the lack of explicit agreement. The case i'm considering here is one of explicit agreement. E.g. checking a checkbox. > Even if I do agree to your terms, if I don't go the store it STILL isn't theft. I am merely in breach of contract and you will have to go to court…

> The case i'm considering here is one of explicit agreement. E.g. checking a checkbox.

So a fictional case? No site I have ever seen explicitly asks you to agree to view its ads.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#294

Post by jasonkostempski »

darawk wrote: post #52
jasonkostempski wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Of course it's stealing. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site." No it's not and no you aren't. Entering a public area isn't trespassing and there's no such thing as a contract you implicitly agree too.

...you consider private websites to be public areas?

Privately owned doesn't mean it's not publicly accessible. If they want selective entry, they need to put a bouncer at the door, not expect me to close my eyes, let them jam ad blasting headphones in my ears, while they riffle through my pockets for any personal information they might find valuable just for the privilege of viewing what is, more often than not, just another thinly disguised ad.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#295

Post by bscphil »

dredmorbius wrote: post #247
ggg9990 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And websites can sell static JPG ads that are impossible to block.

s/impossible/harder/ One of the first adblock tools I used relied on thevstandard sizes of banner ads to blok them. Names of selectors, XPATH, explicit element whitelisting, denying all image content, etc, all are possible options. On desktop I apply a pretty rigorous set of CSS customisations against numerous sites. Plus the usual adblocking.

Are you thinking of Privoxy? I have good memories of using it - it was perhaps the second open source program I ever used after Firefox and really got me into coding in general because of how configurable it was.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#296

Post by coolio2657 »

horsawlarway wrote: post #51
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…

Even worse, associating blocking ads as something akin to stealing is morally bankrupt. It's an incredibly slippery slope that leads to complete loss of autonomy for individuals. If I refuse to read roadside billboards, am I now stealing? If I tear up newspaper ads and throw them away, am I now stealing? If I turn off my tv during ads on a cable show, am I now stealing? I think any sane person would definitively say…

On the contrary, blocking ads online is morally bankrupt.

You presented analogies, which I will respond to if you respond to my question at the conclusion.

With the case of billboards, it was never expected nor included in any societal contract that you are supposed to look at them: their sole purpose is to accidentally grab your attention, not mandate it.

With newspaper ads, as above, it was never mandated for you to look at them except incidentally as you flip through. Even after deciding to tear them up, you still had to have looked at them for a moment, at which point they have succeeded in doing all they ever tried to do.

With tv ads, I refer to the exact same reasoning used above.

Now for my question. Since adblock is most prominently used in the context of youtube, answer this - why should you be able to enjoy youtube's content for free without giving anything back to youtube? Are they a charity? And why shouldn't they choose the method by which you give back to them (via watching ads), since it is their platform?

Advertising can cross the line in many cases allowing for the self-defense of ad-blockers, but blocking all ads on principle is an even more dangerous, immoral line of reasoning.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#297

Post by xenophonf »

a1369209993 wrote: post #85
xenophonf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What advantage is there in using 1.1.1.1 instead of your own DNS resolver?

Some ISP-provided resolvers fraudulently replace NXDOMAIN responses with NOERROR IN As pointing to (ironically, in this context) advertisment sites.

I'm aware of the problems with ISP-provided resolvers. I meant running your own resolver, like named, which queries the root zones itself, supports DNSSEC response authentication, etc.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#298

Post by a1369209993 »

darawk wrote: post #162
a1369209993 wrote: post #75

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? 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?

If they intended to give me root access to the account, then yes. In the much more likely case that it was unintentional, I should badger them until they change their password. If they gave me the password unwillingly (eg, because they wanted me to deal with financial issue for them and their bank doesn't support more fine-grained authorization), same caveat. In either case, the problem is that the bank thinks that "[password]" is something only they know, and the solution (changing their password) has nothing to do with anything I actually do with the information, aside from (not) lying to the bank about my identity/money-ownership.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#299

Post by a1369209993 »

xenophonf wrote: post #297
a1369209993 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some ISP-provided resolvers fraudulently replace NXDOMAIN responses with NOERROR IN As pointing to (ironically, in this context) advertisment sites.

I'm aware of the problems with ISP-provided resolvers. I meant running your own resolver, like named, which queries the root zones itself, supports DNSSEC response authentication, etc.

In that case: local resolvers involve actually installing and configuring a recursive dns server, which isn't everyone's idea of fun, whereas 1.1/8.8.8.8 can be set up with a one line config file edit and then forgotten about.
Post reply on HN