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

61–70 of 299 posts

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#61

Post by darawk »

Glyptodon wrote: post #57
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?…

No, I think if creators release their content in the world it becomes the world's. If you want to set terms rent a shed in the Nevada desert, charge admission, and make people leave their phones outside. The idea that there are "terms" when there's never even been a negotiation is absurd.

> No, I think if creators release their content in the world it becomes the world's. If you want to set terms rent a shed in the Nevada desert, charge admission, and make people leave their phones outside.

The law disagrees. Intellectual property is a real thing. You can argue that it shouldn't be, but it is. Releasing something into the world doesn't mean that you no longer own it.

> The idea that there are "terms" when there's never even been a negotiation is absurd.

There has been a negotiation. Sites have a TOS. The fact that you choose not to read it does not mean that you can ignore it.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#62

Post by darawk »

horsawlarway wrote: post #59
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?…

> 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? We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. If you'd like to chose to not display your content when I have a blocker enabled, so be it, I'll leave and never come back. But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control…

> We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period.

That's fine for you to say, it just doesn't happen to be true. TOS are enforceable to some degree.

> But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off.

So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#63

Post by nineumbrellas »

gruez wrote: post #3

Is it me, or is pi hole way more popular than it should be? Compared to the alternatives, it's worse in almost every way. It only works on your local network, so good luck blocking ads while you're at work, using mobile data, or at a cafe. Browser based adblockers (which is available on most desktop browsers, mobile safari, and firefox for android) can block elements and url patterns, pi hole can't. Even if you're on…

I run Pi hole on my home network, and then connect to my home network VPN on my phone and get mobile ad blocking.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#64

Post by darawk »

sbarker wrote: post #60
darawk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

is browsing an open s3 bucket hacking?

Of course not, but that's a non-sequitur. A privately owned store has a public entrance, but we also are happy to accept the right of the store owner to charge admission or kick out people who cause trouble. Entering the store is not burglary, but staying there against the wishes of the owner is trespassing.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#65

Post by horsawlarway »

yoz-y wrote: post #58
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?…

I agree with you. The thing I do not like with the current ads on the internet is that you are implicitly agreeing to a contract which is written nowhere and that you have no way of reading.

Hey, cool fact: you're not entering any such contract, and the idea that you are is insane.

There's no such thing as an implicit contract in this case (and most cases in general). If he chooses to serve his content and I choose to not read parts of that's fine.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#66

Post by drdeadringer »

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…

I still use /etc/hosts file based blocking and I enjoy it.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#67

Post by BonesJustice »

darawk wrote: post #44
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…

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?…

> Of course it's stealing.

Oh, really?

What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy.

And what about data brokers? My browsing history is my work product; I create it through my own actions. Much of the information that data brokers sell about me would not and could not exist without my direct contributions. When they sell that data, do I get an appropriate share of their profits? No. They are regularly stealing and profiting from my work. The websites you claim I'm 'stealing' from are giving away tons of my information without anything even approaching affirmative consent.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#68

Post by LifeLiverTransp »

darawk wrote: post #44
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…

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?…

Its relative easy to replace a raw-ressource producer?

Nearly everyone who is bodily able and has the land- can farm or mine. You can specialize in a certain fruit, or in a certain growth method- but these are easily copied, and thuse the price differences in the long run always gets equalled out or - if there is a surplus, even drop below the point of creation.

Content can be created by nearly everyone who is able to write sentences and glue stockfootage into it.

Its the agriculture of the e-industry, the raw ressource. Once it is created, you loose controll over it, it goes from hand to hand, is traded, trafficked, refined and reused. And all those millers, traders, feedalot farmers, butchers and finally the customers- of the content world will be better off then the content creators - perpetually for eternity by the nature of the trade.

The only way out, is to create brands and fashion waves ala "organic" content. Which if succesfull will be aped by all and surplanted.

Contentcreators - welcome to hell.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#69

Post by johnpowell »

darawk wrote: post #62
horsawlarway wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. If you'd like to chose to not display your content when I have a blocker enabled, so be it, I'll leave and never come back. But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control…

> We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. That's fine for you to say, it just doesn't happen to be true. TOS are enforceable to some degree. > But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off. So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?

If I click a link on Google there is no TOS. If you want to show a screen with the TOS when I visit your site and make me agree to view your ads you can totally do that. And I will click the back button.

Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers

#70

Post by jasonkostempski »

FreeKill wrote: post #11
gruez wrote: post #3

Is it me, or is pi hole way more popular than it should be? Compared to the alternatives, it's worse in almost every way. It only works on your local network, so good luck blocking ads while you're at work, using mobile data, or at a cafe. Browser based adblockers (which is available on most desktop browsers, mobile safari, and firefox for android) can block elements and url patterns, pi hole can't. Even if you're on…

Pi Hole is free, unless you're counting the system you have to run it off of (like a raspberry pi) but you can run it off any device you want like a virtual machine at home for instance, so you only need to buy a Raspberry Pi if that's how you intend to operate it. The benefit of it, is it blocks a lot more than just ads. For instance, it blocks any attempts to "phone home" by my smart TV or by applications I use suc…

You got it to block YouTube ads? Thats the reason I bought an rpi, but it didnt block the ads in the native YouTube app. Still works great against other inapp ads though.
Post reply on HN