[ikeboy]

>You might as well say radio stations wouldn't transmit if they knew I turned them off for a few minutes during commercial breaks, and claim that that is a bug, and that I am illegally exploiting that bug for free radio.

Radio stations inherently can't selectively broadcast. Websites can.

The fact that websites already attempt to prevent ad blocked users from viewing content means that they would block it if they would know. Exploiting the fact that they don't know in a particular case (by using ad blocker blocker blockers, which are a thing) is exploiting a bug.

Plenty of websites have a contract or agreement about data they send you. See e.g. Youtube's terms of service, section 5.C.

[g8gggu89]

> Radio stations inherently can't selectively broadcast. Websites can.

If they can, then there's no problem. If they can't selectively broadcast, or can't do it exactly as they want to, then you're back to the radio case.

> The fact that websites already attempt to prevent ad blocked users from viewing content means that they would block it if they would know.

Fine, but they apparently don't know how to block everyone they want to, so it's their choice to continue sending data to everyone they aren't blocking.

> Exploiting the fact that they don't know in a particular case (by using ad blocker blocker blockers, which are a thing) is exploiting a bug.

No, that's not even close to a bug. You clearly don't know what a bug is. This is a limitation of the transmission medium, known by all parties, where all parties can chose to stop participating at any time. They are in general unable to verify with certainty what any given client will do with the data that the server sends back. This is a property of the protocol used by everyone, not a bug in the server's software.

> Plenty of websites have a contract or agreement about data they send you. See e.g. Youtube's terms of service, section 5.C.

That says nothing about not displaying ads - it's talking about violating copyright. And it's not something it even normally displays to people AFAIK.

[pdkl95]

> Plenty of websites have a contract

For the 1000th time, SHOW that contract. Do you even understand what a contract is? Youtube et al have a document they call the "terms of service", but that is not a contract.

Seriously, show where Youtube offered terms, where the user had the opportunity to read, review, and understand those terms, and where they signal their acceptance and intention to be bound by the terms of the contract. The exchange of consideration - that is, Youtube sending a video in exchange for the user giving their time to watch certain ads - only happens after the offer and acceptance.

Documents don't magically become contracts because you wish they were binding. Do I really need to include a link to a TOS for reading my comments to demonstrate why unilateral contracts are an insane idea?

This belief that you get to control what people do with data after you hand it over is highly unusual and antisocial.