[themartorana]

"...if they allow the public to view their content, they cannot dictate how the content is viewed..."

You could not be more wrong. I am having a hard time imagining any art installation, public park, etc., that does not have rules about how you use and consume it. Offering something to the public does not mean the method of consumption is suddenly a free-for-all.

This is a ridiculous assumption that gets played out here a lot. There is an agreed-upon trade taking place - you get to consume content, they get to advertise to you. If you don't like the terms, you should avoid engaging in the transaction.

I do believe that tracking your activity borders on an illegal invasion of privacy, and so I support blocking trackers. If trackers come disguised as ads, they should be blocked. That said, trackers are most often invisible, and a person is unable to make a decision about the agreement at hand. There, the transaction is unfair. Ads however, are immediately clear, and make the value proposition very easy to understand.

Take movies, for example. You used to buy a ticket, and watch a movie. Then theaters started running commercials (not previews) before a film. I stopped going to theaters that run commercials. I understand that previews are also commercials, but I've made an informed decision about which types of transactions I'm willing to engage in with theaters.

The same should go for websites. I'm very happy to be passively advertised to in exchange for content. (Same happens on TV while watching football on the weekends - I've accepted the transaction.) Ads that auto-play videos with audio turned on? Absolutely not. And so sites that do that have become sites I don't visit.

So, I am all for sites refusing to provide content without a value exchange. I remain against illicit collection of private information without consent.

Edit: the down-votes are silly. Try engaging in conversation instead.

[thatswrong0]

> I understand that previews are also commercials, but I've made an informed decision about which types of transactions I'm willing to engage in with theaters.

You could also choose to "block" those ads by coming to movies late. That's what I do.. how is that different from blocking ads on the web? The theater is giving me advertisements + content, and I have the ability to ignore / block whatever I want by leaving / entering the theater. Until theaters stop allowing me into movies late and force my eyes open Lasik-style so that I _have_ to watch ads, I'm going to keep engaging in this perfectly ethical behavior.

[themartorana]

It's a loophole, but you're also not getting to see a movie for free. You paid actual money.

You could also resize your browser to block ads in a side column, but it's not the same thing.

[thatswrong0]

Let's assume movie tickets are free. Unless the ticket explicitly says, "You must watch the ads for this ticket to be valid", you're under no obligation to watch the ads before a movie, even if the theater's business model is dependent on your eyeballs actually seeing the ads. If that business model starts to fail because more and more people are realizing they don't have to watch the ads before a movie, you can't blame the people, you have to blame the business model. There's no reason to have a moral obligation to abide by some implicit non-legally binding contract, especially when that contract involves the invasion of my privacy and subjects me to potential violence.

[hnbroseph]

ads during football cannot potentially harm people like ads on websites can, have and will continue doing. you can also change the channel or use a recording device to omit ads.

also, i think the person you replied to was speaking more in terms of technical capability rather than some notion of quid pro quo.

[chris_7]

Besides non-direct harm like Quicken's "let's do the 2008 mortgage thing again" ad from last year's Super Bowl, a television ad can cause direct physical harm through flashing light (epilepsy) or excessive volume.