[dumb-saint]

Nope, they are not paying me for anything. Again, I did not enter into any agreement. I just clicked a link. They are expending their resources in an attempt to capture and profit from my attention. Those are very different things.

Many times they also payed to make it hard for me to get to the content that I actually wanted. This is commonly known as SEO.

[sanswork]

>I just clicked a link.

Because you want to consume what they've produced. That is how they are paying you.

You keep saying "I did not enter into any agreement" like it changes anything. It's juvenile.

[TeMPOraL]

The foundation of the Web - the Hypertext Transfer Protocol - is that I request a piece of data from a given address, while also providing relevant information about my capabilities and media I'm willing to accept, and then you send me back that data.

What I do with that data isn't up to you. That includes viewing all, parts, or none of the information I received from your server. That especially includes deciding about what code gets executed on my machine.

If advertisers want to control what I am doing with the content I get, please find yourself a new protocol and DRM it to your hearts' content. Just leave the Web alone.

[dispose13432]

>The foundation of the Web - the Hypertext Transfer Protocol - is that I request a piece of data from a given address, while also providing relevant information about my capabilities and media I'm willing to accept, and then you send me back that data.

So Facebook says that the foundation of the web is sending data to the server (such as cookies) and receiving information back.

Nowhere in the protocol does it say they can't track you. Ergo, tracking is perfectly legal and moral.

The foundation of the internet is that the server sends you data. Your browser happens to have a security hole and you got a virus.

Totally ethical and legal. Nowhere in the HTTP protocol does it say not to send viruses.

[pdkl95]

> Ergo, tracking is perfectly legal and moral.

It is currently legal, but that doesn't imply that it's moral. Legality does not define morality.

> Nowhere in the HTTP protocol does it say not to send viruses.

Correct.

> Totally ethical and legal.

Sending a virus is patently unethical regardless of the transport mechanism. as for legality, see a lawyer about 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#a_5

[dispose13432]

I was just responding to OP's claim that since the protocol doesn't specify that I'll be watching ads, it must be legal and ethical to block them and harass those who spend money on them.

[pdkl95]

> I was just responding to OP's claim that since the protocol doesn't specify

I know. The examples were still factually incorrect straw-men.

> it must be legal and ethical to block them

That's the point; it is legal and ethical to use data that was voluntarily given. If you want control over how things are used, stop sending to everybody freely and require a contract.

> harass those who spend money on them.

Clicking a link isn't harassment.

[tripzilch]

can we maybe make a new sort of Godwin guideline where we stop taking people seriously once they've shown they can't tell apart legal rights from moral rights?

[sanswork]

>What I do with that data isn't up to you.

I didn't say it was.

[dumb-saint]

So what you are saying is that, simply by clicking a link, I become obliged to execute whatever piece of code is served to me on my machine or render any media on my display without knowing in advance what it contains?

That is not how the web works, and that is not the social contract that it was built on. Sorry if it doesn't fit advertisers' needs, but that is really not my problem. Maybe advertisers and payed content could go to some other medium that accommodates all the restrictions you desire, and then we can all be happy?

[sanswork]

No, that isn't what I said at all.

[Karunamon]

What you said is not meaningfully different. You imply there is some implicit relationship between the person who clicks on a link and the person who made the content behind the link.

No such relationship exists.

[sanswork]

There is a relationship though or else there would be no communication.

You want something, they have something. You communicate your desire and they provide you with something. That is a relationship.

[dumb-saint]

You are using the concept of "relationship" with two different meanings.

When I click a link, there is a relationship between me and some entity in the same sense that the term is used in computer science to describe relational databases.

This is not a relationship in the legal or ethical senses. By clicking a link, I did not agree to anything at all. All I did was react to an announcement that there is some resource somewhere, and deciding to take a look at it. If I decide to do it from a terminal and read the HTML directly without rendering, that is no one's business and my actions are not unethical in any way.

The advertisement industry is starting to behave like the music industry in the early days of the web. They are willing to destroy the best tool ever created for global human communication and knowledge sharing for the purpose of protecting an obsolete business model.

[jodrellblank]

Because you want to consume what they've produced.

So I'm agreeing to the contract before even seeing the content? I guess you're fine with me having 30 days to return the content under the Consumer Rights Act (UK) if it's not as described and they'll refund me the advertising money they made from me, right?

Particularly, if you say it's a trade of content for attention, then:

For goods and services bought online, your rights are the same as if you'd bought them from a shop.

You can make a claim for a refund, repair or replacement when the digital content you've bought doesn't meet these three standards: [..]

Fit for purpose: You should be able to use it for what the seller says it will do (its purpose), whether that's their statement when you buy it, or an answer to your question. For instance, an audio track should play, and a game shouldn't infect your computer with a virus.

As described: It should match its description when you bought it. For example, a film should be in the format you chose when you bought it.

So an advert from CNN shouldn't infect my computer with malware, and a link which claims I "won't believe" something [2] should leave me in disbelief.

[1] http://www.rica.org.uk/content/consumer-rights

[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/02/world/gallery/astonishing-...

Yeah?

[sanswork]

What is it with all the pretend lawyers in this thread bringing up their misunderstanding of contract laws? Do you not realise how silly you all sound? Why do you think this comment is relevant to the thread at all? I didn't say you were legally bound to watch the ads at any point. I said you were paid for your attention. So in that case the transaction would actually be the other way around. Should the site be able to ask for a refund on their content since you didn't provide what they expected(ad views)?

[dumb-saint]

> I said you were paid for your attention

I get payed for my attention in euros, after signing a contract or entering an agreement. Maybe that sounds silly to you, but that is how I roll.

I assume that you are implying that I have some moral obligation to the people publishing publicly accessible content. If you are not implying that, then we are all in agreement and there is nothing further to discuss. We both agree that ad blockers are fine, case closed.

If you are implying that, you are wrong. The WORLD WIDE WEB was not built on that premise and we were here before the marketeers and advertisers arrived. If the former manage to make some money while providing people with something they want, that's fine. I have nothing against honest business. But don't try to pretend that I have any obligation to do anything just because I accessed a resource that you made public. If you want to charge for your resource, name the price and make it private. Maybe I'll buy it. I buy books all the time. But it's not my fault or moral failing if your business model doesn't work.

[jodrellblank]

I said you were paid for your attention

And I'm disagreeing, by analogy. That's how it's relevant.

Should the site be able to ask for a refund on their content since you didn't provide what they expected(ad views)?

Also valid, and also leads to the same conclusion: it's a nonsensical idea. Therefore one thing is not 'payment' for the other. There's one protocol that making a HTTP request returns content at the discretion of the server, and there's no advance agreement that the content has value, or that the client is agreeing to trade anything at all for the alleged value.

I didn't say you were legally bound to watch the ads at any point.

I didn't say you said I was, only that content is not payment for watching adverts - and that it would be daft if that was the case.