[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.

[dispose13432]

>Clicking a link isn't harassment.

You are making people lose money (not the malware adnetworks, not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement) to prove a point to the ad-network (which is actually making money off this), I consider it close to harassment.

[235951]

No, the advertisers are choosing not to pay the content creators. By blocking or using auto clickers the users are only choosing to not reveal the personal information that is sold by the content creator to the advertisers(even if the content creators don't get to see it, or cant make use of it). On tv and in movies the prestige was what advertisers where getting from ads, they would pay to have the ads carried on the same networks as great content. They wouldn't stop me from talking over an ad or closing my eyes while one was on, and I wasn't "stealing" by doing so. My part of that system was buying the cable package or the movie ticket, funding the general delivery system. Whats happened now is that content creators have taken a bad deal and started selling our personal information rather then the actual prestige of being next to their content. This is perfect for advertisers as it then sets the fight up to be between content creators and their audience, when it should be content creators and their audience working for a better deal.

[dispose13432]

No, when you artificially click on a link, the original website pays the hosting website a bit and Google a bit.

So now when you run this program, the two entities you're most against (Google for not having safe-ads) and the content website (for not working for free) are actually getting payed!

If you want to hurt Google, just block ads.

[pdkl95]

> lose money

Yes, that is one of the intended goals.

> not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement

Targeting the source of funding is often an effective strategy.

> {,malware} ad-network

> trackers

> guy buying advertisement

All of these are responsible, so they are all intended targets.

> I consider it close to harassment

If following a website's href suggestion to load a URL is "harassment", then advertising is also 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?