[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.