[TremendousJudge]

>if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"?

You have the right to say it, and I have the right to ignore it, because that's the way the Internet is implemented. You may pretend that it works differently, but until the day it works like broadcast TV, users will have the right to pull whatever content they want from servers.

[darawk]

You have the right to possess it, and I have the right to take it by force, because that's the way physical reality is implemented. Arguing that implementation implies natural rights is a pretty silly path.

[darkmighty]

In this case there is no contract. The websites are really giving their things away for free, only with the expectation , but no guarantee, that some users will see ads. The societally agreed upon principles, that constitute the law, place no responsibility on the receiver of free content (an easily justifiable principle in fact).

They have all the right and power to refuse to give their content away for free. You have all the right and power not to look at their ads, to preemptively strip them from your view, or to modify the page you yourself will visualize in any way you see fit.

Think of newspapers given away for free on the streets. I can make whatever collage I want into what I received for free, it's absurd to insinuate my reading habit could constitute a crime.

Of course, since you're being given something for free, there might be cases where you're ethically compelled to retribute (in particular when you enjoy the content, believe it is useful, etc). But here you should be able to chose how to contribute -- if you're restricted to contribute only by viewing obnoxious ads I would say it's perfectly ethical to refuse to do so.

What I do is support the Patreon account of several content creators I enjoy. I know my little donation has an impact on them, enabling them to keep producing great content. Most websites that I find useful don't offer particularly compelling media of retribution, and I feel my cost to them isn't significant at all. The marginal cost of my usage of Google search engine to Google is quite small, I would guess thousands or millionths of a cent per query. I don't need to worry about donating to Google. They have other ways of generating revenue from me, like the query information itself, and other services like the Android App store.

[sharcerer]

Just some questions. Niw the purpose of all these questions are to get ur viewpoint on certain issues. Thanks. Do u encounter obnoxiousads 100% of the time? I mean Taboola ads sure, bad. Also, if you were running website or were any other content creator making money through ads, thrn would you want 100% of visitors to use adblockers? Also, do u think whole world should block ads, because reality is most people cannot pay for content. I mean how many subscriptions are you gonna buy, so that's why ads became the de facto way for earning revenue. Also, a slightly different question. Not sure how to frame this. The ad revenue has enabled Alphabet to do various stuff like Verily life sciences, project loon, self driving cars. Make products like Google Maps which power transportation and are indispensable ( i know about Openstreetmap). So, is that all justifiable? Also, do you regard Youtube ads as bad also? Also, many people say ads are annoying. Sure, i have also felt that way sometimes. But with Youtube most of the times, i get to know about a new product/movie etc. Personally, as a student I use youtube a lot, can't imagine life without it.

[darawk]

> In this case there is no contract. The websites are really giving their things away for free, only with the expectation , but no guarantee, that some users will see ads.

This does seem to be the crux of our disagreement. You think that offering up your content merely represents a non-binding expectation. In other domains, we don't take that position. If I weave you a scarf, and I say "Hey, i'll give you this scarf if you go to the store and pick up some cough medicine for me", and then you take the scarf and refuse to go to the store for me on the grounds that I "merely had the expectation, but no guarantee that you would go to the store for me", that seems pretty odd. I'm curious:

A) Whether you believe these situations are different

And

B) If you believe they're different, why.

[TeMPOraL]

They're different because in the scarf example, you're expressing the expectation before giving the scarf. In the web example, the expectation is applied retroactively. It's as if you gave me the scarf, no strings attached, and later said "oh, since I gave you that scarf, I also want you to go to the store and pick up some cough medicine for me".

On the web, we have a way to handle the exact equivalent to your scenario. We do that by ensuring the user agrees to go to the store before handing them over a scarf. For instance, on the protocol level, you could reject all GET requests that do not have attached the proof of acceptance of the cough medicine quest. The rejection message (e.g. 403 Forbidden) would contain a machine-interpretable requirement of the quest. That synergizes well with the legal level - faking proof of quest acceptance would (AFAIK) constitute unauthorized access to scarf under CFAA. At the same time, the valid proof could match the legal definition of informed consent. It also meshes well with the social level, as whoever reads the 403 response (e.g. in their browser) would see the need to consent to the quest in order to get the scarf. Consenting to the quest, taking the scarf, and then not doing the quest would rightfully classify me as a thief and an asshole.

[darawk]

> They're different because in the scarf example, you're expressing the expectation before giving the scarf. In the web example, the expectation is applied retroactively. It's as if you gave me the scarf, no strings attached, and later said "oh, since I gave you that scarf, I also want you to go to the store and pick up some cough medicine for me".

I'm glad we've come to agreement, then :). I agree, if the expectations are unstated, there is no agreement, and nobody is bound by unstated expectations.

If the website makes you agree to not use an ad blocker, you agree, and then still do it, that's stealing. If you do not undergo this interrogative exchange, then it's not stealing.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes, that I agree with.

EDIT: maybe not 100% agree, because I'm not confident that "stealing" is the right word. The concept of theft carries extra connotations and constraints with it, and I'm too tired today to go into exploring this. But I definitely agree that if you consented to a contract and then proceeded to break it, then you're both morally in the wrong, and liable for any consequences that can be legally enforced.

Also, out of curiosity, looking at all your comments in this thread - is all this discussion a one big exercise at applying stuff from Scott Alexander's "Varieties of Argumentative Experience"? ;).

[danShumway]

In your scarf example, you gave me the scarf after you gave me the terms.

Let me flip it on you. Let's say you bake me a cake and give it to me. The following week you say, "Hey, you need to go to the store and pick up some cough medicine for me, because I gave you that cake." If I then refuse, would it be valid for you to claim I stole your cake?

In your scarf example, I also probably indicated to you that I would accept those terms. Suppose that I told you, upfront, before you gave me the scarf, "No, I'm not going to pick up cough medicine for you, period. If you hand me this scarf, I'm still not going to the store."

If you still handed the scarf to me after I made it clear I wasn't going to the store and made no effort to take it from you by force, could you claim that I stole from you?

Funnily enough, the second scenario is not entirely fictional. I remember a particularly scummy practice that businesses used to do when I was growing up where they'd mail you an unsolicited physical item and then demand payment or return of the item.

I don't remember if it was illegal at the time or if it became illegal later, but the basic gist was "if you post something to another person in the mail, you can't later demand that they send it back to you or pay you."

On the modern web, I connect to the NYT to read some text, and they return a bunch of unsolicited code that I never agreed to request. The idea that I have the obligation to run code that I never requested from the server (literally, my ad blocker prevents the request from being made) when I never agreed to any terms surrounding that code is... crazy to me. In any other domain we would call that crazy.

[darawk]

> In your scarf example, you gave me the scarf after you gave me the terms.

I didn't intend that interpretation. However, if you believe that's the crux of our disagreement, then we in fact do not disagree. If a site does not make clear its expectations, then there's no theft. If they do, then there is. And certainly you cannot be expected to turn off your adblocker before seeing those terms - that's silly. Uninformed consent is not consent. But once you are informed, to proceed with content consumption without abiding the clearly stated terms is theft.

[shkkmo]

You must get somebody to agree to the terms, not just state them.

If you say "I'll give you this scarf if you go to the store for me" and then drape it over my shoulder, I haven't broken any agreement or stolen anything if i walk away. You gave me your scarf without any agreement on my part and will have a hard time enforcing that agreement in court.

Similarly, I suspect that the "by using this site you agree to..." declaration that is widely used has fairly limited legal efficacy precisely due the the lack of explicit agreement.

Even if I do agree to your terms, if I don't go the store it STILL isn't theft. I am merely in breach of contract and you will have to go to court to get them to force me to return the scarf you gave to me.

[TremendousJudge]

Humans didn't implement physical reality, you have no choice but to live in it. If you use the internet to distribute your content however, you agree to its rules. And unlike physical reality, you may choose another platform to distribute it that conforms to your views. You may say that the internet is the most popular way to distribute content, but it didn't get there by accident.

[darawk]

You believe that protocols ought to represent binding contracts, then? Does that mean that exploiting bugs and stealing people's money is a perfectly legal and justifiable use of the internet?

[TeMPOraL]

Protocols and legal considerations go together. Exploiting bugs and stealing money is also breaking the law.

The issue sites have with ad blocking is because they demand from their visitors more than they agreed to on the protocol level.

[TremendousJudge]

is obeying the letter of the law but violating the spirit legal to you?