[darawk]

> We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period.

That's fine for you to say, it just doesn't happen to be true. TOS are enforceable to some degree.

> But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off.

So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?

[annabellish]

>TOS are enforceable to some degree

You cannot state "by reading this notice you have accepted our terms and conditions". Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral.

The ability to control what code executes on one's computer is a fundamental freedom of general purpose computing. I don't feel that it's any more appropriate to demand I load ads than to demand I load your images or your css, or indeed to demand I install your bitcoin miner.

Ads from even the major networks are damaging to run far too often to be considered safe. They're resource intensive and a common malware vector. Whether or not it is _legal_ to block ads (it is), it is certainly not immoral to choose not to execute code which has a high likelihood of compromising your device's security - this being the tool many people use for everything from personal communications to financial transactions. The idea that one should compromise that security for the sake of your blog is ridiculous and a strong sign that the ad-driven business model of the web is neither sustainable nor ethical.

[darawk]

> Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral.

What moral rule exactly does that contravene? You can simply not load their content. What gives you the right to load their content on terms other than theirs?

[orwin]

Hopping into this. The GDPR ask just that: if you are using ad networks, you should ask your user to give his explicit consent for each network you are serving him. Note that if you are serving malware, you are responsible and can be fined, which is pretty fair, imo.

[flukus]

> What gives you the right to load their content on terms other than theirs?

They gave me the right. I sent a request for the content, they sent me the content. If they would like to add additional terms then they should do so before they send me the content.

[annabellish]

That is what the rest of my post goes on to discuss, I believe. _All_ content loaded onto somebody's general purpose computer is loaded on their own terms.

[ryandrake]

By reading this content, you agree to record yourself doing 10 jumping jacks and reply to this message with the link to the video. If you don’t agree to these terms, you may not load this content or read it.

[alex_young]

> What gives you the right to load their content on terms other than theirs?

robots.txt for one thing.

[TeMPOraL]

robots.txt is a gentlemen's agreement between a site and search engine running automated crawlers. It has no meaning for regular visitors.

[horsawlarway]

I haven't entered any TOS when I visit a publicly available site.

You have my signature on no documents, you have no agreement from me to abide by any terms at all.

If you want me to be held to a TOS... force me to make an account to read your content.

>So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?

I think you've made your work product available freely online without stipulation. If you don't like that, DON'T FUCKING DO IT!

It's entirely reasonable and within your control to not serve me content. A lot of sites block me with an adblocker enabled, I value my attention more than I value their content. But that's a completely fair exchange - I wanted to read their content, they wanted to serve me ads, I concluded that I'd prefer to walk away.

In other words: your "work product" has no inherent value. If you value it, charge for it. Don't make it freely available online.

[johnpowell]

If I click a link on Google there is no TOS. If you want to show a screen with the TOS when I visit your site and make me agree to view your ads you can totally do that. And I will click the back button.

[iamatworknow]

Some sites pretty much do this already (Popular Mechanics, for one). I get a nice popup when I arrive at their site that says I need to turn off my adblock to continue.

I actually don't even use adblock -- I use pihole, which means I'd have to add who-knows-what domains to my DNS whitelist (not just popularmechanics.com, because if it wasn't already permitted I wouldn't have even got to the page with the popup). So back button it is.

[vkou]

> So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?

Nobody has a right to your work product. Nobody's putting a gun to your head, and demanding that you distribute it.

But if you choose to publically broadcast it, then yeah, people have a right to listen to it. And only the parts of it that they care for.

Putting something up on the open internet is the digital equivalent of a broadcast. Gating it behind a login, or an adblock-blocker is another thing.

[ryan-c]

How many sites include in their ToS that you must not block their ads?

How many sites are willing to accept legal liability for malware served up by their ads?

[darawk]

I don't know. I'm simply saying that if they do, then it's stealing. If they don't, then it's not.