[dwaltrip]

This isn't correct. I believe there are extensive restrictions on what type of terms are considered "reasonable", especially between consumers and corporations.

Arbitrary contract terms aren't automatically viewed as valid and binding by the courts.

[darawk]

You're correct, and this is the path to the primary legitimate argument against the view that you're morally obligated to view ads. None of the things other people are saying in response to me represent correct understandings of the issue. This is its crux: Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit?

[shkkmo]

> This is its crux: Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit?

Even if you can show that a user has fully read and understood the terms of an agreement, there are MANY legal restrictions on what these agreements can stipulate and require. These restrictions are NOT based only on a user's ability to "...meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit"

Furthermore, nothing at all of what you have said makes any sort of moral argument. There is nothing immoral about breaking a contract as long as you entered it in good faith.

[TeMPOraL]

> Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit?

Yes, of course. But the issue isn't with that, but with how these terms work. The terms start to apply after the user has read and considered them. If you want to limit access to some content unless the user agrees to your terms, you're free to do so. But you can't give the content, and then retroactively ask user to accept the terms and expect them to agree because they already got the content.

[dwaltrip]

If the terms aren't legally enforceable, then why is it immoral for the user to ignore the terms? We are certainly not talking about theft anymore.