[kerkeslager]

So it's your position that if I send an HTTP request for the public homepage of a public website to a publicly accessible server and that server sends me a response, I'm stealing that response? I'm obligated to render all the content you send me, and run all the code, just because you sent it to me?

No. If you don't want me to see your content, don't send it to me.

If you want me to agree to do something before looking at your content, then send me a contract of some sort and don't send me the content until I agree to the terms of your contract. Otherwise, I haven't agreed to do anything for you just because you sent me your content.

I'll also point out that you said upthread:

"If one doesn't want to break the web, they shouldn't block ads since most of the web is free thanks to ads."

First you say it's free, then you stay I'm stealing it? Which is it, are they free or am I obligated to pay for them?

Imagine if other businesses worked this way. You hear a store is giving away books, so you go and ask them for a free book, and they say, sure, yes, the books are free! But as you're reading the book, you come to a page where it says that by accepting a free book you've agreed to also read a packet of marketing materials for the bookstore, send them a DNA sample, and spend some time mining gold for them. And no, you can't give the "free" book back, you've already started reading it so if you don't do what the bookstore demands, that would be stealing!

[xthestreams]

I guess the stuff you're talking about totally falls under my "only block ads on those websites which clearly have no consideration for usability [...] or for privacy"

I didn't say that ads are great. I said that NOT ALL ads are bad, and without them some great content couldn't exist, because most people need funds for their work and selling stuff or services sometimes isn't an option.

So if you're talking about tracking ads, I'm totally with you. But if you're talking about ALL ads, then your idea may be an utopia.

[kerkeslager]

> I said that NOT ALL ads are bad

Ads are inherently trying to make me want something I don't want, so I'd say that all ads are bad.

> most people need funds for their work and selling stuff or services sometimes isn't an option.

Why is that, exactly?

Nobody has to sell ads. If you business only works because you sell ads, your business model doesn't (or shouldn't) work. I don't think that we as a society benefit from propping up businesses who produce content that is so low-quality that nobody would pay money for it.

> So if you're talking about tracking ads, I'm totally with you.

What ads aren't tracking me? There are only a few ad networks who even claim not to track you, and it's unclear how many ads those companies actually serve up--it's certainly not a large portion of the ads on the internet. And as far as I know none of the ad companies out there have open-sourced their code, so whether they're telling the truth is a big open question. Advertisers certainly have lied about this in the past. Apple, for example, has been dinged for this a few times, while trying to sell itself as a privacy advocating company.

WITH evidence, click through and conversion rates are very low already, so it's pretty hard to persuade advertisers to advertise without collecting as much data about you as possible. So nearly all the ads out there are tracking ads. Even if you only accept that all tracking ads are bad, the word "tracking" is only a minor technicality.