[capableweb]

> Why is it fair to block ads, but unfair to block visitors?

Because the original idea behind the web was "Use your client to view content", meaning that you as a publisher publishes the content, users chose how to digest/view it. Hence browsers are "user-agents".

Users should be able to decide how they want to view the content, that's why we have user css files that override website styling. Blocking visitors depending on how they chose to view the content, is unfair as you have published it on the internet, signalling you're fine with people using their user-agents to digest it.

[ShinTakuya]

Blocking users who block ads is no different to blocking users who don't have a premium account. Viewing ads is just a method of payment. In an ideal world all information would be free to everyone, but servers cost money. One way or another, servers need to be paid for. Donation models often allow for the most free distribution of info such as for Wikipedia. But it doesn't work for all cases. And in those cases, ads are often a good solution, since the information is still basically free. If you don't want to pay, that's fine. You can always visit another site that doesn't force payment.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm actually not against ad blocking. In fact, I use an ad blocker myself. I just think it's hypocritical to expect it to be okay to block ads without also accepting that sites can choose not to serve you (sometimes at their own business peril).

[BrendanEich]

False, on facts and law too: DMCA defines "effective access control mechanism" (paywall) and browsers can't hack through those. Anyone who does by exploiting server-side vulns gets in big trouble.

Ad blocking is not like paywall circumvention. Ad and (what Brave does, don't misdirect or let others who get paid to whitelist ads while not blocking trackers, notably Eyeo who owns AdBlock Plus) tracker blocking is allowed by design of the Web standards, and entails no effective access control mechanism to circumvent.

Script blocking in general is a good idea. Signed, creator of JS.

[ShinTakuya]

Hello CEO of Brave, I didn't say that blocking ads is the same as circumventing paywalls. I said argued (in essence) that blocking users who block ads is a form of access control. I affirmed that people have the right to block ads, but I also asserted my argument that the owner of a server should have the right to block their access if a user tries to access their content without respecting the terms of access.

Signed, an average developer.

[BrendanEich]

“Blocking users who block ads is no different to blocking users who don't have a premium account.”

I get what you mean: either side of the protocol can do what it wants. Also that the publisher has to cover costs via ads or some kind of payment for content, if they aren’t compensated otherwise (separate business on the side; donations).

But your wording was too broad, as it equates (“no different”) blocking content in browsers, which is allowed by design of web standards for accessibility and any reason the user wishes, and blocking via a server side subscription paywall.

[ShinTakuya]

Yeah I can live with accepting that my wording was too broad. I think ultimately we agree to some extent, I can admit some fault for not being clear in my wording. All I was arguing is that we shouldn't be arguing in support of ad blockers only to cry foul when publishers want to block the freeloaders. Although wanting the browser to do it on their behalf is a bit much, I can agree.

[true_religion]

I'm not sure where its ever been said that every user agent must be served the same content. In fact, content negotiation is part of http.

[spiderfarmer]

Brave doesn't even have its own user agent.

[spiderfarmer]

I'm pretty sure the original idea behind the web was to have a distributed copy of classified information in case of nuclear warfare, so I'm not sure who wrote the manifesto you seem to have read.