[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.