[c0nkflict5uxway]

Security concerns are just one of many minor justifications for ad blocking.

The major one is simple: I never consented to see the ad. Therefore, I should not see the ad.

I use an adblocker for the same reason I boycott broadcast TV, broadcast radio, and paper magazines. Like my body and my property, my attention is not something that people should feel free to steal just because it is convenient for them.

[KarlKemp]

I bet you’re among the people that will object to the use of the word „steal“ when it’s used for copyright infringement.

Anyway… consent can happen implicitly. Eat at the hotel buffet an they’ll charge you for breakfast.

Besides, it should be obvious by now that you are hurting yourself just as much when you make it impossible for high quality news sources to remain freely readable. Not only do you have to pay for a far smaller selection of sources, your fellow citizens will be less well informed, which turns democracies into a mere lottery.

[c0nkflict5uxway]

No, I think that piracy is theft. You're taking something with value for free.

Consent absolutely cannot happen implicitly - would you make a claim like that to a judge? Hotel buffets advertise their prices, and you can always get breakfast somewhere else.

EULAs are not enforceable contracts, as they are offered under conditions of durress with no real alternative. No court will enforce an "I agree" checkbox, and most websites actively hide their usage/privacy/etc policies.

I pay subscriptions to high-quality news sources. But I read them online, and I still block their ads. If the sites want to charge more, they can, but "ad-free" has always been included in the charges where I subscribe.

[otterley]

EULAs absolutely are enforceable contracts at least insofar as “click-wrap” software licenses are concerned; the law here is well settled.

[mccorrinall]

I‘m using an adblocker too, but I disagree with this reasoning. You don’t need to consent when it’s implied that serving the ads is how the service is generating revenue.

I just find ads annoying, that’s why I use an adblocker. But it‘s not stealing when i’m getting served ads while consuming free content.

[hirako2000]

it's stealing because you aren't explicitly told how the provider is and will be using tactics to take (not ask for) your attention from you, nor an estimated mental cost associated with it. it's like paying for a service with a credit card, without being told how much will be charged. except that this is attention, not money at their disposal.

I recall when YouTube had no ads at all. then placed ad clip somewhere in the video with a very clear yellow bar showing when the ad was coming along with a visual countdown a few seconds before the ad would kick in. then all content would have ad placement and less clear became the yellow indicator.

now? Two ads in row, no indicator, no countdown, and ads randomly kick at the begging at the video and/or randomly throughout. see what's happening there, an incremental increase of even more so difficult to anticipate attention grabs.

we have wagons of top engineers and psychology graduate paid great money to manipulate billions of people into watching ads.

you could say nobody is forcing people to watch YouTube, but given how it subtly increasingly used dark patterns to show up more ads and doing so at each step of the fact they gained more market share all the way to quasi monopoly, it is shocking we still have to explain on HN threads that ads are nepharious, not just a mere way to generate revenue free of charge for everyone.