[livueta]

> what gave you the idea that you're entitled to consume for free content that other people payed to produce and host?

The fact that their HTTP server replied 200 OK. If they want to put up a paywall or use a different protocol they're totally free to do so, but permission was inherently granted by the act of serving the content.

Acting like anyone who views a webpage has any obligations regarding how they render or reproduce it is like putting a barbecue on the side of the road with a free sign on it after hiding a bill inside, then getting mad when you don't get paid. Trying to tack on riders that fundamentally alter the mechanics of the underlying protocol is fundamentally invalid.

[Aerroon]

You're right, permission was given. Your browser also gave all of that data to the webserver and happily shows you that ad. Both sides were voluntary.

[livueta]

In the case of an incorrectly configured browser, sure, but definitely not mine - which is the whole point. Once freely offered, conditions can't be imposed on use. If you don't want my browser to render content as it sees fit, don't serve the content over a protocol where that dynamic is inherent.

The reason very few actually take that route is because they want to have their cake and eat it too: the openness of www/http but the monetizability of AOL-esque pseudointernet schemes. If a publisher wants to fuck off to corponet with blackjack, hookers, DRM and WEI they're more than free to do so, but traffic may not follow them. Mine certainly won't.

[chii]

> If you don't want my browser to render content as it sees fit, don't serve the content over a protocol where that dynamic is inherent.

to play the devil's advocate, this is why google proposed the WEI (https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...). Be careful what you wish for...

[sershe]

I think the above comment is spot on, the level of hypocrisy here is quite off the charts. With "protocol" defense, would you view the content with adblock if the browser displayed a gate screen (that adblock didn't block - e.g. a separate page with a custom one-time link to content) saying "by viewing the content I created you consent to view ads. Yes / no" - yes serves HTTP 200 with no enforcement. You could argue "yes serves HTTP 200, protocol yada yada, they should have blocked it", but how, other than the amount of property lost, is it really different from e.g. someone jumping into your car when you step out for 10 seconds and driving away cause hey, you should have locked it?

I also use adblock, but I'm honest with myself - ads suck, and I'm a dick who doesn't care about most content creators. If they ask for money (e.g. on Substack), I pay them or stop reading them. If they use ads I block them cause I don't care. Kinda like speeding on a highway - probably not a right thing to do, oh well if they catch me I'll pay a fine... no need to invent some bogus defense about how speed limits are wrong.