[randunel]

The websites you speak of don't get to decide what my hardware and my software does when running in my hands. Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.

[nobody9999]

>Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.

Alternatively, they can also refuse to serve you their content unless you turn off your ad blocker. Which would be fine. It is their content they're hosting after all.

And it's also fine for you to decide not to turn off your ad blocker and not view their content.

[freehorse]

There are some that do this and I also think it is fair. I just close the website and do not view the content. Nobody is forced to either serve or be served so I do not see what is the problem to be discussed here.

I wonder why not many websites do this """adblocking freeloaders""" is such a big issue?

[charcircuit]

That's why the parent said it was a social contact based on the honor system. Just because you can technically block ads, it doesn't meant it's the right thing to do.

[kergonath]

It is not a social contract. They track me whether I use their services or not, on websites that are completely unrelated. I do not get a choice, not to mention the monopolies they built (yeah, fuck YouTube). These ads eat up my resources and affect my battery life.

There is no more honour involved as when someone pays the mob for protection. I strongly reject this argument. I am bound by honour but they can do anything and change the contract unilaterally? Fuck them, that’s no contract at all.

[charcircuit]

Your choice is to stop giving that place traffic.

[bigfudge]

When sites like these host a large part of our culture, I think it’s reasonable to think about non compliance because the alternative is essentially to become a digital hermit and not to be able to understand the world one is in. I never agreed to have all public spaces for Dr age ad-supported, for example. These illegal monopolies have made it impossible to talk to large chunks of the population without either watching ads or using an ad blocker. That feels wrong.

[charcircuit]

Just because a place hosts culture, it doesn't mean that you are entitled for it. For example new movies are pay of culture, but that doesn't mean you should sneak in to a theater without buying a ticket because every movie theater requires paying. Compensating creators for their work is a part of experiencing creative works that are culturally relevant.

[account42]

The US constitution absolutely does recognize that the public is entitled to all cultural works, which is why copyright is required to be time limited.

[const_cast]

Yes, or alternatively: use an ad blocker.

Their software is running on my computer. I decide what scripts I want or don't, and I can and will block whatever the fuck with impunity.

If they can't prevent that, or it's too expensive, or they don't care, that's not my problem. That's a business problem. Its not my business. I don't care.

Its like getting a free sample at Costco and then taking it home and throwing it away. That's my right. I can do that if I want.

If you want to run software on my computer, you play by my rules. That means an ad blocker. If you don't like that then figure it out. I'm not gonna figure it out for you.

[charcircuit]

No one is saying ad blocking is not technically possible. Wanting everyone to play by your rules is selfish and doesn't acknowledge the needs of others.

>Its like getting a free sample at Costco and then taking it home and throwing it away. That's my right. I can do that if I want.

It's also like stealing a TV from Costco. Just because you technically can pick up a TV and then bring it to your car without paying and drive off, doesn't mean you should do it. It's unfair to Costco for them to play by your rules.

[const_cast]

> Wanting everyone to play by your rules is selfish and doesn't acknowledge the needs of others.

I'm not wanting anything, I'm telling you literally they are playing by my rules.

They are requesting to run scripts on my computer. It is my computer. If I say no, then the answer is no.

This is merely a request from them. I can abide, and I often will, but I have absolutely no moral, technical, or legal obligation to do so.

> I's also like stealing a TV from Costco.

No, because that's illegal.

You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer. I can deny that request.

If you don't like that, then don't allow me access. It is my responsibility, solely, to decide what scripts are running on my computer.

If Google asked you to download heartbleed and run it, you wouldn't do it, would you? Great, so you understand the concept.

The disconnect here is you believe I am entitled. And I am - I am entitled to deciding what runs on my computer.

You are not entitled to run arbitrary code on my computer because your business model requires it. I'm not your accountant, figure it out.

[kergonath]

That’s the thing: I cannot. The whole web is infested with their trackers and their ads.

And there is no alternative to YouTube, for example, including for videos that were uploaded before they went completely overboard with ads.

So no, I am not giving up on my ad blockers.

[charcircuit]

>The whole web is infested with their trackers and their ads.

This is an exaggeration. There are ad free alternatives.

>And there is no alternative to YouTube

Youtube has a subscription you can pay for no ads. There other video sites who charge a subscription instead of offering ads too.

[kergonath]

> This is an exaggeration. There are ad free alternatives.

Again, their (mostly Google and Facebook’s, but there are many companies tracking me with whom I never had direct contact) trackers are all over the web and I see them in the blocked list very regularly on websites that have nothing to do with them.

> Youtube has a subscription you can pay for no ads. There other video sites who charge a subscription instead of offering ads too.

Yeah, cool. They changed their terms of use, and I changed mine. Happy to negotiate when they are available.

[oneshtein]

This is exactly what my ad blocker does.

[charcircuit]

Ad blockers typically only block ads, and not the website too. That way people can experience content for free without compensating the creator hy giving them an ad impression.

[kelnos]

That is one choice. Another is to use an ad blocker.

[ryandrake]

It's not any kind of contract. A contract (even an unwritten "social" one) implies at the very least some kind of agreement, some meeting of the minds. There is no meeting of the minds on the web: Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content," then the server says, "Here's what I'd like you to show," and finally the browser decides what out of that stream of bytes gets shown. There's no agreement by the user in that conversation, not even an implied one. The site can decide whether or not to reply, whether or not to send anything, and the user agent then decides what to show. There's no contract.

[charcircuit]

>Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content,"

The technical details do not matter. Social contacts are about societal expectations, not about your personal ones. Do you think a thief has a meeting of the minds about not stealing something from a shop keeper? It's not the theifs world view that matters here. Similar to your example the physics of the world say it's possible for a human to pick up an item without paying for it, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

[ryandrake]

I disagree that there is a societal expectation in this case. If I request HackerNews, it will start sending me bytes. There is no societal expectation around what I do with those bytes. Maybe I'll have my browser render them as-is. Maybe I'll strip out the HTML and render them as plain text in a green 80x24 terminal. Maybe I'll drop every second character and print out the result as wall art.

Or (back on topic) when I'm watching cable TV and they send an ad over the wire. There's no societal expectation that I watch that ad. I could hit the mute button. I could get up to take a piss or grab a beer. I could record the broadcast and watch it later, fast forwarding through the ads.

This is not like a store where there's a clear societal expectation that I don't go in and rob them. I don't think anyone would equate leaving the sofa during a commercial with robbery.

[charcircuit]

>There is no societal expectation around what I do with those bytes

Yes, there is. If you had a group of 100 people and asked what google.com should look like and showed them how Chrome renders the page and your 80x24 modification does that all 100 would say that yours is not expected. You are still too hung up on these technical details of how things are implemented than how the average person thinks of these things.

[kelnos]

A consensus answer to "what should google.com look like?" does not suggest or imply any sort of "social contract".

There is not, and has never been, a social contract that says I have to look at the ads served with any website. If you think there is, then I'm sorry, but you're sorely mistaken.

Similarly, there is no social contract that says I have to watch commercials while I'm watching TV (not that I've watched linear TV in over a decade, but...). I can mute it, change the channel, go to the bathroom, whatever. If you think there is, then I'm not sure what to tell you; your opinions on this are so outside the mainstream that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

[throwawaygmbno]

All 100 would agree that the website looks better without ads, unless their paycheck came from them.

And those that disagreed would still think it in their heads.

[JoshTriplett]

We are all very fortunate that the world is not limited to what the average person thinks things should be like.

[BrenBarn]

If there is no meeting of minds, why are you going to websites? You go to websites to see information that was in someone else's mind and load it into your mind.

[ffsm8]

The social contract was broken by the website owner by including ads.

[charcircuit]

Even if so, while I disagree, two wrongs don't make a right.

[JoshTriplett]

You are pushing your opinion of it being "wrong" as though it were something objective. You are acting as though others are choosing to do something "wrong", rather than that they do not believe it to be wrong in the first place.

[kelnos]

There has never in the history of the internet been a social contract that says to be a good netizen you have to look at the ads a website displays.

Attempting to normalize such a thing is disgusting.

[sexeriy237]

no ads = no malware