[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.

[charcircuit]

>No, because that's illegal.

But why is it illegal if it's physically possible for you to take it? By your line of reasoning it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

>You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer.

That's an implementation detail of how the webpage works and does not matter. You are focusing too much on the way it's implemented and not the high level picture of how it works. If you have to get to the point of describing the HTTP protocol to justify why what you are doing is moral, you need to realize that you are just coming up with a justification for your actions to not feel bad about doing bad things. You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience.

[const_cast]

> That's an implementation detail of how the webpage works and does not matter.

Lol, not bending over and letting whoever the fuck run whatever the fuck programs on my computer is an "implementation detail".

> You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience.

This is so, so obviously wrong it's actually frustrating I have to reply to this level of rhetoric.

Once again, I am not your accountant. It is not my responsibility to make sure your business model makes sense.

I don't have the time to babysit and hand hold every corporation in my life and make sure their business model makes sense. I just don't, and it's not my responsibility.

If your business model relies solely on me allowing you to run potential malware on my computer, then that is YOUR problem. Not mine. Figure it out, or don't. Youre always allowed to go bankrupt. Not every business model is viable.

You are not entitled to a viable business model. You are not God. If your business model doesn't work, then you lose. Too bad, so sad, not my fucking problem.

And on the topic of money: running ads on my computer is a computer system security problem.

The FBI recommends running an aggressive ad blocker. The reality is most ads are basically malware and often literally malware. They can be phishing, linking to malicious sites. They can be deceptive. They can be spyware, collecting information about my computer, identity, or web browsing activity.

Google, Meta, et. all have demonstrated they simply do not take adequate steps to prevent malicious advertisement payloads.

You do not have a god-given right to run software on my computer, but you CERTAINLY don't have a god-given right to run malware on my computer.

If you disagree, take it up with the FBI, I don't care.

[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.