[BFay]

If web ads were more like newspaper ads, I think I would find them more agreeable.

Newspaper ads don't animate and distract me from what I'm reading. When I flip to a different page in the paper I don't have to "wait ten seconds" to start reading. I've never had an ad spontaneously appear in front of the newspaper article I'm reading.

Newspaper ads don't track me, and no matter how sketchy the ad is, it doesn't put me a couple of clicks away from installing malware on my computer.

[kbenson]

I agree that ads are annoying and unpalatable, but I don't think that absolves consumers from behavior that I see as a clear responsibility of consumers to uphold their side of the bargain. We have content providers, that choose a business model that allows them to provide content without requiring payment as long as there is advertising. We then have consumers taking this content and automatically removing said advertisements. When the terms of a deal are seen as disadvantageous, it's the right of either party to not enter into that transaction. It is not their right to renege on their side of the transaction while receiving the benefit from the other party.

I understand many people do not see this as a contract between the consumer and the content provider. I just haven't heard a justification for why it's not that I can agree with. To me, it clearly is.

[click170]

I'm sorry but I just can't sympathize.

Imagine a newspaper trying to go after someone for not reading the ads in the news paper, or for cutting the ads out before reading the paper.

That's what you sound like to the rest of us.

When my browser asks for a page from your webserver, I'm under no obligation to render or even receive the packets that you send back to me. If you seek further guarantees or protections I encourage you to find a different medium.

[kbenson]

> When my browser asks for a page from your webserver, I'm under no obligation to render or even receive the packets that you send back to me.

Of course, just as if you receive mail you are under no obligation to read it. But I'm not talking about that level. I'm talking about the contract the consumer and the content provider have. You either believe there is one or you don't. I believe there's a reason that the content provider is giving me content, and it's not out of the goodness of their heart. What reason is that, and what strings are attached?

[marrs]

How can you possibly believe that there is a contract. If I send you a link to an article I think you might like, and you click on it, do you really believe that in doing so you have just agreed to whatever Terms & Conditions are waiting for you on the other side of that link?

Just to be clear, you haven't.

[kbenson]

No, I don't believe the loading of a website automatically confirms my agreement with the terms of a contract. On the other hand, when the contract is made clear, if I take what is offered then I believe I am bound to the terms. Inthe case of website advertising, it's ambiguous, which allows people to hand-wave it away, but not so ambiguous that you can't realize you are taking something without having to pay the costs. So who's paying the costs? There is an implied contract[1] when you take services from someone who expects compensation in some form.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract