Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwmerrill | Hacker News Reader

> using an Ad Blocker and viewing content is theft.

Here's a different POV. Using an ad blocker is not theft: it's a negotiation.

When I click on a link to your site from a site like HN, I have not implicitly agreed to whatever terms you would like to impose on me. I can't even really know them ahead of time.

Instead, I'm sending my User Agent to negotiate fetching some resources. If I decline to fetch your ads, you can feel free to decline to serve me your content. Or you can give the content to me anyway. Your choice.

View on HN

Really? What header does your browser send to my server informing me that you are blocking ads so that I know to deny you my content?

X-Advertisements: None

Which ad blockers provide for that header being sent? I've never seen it before and I can't find any information on it. Did you just make it up?

My answer was to your question:

"What header does your browser send to my server informing me that you are blocking ads so that I know to deny you my content?"

1. "Did you just make it up?" -> No.

2. "Which ad blockers provide for that header being sent?" -> Use a plugin in Firefox to set custom headers

3. Do website honor my header? -> Not yet.

Response 1: whether this question already has a technical answer that you find satisfying does not affect whether using an ad blocker is theft.

Response 2: a few sites are already popping up messages asking you to turn off your ad blocker, which is at least a partial existence proof.

Response 3: if you want to know whether I got your ads, use cookies or make the request url unique to me, and then check that your ad servers served the appropriate requests before allowing your content servers to serve me content.

But seriously, I shouldn't be required to solve all these problems for you as a user in order to not be called a thief. If you want a more explicit contract, then require a log in. If that adds too much friction, invent a better a better solution.

*Edited to remove the inflammatory suggestion to go out of business if you refuse to negotiate.

So, your viewpoint boils down to either I allow my content to be viewed solely on your terms or I go out of business.

Sounds like the type of negotiation the mob engages in. But, hey, as long as you get what you want, I guess it is ok.

I edited my response because I realized it was inflammatory. But to be clear, my viewpoint is that the client/server and viewer/publisher relationship is a negotiation. The publisher should make content available under terms they find acceptable, and the user should be free to refuse to view things that they find unacceptable.

I don't think it's right that publishers seem to view me showing up at their front door as carte blanche to abuse my network and system resources to the full extent that JavaScript allows. And I think it's wrong to characterize user pushback as theft. Other kinds of "theft" are criminal behavior. Pick better terms.

That's actually how all businesses work. If the terms of business aren't acceptable to your users, you lose the users and your business will fail.

Adverts are non-consensual hijacking of users resources, so you could argue that advertisers are committing theft. You're welcome to use a paywall on your site, or hide content from people using adblockers if you want to negotiate from your side.

That's pretty much the sum of it. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that. It's how markets work. You provide something of value, and someone purchases it, or you provide something of no value, and the market refuses to buy it.

You make an interesting point about visiting a site that you are unfamiliar with.

But, for that really to be an equitable negotiation, IMO, these ad-blockers should send a header that informs the content provider that they will be blocking ads and the site can choose whether or not to serve them content.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com