I implemented DNSSEC + DNSCrypt just for sake of it too.
For example (should work on any router with iptables/ipset):
https://github.com/RMerl/asuswrt-merlin/wiki/Using-ipset
https://github.com/RMerl/asuswrt-merlin/wiki/Disable-Windows...
http://www.snbforums.com/threads/adblocking-with-combined-ho...
You can't whitelist sites which you would want to support, and if the site doesn't load up because something is being blacklisted it's quite a hassle to debug it not to mention make the actual change.
I did use to port the ADBplus list for privoxy and IPtables blacklist on my pfsense but it ended up making very little sense to do so, especially when ublock came around and pretty much made any browser performance / memory consumption arguments irrelevant.
OpenDNS has some functionality which allows you to also do some adblocking on your end, but then ofc you leak everything to them (and CISCO these days).
I don't know if it's still the case but Comedy Central's video player was atrocious, the video wouldn't play unless it successfully played an ad but ads just straight up failed to load 30/40% of the time so you had to refresh, watch an ad to get to the video controls, scan back to your place, watch another ad because you crossed a 'commercial break' point, have that fail 10 minutes later, and repeat. The whole experience was awful and lead to me just scraping the site for the direct steam link and eventually just deciding that Jon Stewart wasn't worth it.
This is the key takeaway here
HBO is following a vastly saner path with John Oliver, whose videos simply appear on YouTube. I'm not generally a fan of single-vendor consolidation, but if:
1. Video providers aren't going to directly provide media and...
2. YouTube Just Works (including via scrapers such as youtube-dl), well, then so it goes.
NB: ytdl also hits a ton of other sites, including Vimeo and The Internet Archive (which, truth told supports direct download and streaming, but ytdl is in finger memory now). Those that Just Work will be utilised.
How exactly do most ad-blockers work? Are they searching the DOM and blocking elements from showing? Or can they see that there are asychronous requests being made from JavaScript to known ad networks?
I'm musing out loud here, but take for instance the Sydney Morning Herald - the sheer number of trackers is extraordinary. The full load of just the main page, and images are reasonably light, is about 8MB... and there are literally dozens of trackers.
How do ad-blockers prevent these from appearing?
By blocking the request from happening, we can truly say that an Content Blocker on iOS (for instance) speeds up the browsing experience because the request isn't even initiated.
But it is just another game of cat and mouse. Malware already register new domains on the fly. Advertisers will simply do the same. Keeping these host files updated won't be easy.
I used a skull and crossbones instead so in place of any ad I had a pirate flag instead.
I forgot the name of the program that did that, it was like some sort of firewall that redirected to 127.0.0.1 and ran a web server that served up any image I wanted for the picture.
I used to add IP addresses to my hosts file to block advertising sites as well.
Now I just use uBlock but they can detect that.
I don't mind advertising as much as long as it doesn't get annoying with pop-ups and other crap. It should not, for example, open up another browser window for me to display an ad.
Huh, how hard would it be to check via JS if a layer ad really was shown?
Do you want servers to figure out that you're blocking ads at the network level, and tell each other not to serve to your IP? Because it is a lot less wrong for them to do it - they have a lot more right to do it, if it's in their TOS - than for you to recraft their content so that you're only making http requests to contents, but not their ads. It's like going grocery shopping for milk and sugar at restaurants and coffee places, i.e. because they have it out 'for free'. you might say, hey, they're making it available for free, it's not your fault if they have a broken business model. But it's their right whether they want you there.
The analogy isn't perfect, it's quite leaky, so let's get back to the technical facts here. The cat and mouse game is between a server wanting to serve content as well as ads, and some consumers wanting to recraft the requests so their clients/browsers do not load ads. Since ultimately the server has what the users want, for example articles, and the business model is some limited part of the attention of the user, I don't see this ending well for users who want to consumer the content but do not share any part of their attention with ads. It's just not going to work out.
Playing cat-and-mouse with a server's ad-block detector and with its choice not to serve users who block its ads is going too far. It would be as though the server requested the user the actively agree on a screen, to seeing tasteful on-topic and non-intrusive ads, and the user must agree to continue: only to have an ad-blocker remove that screen but send the message "I agree to see advertising and promise to add this site to the whitelist" without doing so, as a lie and a forgery. While this would technically circumvent this measure, it is ridiculous for an ad-blocker to forge that agreement. (I am making an off-topic analogy, this is not related to what is happening now.)
Likewise, this is going too far. It is morally wrong and technically stupid to go down this rabbit-hole, because technically, legally, and morally it leads to exactly what I have described. Let's stop here.
I'm not at all surprised that most people want to opt-out of being stalked :-)
If you decided to rely on such an unreliable platform for an important business decision, that's your problem.
edit:
If you want to actually enforce a transaction where content is delivered only if the ads are included, that's what contracts are for. Use them. This was a solved problem several hundred years ago.
This idea that you get to make up contract-like requirements without actually negotiating and agreeing to them is nonsense.
If the offer is "this content, plus ads", and you don't want ads, your option is to say "I'll get the content somewhere else", or say "I'll get this content, but I don't want the ads". If they then say "no, sorry, we really mean it about the ads" why would you want to continue to get the content from them? They've shown that they don't care about you.
The users may mix and match the content however they like as long as they don't redistribute it in a way that infringes copyright. It's kind of a mixtape of digital content for personal use: it's totally fine to interleave stuff from HN and Twitter, if I feel like that today. And while I'm at it, I just may skip the ads.
Companies post ads because because they believe that some people will read them, and that promise is enough to generate money. That valuation is between them and the clients to whom they are selling ad space, and places no obligation on me. If at some point that business model becomes unprofitable, they can pick a different one.
And spam email is unsolicited, as in email you receive without consent from an entity you've got no relationship with. Not sure what argument you're trying to make, but requesting a URL that then serves ads does not qualify.
Also, by blocking countermeasures to ad-blocking, we've gone from gray area to illegal because of the anti-circumvention laws. This is going to be fun.
Now when we get down to the technical level with HTTP, yes, you can make requests and the server can answer them. The basic idea of ad-blocking must be OK, I think. I mean you can't force someone to ask for images from an ad server. running a hosts file and so forth must be fine, in my opinion.
But that's not what we're discusisng now. We are now talking about tampering with a server's software that it's trying to use to see if you block ads, in order to trick the server into serving you contents that, based on the fact that you are running an ad-blocker, the server has chosen not to serve you. I really do think this is too much.
The analogy is either a serious misunderstanding of how the internet and web browsers work, or is a deliberate attempt to confuse these concepts.
> Why shouldn't I be allowed to vandalize a billboard
Because it's not your property. If you order a billboard and have it shipped to your house, you can do what you want to it.
> tampering with a server's software
What are you smoking? Do you not understand that a userscript runs on the client? The server isn't involved at all after it sends the HTML and JS files.
What makes you think you have a right to run software on my computer? You don't - I'll run whatever software I want on my computer. It's your business if you want to send me a page, of course. Just like it's my decision if I want to run some program.
> What makes you think you have a right to run software on my computer?
What makes you think you have the right to consume the content I worked hard to create for free?
Just because you can hide ads, or sneak into a concert to listen and consume that content, it doesn't make it morally permissible. Do you think you should be able to sneak into a theater and watch a movie for free? Should you be entitled to that? This really isn't any different. And here's why:
These content creators and publishers are creating their content with the expectation that people will view the ads right along side the content, and they will make money. It's an inherent expectation. So once you hide those ads, you are making an effort to cheat the content creator. It's just become so ubiquitous to web browsing that you actually think it should be "the norm" and that you're on some moral high ground here. You aren't and I'm flabbergasted that intelligent people actually think this way. Either hackernews has changed within the last year or two, or it's demographic has gotten a lot younger over the years.
From my experience most people are fine with ads, they want to support the content creators. What they're up in arms about, is "intrusive" ads. That is completely understandable. However, this fight now has become about all ads in general, and I have to take a stand there because I understand how content subsidization works. Without ads, there would be no internet. At least, not in its current form. It would be a vastly different place, and not one I'd be eager to see.
I don't! Misrepresenting my position is not a good way to argue.
Unlike your offensive concert and movie analogies, I am not advocating breaking into a server to copy content. Requests are made to the server, and you can choose to send me data or not.
Also, just because you worked hard at something doesn't mean that it has value. Why do you think you have a right to be paid regardless of what the market says your content is worth?
> This really isn't any different.
Only in your self-entitled world.
> Without ads, there would be no internet. At least, not in its current form.
Yes, thank you very much - that's the goal.
> It would be a vastly different place, and not one I'd be eager to see.
I'm sorry you have such a limited view of the world. There is more to the world than profit motive.
I don't think you're doing much critical thinking here. You don't seem to realize just how much innovation is directly the result of advertisements. You get rid of advertisements entirely and about 90% of the internet (perhaps more) goes with it. We're talking companies like youtube, facebook, google, poof gone. These are companies where their entire revenue streams are ad revenue. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Once google is gone, who are you going to use to search the web?
I challenge you to consider the full implication of that statement. I fear you're not following that logic all the way through to its logical conclusion, you're only looking at the short term goal of "Yay no more ads". without considering the butterfly effect it would have.
I think you're seeing what you want to see. I have been thinking about this problem - and have had these arguments about on the internet - for over 20 years. Just because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean they haven't thought about it.
> facebook, google, poof gone
You say that like it's a bad thing. The one regret I have in life is giving some of the top people at Facebook their first programming lessons many years ago. The damage that company has cause - and is still causing - is incredible.
> youtube
Funny you mention that. There is quite a bit of content on youtube I would miss.
For example, I've watched a lot of Minecraft-based shows over the last five years. While that worked ok being funded by ads for a while, youtube basically decided a couple years ago that they don't care about the people that use their service to publish their content[1].
Today, most of the people that previously relied on youtube for income are now branching out to other funding models. I've bought tshirts from some (which easily gives them more money than they would have gottene from me watching their ads). Others have moved to the subscription models available at twitch.tv, while others have been very successful asking their audience for funds (patron).
> I challenge you
I challenge you to coinsider that this isn't some poorly-though-though whim, and to expand your thinking about the internet and publishing. Ads are only one way of funding content creation. I'd even bet we haven't even thought of the best methods yet.
[1] a good discussion of one of the first big screwups that youtube did to alienate publishers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1ubSVMwaw
You do realize that the internet and even the web existed way before all of those companies, right? And while you might not have been around then, it was great back then. Not saying some things haven't improved, but all things considered, I think we would be better off if none of them had ever existed.
> Once google is gone, who are you going to use to search the web?
Another search engine?
And just how popular was the internet back then?
> And while you might not have been around then, it was great back then.
I'm in my 30s, I definitely was around then.
> it was great back then.
But clearly you weren't. The internet today is AMAZING compared to how it was in the late 90s. Spending 5 minutes to load up a single web page? No thanks. You also couldn't watch videos (can barely load a gif in a reasonable amount of time) and there wasn't many people. A 5mb MP3? Yep, took a half hour to download. Streaming? Hahaha. Yeah, didn't exist. Except for maybe real player. But only if you were lucky and had a 56k modem, and even then, spotty at best.
I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The internet in the 90s sucked compared to today.
> Another search engine?
Who is going to want to run a search engine for free? You forget, you just killed off 90% of the revenue of the internet by killing ads. How would a search engine make money? More importantly, who would want to fund the creation of a search engine that wouldn't make any money?
Erm ... non sequitur?
> Spending 5 minutes to load up a single web page? No thanks. You also couldn't watch videos (can barely load a gif in a reasonable amount of time) and there wasn't many people. A 5mb MP3? Yep, took a half hour to download. Streaming? Hahaha. Yeah, didn't exist. Except for maybe real player. But only if you were lucky and had a 56k modem, and even then, spotty at best.
And what does that have to do with any of the mentioned companies? None of them are in the telco semiconductor/equipment business, as far as I can see. And all of that is pretty much exclusively about transmission speed.
> I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The internet in the 90s sucked compared to today.
I think I did mention that some things improved, right? What totally did not improve is the openness and privacy, which I both value far higher than transmission speed--and the erosion of both has to do all with the companies you mentioned. Also, I don't see how improving transmission speed would depend on losing openness and privacy.
> Who is going to want to run a search engine for free?
1. Who is running a search engine for free now?
2. Who said it had to be free?
3. Who is "running" streets "for free"?
4. Who was "running" Linux for free before Google came around and built their business on it?
And as you point out, I must first request the information. So I request a URL to a webpage and receive and HTML+CSS+JS document, containing more URLs which, via adblock, I decide not to follow or make more HTTP requests to. Similarly, the page has JS code which my browser may decide not to execute, or CSS elements which the browser may, at my request, decide not to display. Pretty sure all of the at is well within my right.
What a huge sense of self-entitlement. Your rights as a publisher do not extend to my computer and what I do with the data after you send it to me. You may request that I run some software with a <script> tag, or request that I download an image with an <img> tag, but if you want to guarantee any of those things you better get me to agree to a contract first.
It isn't vandalism when someone modifies something you gave them. Vandalism is a criminal charge - are you also going to claim I'm a criminal if I use some scissors to cut ads out of a magazine after receiving it in the mail?
> illegal
What law, exactly, are you claiming is being violated?
A script that detects if I don't download an ad is not DRM, and a TOS posted somewhere on the website is absolutely not a contract.
But the content itself isn't yours. You are not entitled to view that content. The creator put it up with the expectation that people would/will be viewing the ads right along side the content. It's that expectation and assumption that supersedes everything else.
It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. I say it's load of rubbish. The content creators (publishers) are the ones who get to dictate terms, end of story. You're not paying anything to consume that content and you didn't create it, so your "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all). You're entitled to absolutely nothing.
Let me ask you a question: If instead, a website says "I have this content you want to see. In order to view it, you must view this ad first. Click "Yes" to accept and view the ad. Click "No" to go back to Google.com." is that any different to you? It shouldn't be. Also, that's where the internet is headed if more people adopt your entitled mentality. If I'm a publisher, I'd be doing something similar. No, if I were a publisher, I'd be trying to get all the big name publishers/advertisers to do that too. They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. :P
Correct. I never said it was mine. That still doesn't give you rights over what software I run on my computer.
> You are not entitled to view that content
Correct. You can choose not to send it to me.
The difficulty you seem to be having is that the you don't seem to understand what your rights are. You can choose not to do business with me. You can also prevent me from distributing extra copies of your work (copyright).
You do not have the right to control how someone uses your work after you hand it over. This is known as the doctrine of first sale[1]. In spite of a lot of people trying to pretend they have rights over how content is used, wishful thinking doesn't create rights contrary to past court decisions.
> expectation
For the 100th time, an expectation is not a contract.
> It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities".
What you call "semantics and 'technicalities'" are the law.
> The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement.
Advertisers and their apologists are trying to cover up years of legal missunderstanding and business models that depend on an incorrect understanding of the alw. It's easier to accuse others of "entitlement" than admiting your business model is going to fail.
Oh, and that "entitlement"? We are entitled to something - the law.
> Let me ask you a question: [click-through model]
Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard).
> It shouldn't be.
But one of those makes a contract, and the other is wishful thinking and in some casses a deliberate attempt to mislead.
If you think that creating a proper contract is too much of a burden and will drive away traffic, then you might want to realize that the market is trying to inform you what the actual value of your "content" is.
> They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works.
Do you really think people simply don't understand this? I've never met anyone who didn't understand that some things currently depend on advertisements for income.
Now when are you going to start understanding how contract law works?
2) Jurisdiction.
When running any piece of software, you can't modify that software unless either its license permits (open source) or otherwise we are talking about copyright infringement. This is usually a take it or leave it thing, as unless the EULA is in conflict with copyright or contract law, then you have to respect it, otherwise you can't use that software. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention
So you know, I don't really understand your argument because nobody is forcing you to load those websites in the first place. It's still a gray area because users don't get proper warning before having those cookies set or before being shown those ads. But then again, we are discussing FuckFuckAdBlock, a circumvention mechanism for websites that block ad-block users with proper warnings.
> Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard).
On one hand the anti-adblock functionality is precisely this, because we are talking about websites that say "Hey Bob, we are ad-supported, so if you want to consume our content, then you have to agree to viewing ads". And you know, for me that seems reasonable. And here we are discussing FuckFuckAdBlock.
But then the far bigger problem is that you want a "proper offer". So basically if you don't receive a proper offer, you're fine with infringing on the publisher's rights. Now given that you've received proper warning of what you're going to receive, how is that in any way justifiable?
So what's that about self-entitlement?
That's offtopic. Some random website does not have the right to force me to run any particular software simply because I requested a page.
> EULA
...is not a contract! (in most cases)
> forcing you to load those websites
Nobody is, and I never claimed anything like that.
> proper offer
I'm saying that publishers don't get to simply invent new law. Contracts have hundreds of years of history, and they require certain elements to be present.
> Infringing on the publisher's rights
No rights are being infringed. You are simply refusing to understand that their rights end after they hand over the content... unless they have a contract that says otherwise. Sorry, but just because you don't like the doctrine of first sale and wish it didn't exist doesn't mean you get to make up "rights".
If I write a creative work, I have the right to not give or sell you a copy, and I have a temporary monopoly granted by the government that gives me the right to decide who can reproduce my work. I absolutely do not have the right to decide what you do with that work (besides making copies) once I hand it to you.
The self-entitlement is on the part of the publishers who want to invent a new right that covers use.
Note that publishers can try to detect adblocking all they want, and use any results of that detection (or lack of results) when they decide if they want to send me anything. The catch is that there is no guarantee that their request that I run a particular script, or that I even have a Javascript environment to run that script in the manner they are expecting. I suggest that it may be a bad idea to base your business model on an unreliable source.
As for "justifiable" - the advertising industry and the publishers that involve themselves with the ad industry are not exactly standing on moral high ground. If they don't like the hard line some of us are taking regarding ads, they should consider why we are doing so. Tracking is a malicious attack. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
You also keep mentioning the doctrine of first sale, but it doesn't apply in the way you think it does. You absolutely do not have the right to do whatever you want after something has been distributed to you and this is because the copyright owner can impose usage limitations on distribution. For example this is why non-commercial agreements in EULAs are legal.
On having an environment that can run the script, the law can distinguish between doing it on purpose versus having technical limitations. You don't have a defense when you cherry pick what Javascript to run on the same webpage.
And as a final note, the moral high ground of publishers is completely irrelevant to the issue of you infringing on their rights. If you don't like the law, then push for changes. Or otherwise vote with your wallet (or eyeballs). Otherwise this is a fallacy used to justify your own immoral actions.
For the 100th time, I'm not running their software. They don't have the right to force me to run any particular software.
Compelling argument there.
> You're not paying anything to consume that content and you didn't create it, so your "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all).
Well, they're not paying me to view their ads, so their "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all).
I don't know if you're being facetious, but it's not an argument, it's a simple fact. If I create a painting, a movie or a song, and I don't want anyone to see those things, that's my choice. If I instead want to charge $20 to see my movie or view my painting, that's also my choice. It's my content, not yours. Therefor, everything with regards to that content is done on my terms.
I mean, I even legally own the content and it's automatically protected by copyright laws. So... I'm not sure what else to say.
> Well, they're not paying me to view their ads, so their "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all).
Huh? Why should you get paid at all? Did you create the content? Did the website come knocking on your door? No, you went to its door, and you want to view its content.
Do you think you should get paid for watching regular TV because there are commercials between breaks of your favorite show? Of course not. Because those ads pay for the show. That's right. That toothpaste commercial that aired during the 3 minute break of The Big Bang Theory paid for the show. That's where the phrase "The big bang theory was brought to you by...." you hear at the end of TV shows comes from.
Much the same, the ads on websites pay for the content in a similar way. It's absolutely shocking how people don't understand this concept. They actually believe all this stuff is and should be free to them. Wow, just wow.
You seem to have a poor understand of how this works. This is understandable, because a lot of people use incorrect terms like "intellectual property". Creative works are not "property", because they are not a scarce resource. The entire concept of "property" rights is an attempt to solve the problem that two people cannot use the same scarce good.
Freaking out when other people reuse your ideas - which are infinitely copyable without depriving anyone of their copy - is a childish reaction. However, to "promote the sciences and useful arts", we invented a government-granted temporary monopoly on certain types of creative works (which we call "copyright" and "patent"). These monopolies do not create "property"; they merely grant you the exclusive right to sell or distribute a given idea for a period of time.
> I even legally own the content
No, you don't. You have a copyright on some creative works. This copyright creates a few rights related to distribution/etc. It does not create "property". These temporary monopolies follow an entirely different set of laws than property rights. For specific information on those laws, I suggest talking to an actual lawyer.
> the ads on websites pay for the content
You've repeated this a lot in this thread. I guarantee you that nobody here misunderstands this point, or is confused where the funding for some websites (or TV shows, etc) currently comes form.
> They actually believe all this stuff is and should be free to them.
Making up straw-man opponents is an easy way to argue, and helps you avoid cognitive dissonance. It might help if you stop ascribing the intentions you think some of us have, and start listening to the facts we're trying to tell you.
I have suggested alternative ways of funding (ads are only one way to fund creative works). I have also tried to explain that there is a difference between your distribution rights, and what someone can do with your creative works once you hand them over.
You must get really annoyed at the very-large number of people that use Tivos to skip commercials on the TV they watch. That is their right. Technology has simply advanced far enough that the average person can start exercising their rights to consume the creative content however they want.
Unfortunately, quite a few people have been ignoring our warnings over the last 20+ years that these advances in technology are probably going to change certain business models that relied on people not skipping commercials. These changes in technology also enable new business models, including some that nobody has even thought of yet because the internet is still "new".
Some people (Netflix is a canonical example) have explored new business models and have adapted well to the new market landscape. Others... have not. I suggest exploring new business ideas in your endeavors - I'm sure there are ways you can adapt.
On the other hand, if you insist on following this incorrect model of the world where you make up contract law and legal obligations, and pretend ideas are property, you are going to have a harder and harder time. This is a fact of the market, not a cry for "free stuff".
That's a strawman argument.
> What law, exactly, are you claiming is being violated?
A good summary is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention
> A script that detects if I don't download an ad is not DRM
Except that such a script is DRM by definition.
No it isn't. Running an adblocker is exactly instructing my computer to use scissors and cut out the ads from the page. What is the difference in your opinion?
To make it easier to compare, assume I am Trump/Koch wealthy, and I ask my butler Jeeves to cut the ads out of every newspaper I receive. Did I or Jeeves vandalize or violate any law? Now, times have changed, and JeevesBot is a robot rather than a person. Does that qualify as vandalism or violation? And now the newspaper has been replaced with an on-line one, and JeevesBot has been replaced by AdBlockPlus. How is it any different? How is it a strawman?
> Except that such a script is DRM by definition.
The DMCA requires an "effective" DRM. I'm not sure if there is a body of law about what constitutes "effectiveness", but I'd be surprised if "please show this ad" can be considered "an effective DRM.
Furthermore, the DMCA does NOT prohibit me from editing e.g. DVDs - it just prohibits me from distributing those edited copies. And all AdBlockPlus does is edit pages so that they are more to my liking - just as my user CSS does, and as my preselected fonts do.
I think your interpretation of the law is wishful thinking. It's not that DRM/DMCA cannot be, in some form, used to make some forms of ad blocking illegal. I suspect it can. But I am also quite sure that DMCA does not apply to web advertising (and ad blocking) as they are practiced today.
They can include a contract thingy before showing the content for the first time if they want. If I intentionally agree to not block ads, I don't think I'm going to violate that agreement.
But I haven't made an agreement like that, so my choice to allow ads to run is not due to any obligation.
I choose not to block ads, indeed, partially so that the websites receive payment. (perhaps partially also due to laziness though) But I also "defend" (insofar as my comments on the internet can do so) the right to block ads if one so chooses, and has not explicitly made an agreement not to.
In the same way that a person who views a donation funded website is not obligated to donate, hoping instead that it will be funded by other people who donate, a person who views a website which is ad supported is not obligated to view the ads, hoping instead that other people (such as myself) will view the ads.
Ads are* a donation, not a purchase.
*in the absence of a contract
edit: also I disable 3rd party cookies
I vehemently disagree. Ads subsidize the content you consume. Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story. Most of the web is directly or indirectly funded by ads. Just like local radio stations and public/local TV stations have their programs/content funded by advertisers. It's the exact same thing. If everyone (100% of the population) was able to skip watching or listening to those ads, then advertisers would no longer advertise and there would be no content because nobody is paying for it, or footing the bill.
And people wonder why they call our generation (millennials) "the entitled generation". This is exactly the reason. You truly and honestly believe we're entitled to consume all that content for free. As if that wasn't enough, you have the gall to act like you're doing the content creators a favor by disabling your adblock! I'm actually shocked...
That's one thing the gen-xers and boomers have over us - they understand that nothing is ever free and they never feel entitled to it all. When my grandmother was first shown the internet, I showed her some of her online versions of favorite magazines and sites like youtube. She kept asking me how much it cost to go to those sites and consume that content, and for 2-3 months, she really thought there was some hidden catch, and she expected a bill to arrive in her mailbox. That's the correct mentality to have. She understands the value of the content she's consuming and realizes that nothing is free.
> *in the absence of a contract
The contract is there in play already. Ads are up on a website right along side the content. You have to install software on your own computer to hide or remove those ads. You're actively going out of your way to alter the website's owners property - you made the first move. It's not like the content was already there, then the creator decided one day to put up ads after the fact. It doesn't work like that.
It's just like ads on a TV. In order to watch a TV program, say Fox's Elementary, (just picking a popular show), you have to sit through the ads to watch the full show. If you make an effort to not watch the ads (get up and walk away, shut your eyes, change the channel), you have that right and are free to do it, but don't pretend you're not breaking your "consumer contract" with those shows. They put those ads there in good faith that they'll be seen by the people watching them.
People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future. When there is no money in content subsidization, the content will disappear. And some naive & ignorant people will say that's a good thing, since they'll purchase content à La Carte, but trust me. It's not a good thing. It obliterates innovation and destroys creativity.
Most content producing companies/websites will be swallowed up by consolidation (you can already see this happening as "networks" of websites have been forming, like the Gawker network, etc) while the little guys, bloggers and startups completely disappear as they can no longer pay their hosting bills. Only the Walmarts of web content will be left standing (companies that can afford to run a subscription model). That's a bleak future I want no part of. I'll keep the ads, thank you very much.
1) When was the offer made.
2) When was the understanding of what the contract was about made? (aka "meeting of the minds")
3) Was there a proper exchange of consideration only after the offer and acceptance of that offer was negotiated?
Contracts have a specific format, and they are not in play just because you wish they were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements
Seriously, talk to a lawyer on this - they will laugh at this idea that putting up ads next to your content somehow creates a contract.
> People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future.
First, good - a lot of so-called "content" is junk and isn't worth anything.
Second, if anybody bears the responsibility for "content" disappearing, it's the people that chose a business model based on a misunderstanding of the law.
> Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story.
Sorry, I was using the web (and the rest of the internet) before the plague of ads, and it was not only still full of content, it had a much better signal/noise ratio.
The idea that people only make "web content" with ads is patently incorrect. You know this, because I'm sure you've seen websites without ads. I'm sure you even know about sites like wikipedia that use alternative funding models.
The moment you went to the website. It's like going to someone's house and knocking on the door.
> ) When was the understanding of what the contract was about made? (aka "meeting of the minds")
It is inherent. Just like when you tune-in to watch the Big Bang Theory on TV, you understand that the ads that get played during the show subsidize (sponsor) the content. The internet has been around a long time, pretending this is something new and unknown is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
> ) Was there a proper exchange of consideration only after the offer and acceptance of that offer was negotiated?
You are the solicitor (the website didn't contact you, you went to it) so such an offer and/or acceptance isn't required.
Putting all of that aside, are you suggesting that all websites now put up a landing page which says "You must view the following ad to enter this website. Click yes to continue, click No to go back to google"? Because that's pretty much what you're suggesting. Also, as far as your "contract" is concerned, how do you deal with it when TV programs show you ads? They subsidize the content there in the exact same way. Do you feel entitled to watching the latest episode of Agents of Shield without watching any ads?
Again, you didn't create the content, it's not yours. Why do so many people feel entitled to consume it all for free? It's like if the internet didn't exist, and I walk into a book store and just start piling magazines into my backpack then walk out. Only, instead of the articles being on a piece of paper, they're on my monitor.
> Sorry, I was using the web (and the rest of the internet) before the plague of ads
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. I've been using the internet since 1996 and ads have always been here. The dot.com internet bubble began in 1996. Half the bubble was predicated on the (speculative) popularity and rise of ads. In a way (albeit indirectly), the first internet bubble was due to ads (See here: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Dot-com-ads-make-a-co...).
> full of content
You're either being dishonest or you're deluding yourself if you think there is anywhere near the same amount of content there is today. That's laughable - it's not even comparable. Especially when you consider high speed internet wasn't even a thing yet. It took 3-10 minutes just to download a picture of a naked woman.
The internet back then was a barren wasteland. You forget, there was no youtube, there was no hackernews, there was no facebook ...these are companies that 100% relied on advertisements for their growth. Hell, they still do to this day.
In order for users to be /obligated/ to not block the ads, yeah, basically, but only for the first time the person visits the site, because of cookies and such. Having a single page "do you agree to not block ads displayed on this website?" (but with more precise terms) when going to a website for the first time really isn't that much of an inconvenience I don't think. And if someone wanted to automatically agree to all such agreements of some standard format, I figure something could be worked out there. And, it's not like all sites with ads would have to have a page like this. Only if they wanted users to be /obligated/ to not block ads. A fair number of people (such as myself) will choose not to block ads as their own choice on websites that do not make such an agreement.
> The moment you went to the website. It's like going to someone's house and knocking on the door.
Knocking on someone's door does not constitute an offer to buy a product from them? Not sure what sort of agreement would be made by finding an address of a piece of paper on the ground, and then knocking on the door there. I don't see any reason to expect that a person doing this would be obligated to then go next door to receive a pamphlet if the person who opened the door told them to.
As usual, these problems have already been addressed in contract law. What you are describing is an "invitation to treat", which is specifically not a contract.
Please stop with the nonsense analogies. They really convolute the discussion.
You don't "go" to a website like you go to someone's house. You request a copy of the content on a server and the server sends you the content.
The problem with ads is that they slow down the internet significantly, various try to trick you to install malware (e.g. on sourceforge), often make sites unusable (big huge banners), affect e.g. clicking on text (I have this habit) and moreover they track you personally.
You make it sound "it is just an advertisement" while ignoring all the reasons people block this stuff. It's not about the advertisement; it also includes all the stuff that comes with it!
An adblocker makes for way less malware on a machine and a way speedier browser. That's the reason I install it; not because there's some ads. This is _hugely_ different from "ads on TV". Yet even for TV you have Netflix which seems to be pretty popular.
Wow, I thought this was hackernews, where longer, in-depth comments were welcomed, not insulted. And certainly not used against the person. It's like I'm in the youtube comment section...
> The problem with ads is that they slow down the internet significantly
Irrelevant. Again, without ads, there simply would be no internet at all. You completely underestimate just how much innovation has been the result of ads. Hell, the entire first internet bubble was due to the promise of advertiser money. I suggest you read up a bit on the history of the internet, specifically from 1995-2002.
> You make it sound "it is just an advertisement" while ignoring all the reasons people block this stuff.
That's because OP didn't mention that in their prior comment. The conversation wasn't about that. Otherwise I would have. It was irrelevant to the direction the conversation was headed.
> An adblocker makes for way less malware on a machine and a way speedier browser.
That doesn't change the fact that ads fund the internet. As more and more people use ad blockers, you're going to get to a point where you won't need ad blockers anymore. Think about it. :)
I was there. I rememeber it. I also remember that a large amount of it was fundamentally amateur content, produced with no funding at all. I remember when advertising arrived on USENET, and the subsequent attempts to contain it.
I remember the collapse of the first internet bubble, because I was made redundant then. It was all predicated on "owning" traffic, that every company thought they would be the one to be the default portal (like CIX or AOL) that steered everyone's purchasing. This was a bad idea then and it's still a bad idea now.
And if everyone decided not to donate to wikipedia during their donation drives, then wikipedia would no longer remain free and free of ads in the way it is today. I realize this might kind of go against a Kantian categorical imperative type thing, but I think there are some cases where theres an action where a) persons are generally not obligated to take it, and b)if no one took it, it would be against the interests of all those people.
But, if one assumes the opposite, in order to conclude that it is obligatory to look at ads on pages one views, one has to also conclude that it is obligatory to make donations to wikipedia, if one uses wikipedia. But I don't think one is /obligated/ to do that.
I'm not sure what the point of bringing "generation" stuff into this.
I'd like to mention again that I personally do not block ads, and that this is motivated by allowing the websites to run. I acknowledge that if no one viewed ads (e.g. if no one requested the ad content), that many websites would go out of business or w/e. That is part of my reason for not blocking ads. But the same line of reasoning applies to someone donating to wikipedia. They recognize that without donation, wikipedia would not continue, and that is part of their reason for donating to wikipedia. But their donations to wikipedia are not obligatory. Neither is my decision to not block ads.
I'm not sure what you mean by "people like you". Like I said, I don't block ads, I just argue that it is one's right to do so. Do you mean because of people who block ads, or because of people who say it is ok to block ads? (I've seen some people say that they don't think it is ok to block ads but that they don't care and do it anyway. I think this is kinda terrible. If one act is not obligatory, and one believes that it is immoral, then one shouldn't do it, even if one is incorrect. If it is morally obligatory and one believes it is immoral, then one should do it I guess.)
In the picture of the future that you paint, you leave out donation funded websites, which I think are important.
Again, I'm not saying "everyone should block ads", I'm saying everyone /may/ choose to block ads. This is consistent with the claim that it is important that some people choose to not block ads.
In the same way that it is important that some people donate to sites. No one is obligated to donate to websites they use. It is important that enough people donate to the websites for the website to stay up (provided that it is important that the website stays up).
And, due to my desire that ad-supported websites remain feasible, I choose to not block ads.
Yes, things generally have to be paid for.
No, it doesn't always have to be paid for by the person receiving it.
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-fil... [2] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=168175
Gonna be fun when such servers lock corporate IP.
I don't want anything. The server has content, I GET content.
Scenario I: I don't block any content;
Scenario II: Same as Scenario I, but I don't click ads;
Scenario III: Same as Scenario II, but I don't look at the ads;
Scenario IV: Same as Scenario III, but an opaque overlay is placed above the ads;
Scenario V: Same as Scenario IV, but the ad content is furthermore moved outside of the viewport;
... My scenario: I don't GET ad content. Or any content I decide not to GET.
"they have a lot more right to do it, if it's in their TOS" I am in a cybercafe in Matakana. What is this TOS you speak of?
The internet is an open medium. You want to trade our (edit: both mine and the server's) bandwidth (ads I would GET, but not pay attention to) for your content? Fine. I'll pipe it to /dev/null. Or save us both the effort, and not GET it at all.