The analogy is weak. You are not vandalizing the ads if you're blocking them. When you vandalize the billboard, no one else can read it. When you block ads on your own computer/network, no one else is affected.
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?