Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevin_thibedeau | Hacker News Reader

It's their fault for delivering data they want restricted. I'm under no obligation to make every HTTP request they want me to or execute any untrusted JavaScript. Nor am I obligated to render their HTML as intended. If they want these things then they need every user to enter onto a binding contract agreeing to those terms.

View on HN

ah, but you might be. This gets into a crazy area where we're talking about some entity offering up information via HTTP and you choosing how to represent that data. You could use Lynx, Firefox, Chrome, IE or even just browse everything with Python/BeautifulSoup in a console. Does the provider get to chose how you represent that data?

Well it turns out they kinda do. Sites have terms of service people supposedly agree to, all the time, without reading, because it's fucking impossible.

I posted this argument before and got the following comments which make a good argument:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14095147

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14095410

However the comments get into implementations like Netflix and rendering that data, but it's a bit different because in that case you are paying for access.

Will we be in a world one day where sites can require specific web browsers, by law?

Worse. A world where companies just take their stuff off the web and require you use their apps for everything. Much fewer legal questions there.

That is not a problem because there will be competitors without this requirement. The problem is laws that are not well balanced and are biased towards interests of one party.

This argument really gets old. Morally you know what you're doing. Most people would be fine blocking the big dozen or so of the most offensive ad networks but this extreme approach (especially when the publisher is trying to offer you choices) just comes off as ridiculous.

Morally, advertisers know what they're doing, too.

It's not advertisers as much as a complex supply chain with bad incentives in a 12-figure global industry.

We say the same things with government waste over military and healthcare. And we can fix it in the same ways with better trust, accountability and regulation.

Morally maybe we just ought to kill off their entire industry because the world is a worse place with them in it?

What entire industry? Advertising? And how is the world worse because of it?

Do you realize just how much advertising funds? It's a 12 figure global industry and 99% of the content you consume is funded in part by it - and that's before we get to how advertising drives the economy by efficiently matching businesses to customers. Every company relies on advertising (whether paid, word-of-mouth, etc) to succeed.

It's irrational to see so much hate and it's likely your complaint is really only about intrusive ad formats and data privacy. That is something I agree with and I'm for every change that makes for safer, better, and more private ads, but that is vastly different than calling for the elimination of advertising in any sensible reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com