Hacker News Reader

> I'm not stealing anything by instructing my computer not to run code against my consent. No one is entitled to my CPU time. Least of all are advertisers.

One might argue that you are then not entitled to view the content on ad-supported pages as well.

I use an ad blocker too because many ads are just horribly intrusive, but I honestly can’t blame any page circumventing ad blockers, nor do I believe that I am somehow morally entitled to an ad-free, compensation-free browsing experience.

Narrowing all of this down to CPU time misses the point entirely in my opinion.

> They're useless noise that contribute no value to anyone beyond whoever pays for them, and therefore I find it a moral responsibility to limit my exposure to them and restrain the harm they do to others.

They‘re literally paying for the content you get to view for free.

> One might argue that you are then not entitled to view the content on ad-supported pages as well.

Then they shouldn't serve the page in a way that it can be viewed without also viewing the ads. Ad-blocker-blockers are a thing, and I am happy to close that tab and never visit the site again when I see one.

> They‘re literally paying for the content you get to view for free.

Hopefully someday they'll be forced to find a business model that doesn't include destroying the privacy of their website's visitors.

> One might argue that you are then not entitled to view the content on ad-supported pages as well.

This is true, and websites are entitled to try to detect and block users who use adblockers. And users are entitled to use better adblockers that are harder to detect.

The person you're replying to is not accusing you of stealing, they are using stealing from a candy store as a metaphor for how a certain amount of behavior that a company doesn't like is tolerated because it is not worth the effort to stop. The point is that Google could prevent most people from using ad blockers any time they wanted, but don't view it as worth the bad PR (or choose not to for other reasons).

This is a rhetorical bait-and-switch. The "stealing candy from a store" messaging is crafted to imply moral failure. The implication is there when you present the situation with that framing—you can't just walk it back when called out on it!

Nobody frames, say, taking a bathroom break when the ads play during a football game this way.

> they are using stealing from a candy store as a metaphor for how a certain amount of behavior that a company doesn't like ...

It's a bad metaphor, a better metaphor would be reading a journal and covering ads with post it notes.

Well, someone else is covering it in post it notes and serving it to you. Again, the same issue applies, if everyone covers the ads in the journal then the advertisers will leave the journal and it will have to shutdown.

Also, the store isn't freakishly stalking me and noting down all my habits whilst sharing what it has collected with its friends, or indeed anyone who will buy the data.

Many retail stores do, actually, through wireless tracking, cameras, and/or purchase history. They will buy and sell consumer data through the likes of Acxiom.

It would be great to have a ublock equivalent for the physical world.

There is: paying with cash, not using loyalty cards, and refusing to supply zip codes, phone numbers, and whatever else they rudely ask for get you 92% of the way there. For the rest, you can wear a Groucho mask while in the store. But that only works if Groucho masks become popular.

I would respect the Adblock crowd more if they didn’t run around describing their actions as brave or “morally responsible.” It’s ok to admit that you’re taking something without return!

As if you have never run to the bathroom during a commercial break.

No one is under any obligation to accept advertising. Only since the modern web have advertisers and content providers made this an argument on ethics.

You're under no obligation to visit a site without sending a payment either.

And websites are under no obligation to serve up pages without prior payment from visitors.

We could all go around in circles like this for hours.

Oh, please. Tell me you've never fast-fowarded or muted the TV or changed channels during a commercial. Tell me you've never been reading the newspaper or a magazine and skipped reading the ads.

I'm not really sure what crowd of us you think claims that ad-blocking is "morally responsible". I certainly don't see it as a moral issue at all. I just don't want so see ads, period. I think they're psychologically manipulative garbage, and I don't want them in front of my eyes, infecting my brain.

If someone wants to publish something behind a paywall, I'll pay if I think it's worth the price. If someone wants to put up an ad-blocker-blocker and refuse to serve that content to me, that's fine too; I'll live without their content.

If a server is going to send me bits over the wire, I am going to decide how I view those bits, and which bits I do and do not want to see.

Hello there. It's an honor to meet you.

I suggest you are incorrect to assert that "no one is entitled to my CPU time." I agree, however, that advertisers do not have that moral claim right.

Pleasure to meet you too.

> I suggest you are incorrect to assert that "no one is entitled to my CPU time."

Very well, please elaborate. I'm always up to delve deeper into reason and philosophy (time-permitting of course).

I'm grateful that you would take the time to speak with me. I know it's an expensive thing to do.

I'll start with ~~a humorous point for an autistic person~~ the worst kind of pedantry. An object cannot be no one's and mine at the same time. If I own it, then it isn't no one's. To the degree the CPU is indeed yours, then it is someone's CPU. Obviously, there's some conversational implicature embedded in your claim here, and that's what we're here to clarify.

For the record, I'm on your side. Your overall argument is something everyone needs to hear. So, I'm not here to destroy your assertion, but I think it should be weakened. There's a lot packed in there.

I take your proposition to mean, roughly, that the CPU in your possession is something only you have a cluster of moral claim rights to (which corresponds to a cluster of moral obligations of others to you regarding that CPU), with no possibility of overriding reasons, caveats, or provisos. Now, you could be speaking about political claim rights, but I don't think that's the case here (correct me if I'm wrong). Is that a fair interpretation, and do you wish to maintain that? Can you think of any exceptions? Are there any adjacent possible worlds in which that is not the case?