I don’t think it’s fair to use these. These sites cost money to run - I understand the desire to preserve privacy but in effect this site is just showing you how to mooch.
If a paid tier offered no ads, tracking or similar anti-features, you'd have a point. Since even paid offerings can't give up profiling and data sharing, it's perfectly fair to get that experience from the free data they choose to serve instead of a 402 payment required.
People are certainly entitled to not be tracked, but not to indulge in services for free without payment, tracking or ads.
Ironically, using these services without paying or submitting to trackings or ads and these companies not paying taxes both violate the principal of “not paying your share”
They certainly are, and the onus is on the web sites to prevent/limit it.
The rule of the Internet is simple: If you put something on a Web site, everyone has the right to visit it. An obvious example: I cannot put up a static HTML page with images, and demand people who view the images pay me for it. Nor can I demand that they download and view the whole page. As someone visiting any page, I am in full control of what bits from that site I will receive and process via a browser. The site's owner has no say in it - his responsibility is to control what is sent to me - not what I do with what is sent to me.[1] He can do this using access control (e.g. accounts), and other methods.
It's your obligation to design the site in a way that you would like it to be used. It is not the visitor's obligation to understand your profit model and try to honor it.
[1] Except things like IP/copyright/trademark, which is a different topic than the one at hand.
Your analogy breaks down because people actively circumvent restrictions.
It’s like arguing theft is ok if a store can’t properly secure their goods.
The founders of the Web. And IANAL but I would bet that if there have been any court rulings about this, they will be in line with what I said.
> It’s like arguing theft is ok if a store can’t properly secure their goods.
Not at all. A store is someone's private property and there are laws surrounding it. If I enter a store, the law has already established what I can and cannot do. The same applies to the goods in the store.
When I visit a web site, I never enter their property. I make a request for data, and the web site decides whether to decline or accept the request. The web site can put in mechanisms on conditionally accepting the request.
There's a reason the official terminology is request and handshake.
Since I never enter on to a site owner's property, your analogy doesn't hold.
Please show me a quote that says that.
The entire premise of your argument is incorrect.
I think we'll have to agree that neither of us is providing any citation for what they are saying. I'd like to do some legwork to get you proper citations and evidence but I'm not sure what the purpose of that would be.
BTW much of what I said regarding how Internet protocols work is not an argument but merely undisputed facts.
Take YouTube for example, there are basically zero alternatives out there. It is such a dominating force for watching videos. I have basically cut all of google out of my life as much as possible, but YouTube is the one that you can't drop for the random video that you may want to watch. I have zero qualms about using a third party service while "mooching" off of google.
Many others in this list are similar, reddit... discord... etc. I would not have an issue supporting those companies with a monthly subscription if they did not pull shady stuff.
These companies are way too comfortable abusing their users. I was trying to get support from Microsoft for a product I bought. With pihole on my network I was unable to load chat because someone had the bright idea to host the css and js for it on their ad domain.
I don’t see how people can justify blocking the ads. Content producers need people to view the ads to get paid.
I’m sure at your workplace you wouldn’t like people using your services or consuming your products without paying in some form.
Ads are not the real issue here. It is the tracking and privacy invasive practices that these companies like google practice.
You may pay for YouTube premium, but you are still the product to google.
I don’t have an issue necessarily with blocking tracking, my issue is with people trying to use YouTube without allowing the content creators to be compensated.
Largely thanks to google, ads are how we are tracked (or at least one of the ways).
if I want to block tracking, I am blocking ads (among other things).
You are missing the issue here. I will pay a company if they do not engage in these shady behaviors. But they nearly all do, so I refuse to give them money to remove one thing (the ads) but continue to track.
The question is, will you indulge in YouTube anyway and deprive them from ad revenue n or will you just not use YouTube?
I will use YouTube as little as possible, but that is nearly impossible because google used their power to make YouTube the only available option to view some content.
Google did this to themselves.
Please provide an alternative to YouTube for viewing trailers, news, game reviews, etc. It is basically non existent. Nearly every site uses YouTube for hosting their videos now.
You are continuing to ignore the key issue here. I personally don't have an issue with ads in theory. But ads have simply become one of many avenues that companies like Google use to track users. I will not support that.
I also have zero concerns for google financially.
And as for alternatives you can use Vimeo and PeerTube. If you don’t see the content you want there think about why that is.
Also, my logic applies to any company really. So I’m having a hard time reconciling your position with a smaller company that tracks and uses ads.
Basically you feel it’s ok to not compensate content creators because they’re using big techs platform. Weird
If they want me to compensate them, then they should bother to put a second copy of their content up on a platform that supports payments, and is not morally reprehensible.
If you have another way that works there’s a lot of money out there ripe for the taking.
That's as may be, but it's not my responsibility to view ads or accept tracking/surveillance on my private property.
If you (as a website or other resource) want to monetize the content on your private property/hosted resource, I have no issue with that. At all.
However, I choose to limit tracking/ads on my private property. That doesn't force you to do anything.
If you want to require viewing of ads/allowing tracking (which some sites do) in order to access content, that's fine with me too.
But I'm under no obligation to allow ads/tracking on my private property.
It's not about circumvention or wanting to "deprive" someone of compensation for their hard work. Rather, it's about limiting the amount of tracking/surveillance about me and my private property.
I don't agree to be tracked or advertised to. Full stop.
If folks don't want to share their content with me because I don't agree to be tracked/shown ads, then those folks need to take action. I have nothing to do or say about that.
But I do have the right to control what is displayed/executed on my private property, which includes my browser. That's not "stealing," that's protecting my own interests.
Unfortunately momentum is hard to overcome, and even with a good monetization strategy for a single product it’s impossible to shift the market without also trying to more broadly shift consumer behavior to make the current state less profitable and to push the industry to more collectively and broadly searching for alternatives.
That is my point, yes; we are already past that point of paying one's fair share as a legitimate concern. I don't owe such a consideration for fairness to an entity that doesn't honour the same to me.
These services are not just an indulgence for many people. I've had jobs that require me to access things on Discord or Facebook. Many businesses require using Facebook or WhatsApp for customer service. I've needed support for various issues that only existed on reddit or Twitter. These are just a few examples.
Sure, one could opt to not participate in society or to go without essentials. But you shouldn't have to live such an extreme aescetic monk lifestyle just to avoid being tracked and profiled and having your profile sold to people who wish to manipulate your behavior.
Issues aren't just about tracking. Youtube for instance got where it is today by effectively stealing copyrighted content, and they still facilitate and profit from it, notwithstanding screwing over content creators with illegitimate takedowns. There isn't really a persuasive argument that Youtube is entitled to more of your data.
It’s pretty simple - I assume you have a job, and that they have customers. Would you want those customers to basically take your work without paying?
My ethical framework allows me to justify the use ad-blockers without creating too much cognitive dissonance. Poor Twitter, Facebook and Google and their employers will survive without my donations. But my local newspaper on the other hand...
How is blocking ads/tracking "stealing"?
Assuming I don't have a contract with someone, I haven't agreed to allow ads/tracking. And given the chance to enter into such a contract, I will politely decline.
Claiming that blocking ads/tracking is stealing is like claiming that people should have to pay to enter a retail establishment even if they don't buy anything. Is that what you advocate?
Don't want to service people who block ads/trackers? Then don't serve them content. It's not as if that isn't already being done.
Just because someone chooses to support their platform with ads/trackers doesn't create a duty or responsibility for me to see those ads or allow those trackers.
I don't wish to allow ads/trackers on my private property. Why should I be forced to do so?
Because it breaks your business model? That's not my problem. It's yours.
Facebook's like button tracks you all over the web
For example GPL code is often $0, but that doesn't give me the option of ignoring the copyleft provisions if I don't like them. The only valid options are to comply or to not use it.
I honestly wonder how well this has been tested in courts for web sites. As an example, if I visit a web site that has a "Terms of Use" link, but I don't click on the link, will the courts still rule that I'm bound by them?
An extreme case: If there is a static web site with images, and somewhere on the page there is a Terms of Use along the lines of "If you view these images you must pay me 10 cents", then is that legally binding?
(Note: Copyright is very different from "terms of use").
I vaguely recall there was a ruling that if you buy a physical item and its terms of use are in the box (i.e. you cannot view it without buying), then you are not bound by them. Of course, this is not analogous.
My respect of copyleft does not come from a want to adhere to legal terms, but instead an appreciation for what those terms hope to achieve more broadly, and the positive impact they have on society. As I described in another comment, I do not owe FAANG respect or legal cooperation it doesn't reciprocate.
Of course, if you feel like it's your duty to run the web without adblockers, I understand that, and more power to you.
We know they're keen to lobby and litigate their way out of laws, and pay paltry fines when they fail to do so, but I cannot predict the next instance beyond enumerating any currently ongoing cases.
Like AdBlock, one could make the case that this is less about "contain[ing]" these companies, and more about some sophisticated players finding loopholes they can use to free ride, like using tax experts to shield your assets or something.
Whether something is a "loophole" relies on what happens if the standard is applied universally. I for one advocate that everyone install Adblock, not just "sophisticated players". When I set up computers for family, they get it by default (people's answer to "do you want to block ads" is invariably "yes"). When I get around to installing eg PiHole, it will be on by default for the entire network. I hope that ad blocking becomes popular enough that ad companies become unprofitable. The web was much better twenty years ago, and while we can't just go back, advertising dollars are the major source of energy powering negative sum interactions.
I don’t understand your view - if you don’t want to be tracked (speaking strictly about the services in the GitHub) why not just not use them?
If they provide so much value such that you still want to use them why shouldn’t they receive compensation in the form of tracking, ads or money directly?
Not all users of anonymity services are people who have a choice in the matter. And if you're not currently a victim of stalking or identity theft, why invite attacks by openly sharing personal information? It's a personal risk calculus, and everyone's needs are different.
- 622 million leaked email addresses, employers, geographic locations, job titles, names, phone numbers, & social media profiles from PDL [0]. According to the PDL website, the purpose of this data was for PDL clients to "supercharge [their] software with over 3 billion profiles. Tap into the resume, contact, social, and demographic information for over 3 billion unique individuals, delivered to you at the scale you need it."
- 125 million leaked email addresses and 9 billion data points on users from Apollo [1]. Dataset includes email addresses, employers, geographic locations, job titles, names, phone numbers, salutations, & social media profiles.
[0]: https://www.troyhunt.com/data-enrichment-people-data-labs-an...
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/apollo-breach-linkedin-salesforc...
Besides spam what’s the actual harm from a leaked email?
My views on this are a bit deeper than I can easily cover in a single comment that I’m writing on my phone, but the question reminds me that I need to publish a talk I gave last year on the subject. The short version is that the development of recommendation systems, both for targeting ads and for generating engagement loops for users so that you can show more ads, have some chilling second and third order social effects. The algorithmic bubbles that come from social media are a well known problem, as are the privacy implications of data breaches associated with these systems. Even outside of actual systems being compromised, these systems are open to side channel attacks that can both allow data collection and influence on the sorts of content people see. In short, the system isn’t complex and open to abuse, and the incentives built in are not aligned with building a healthy society.
As for not using the services- there’s no simple satisfying answer here. You can cut out a lot of things, but ultimately it’s nearly impossible for an individual to completely opt out of a bad decision the rest of society has collectively made, and so we need to find ways to mitigate the damage where we can.
The consequences are that I am forced to share information I'd prefer not to share.
If there's a requirement that I do so, I will choose not to use resources that require it. But it's not my responsibility, nor is it feasible, to for me to choose, before I am aware of such a requirement, not to connect to a resource.
Don't want folks like me who block ads/trackers on your site? I have no issue or complaint about that. It is, after all, your site.
There are tools you can use to keep me from viewing your content. That's your choice and your responsibility. Not mine.
Don't frame ad/tracker blocking as "theft." That's not even close to the truth.