That's why the parent said it was a social contact based on the honor system. Just because you can technically block ads, it doesn't meant it's the right thing to do.
There is no more honour involved as when someone pays the mob for protection. I strongly reject this argument. I am bound by honour but they can do anything and change the contract unilaterally? Fuck them, that’s no contract at all.
Their software is running on my computer. I decide what scripts I want or don't, and I can and will block whatever the fuck with impunity.
If they can't prevent that, or it's too expensive, or they don't care, that's not my problem. That's a business problem. Its not my business. I don't care.
Its like getting a free sample at Costco and then taking it home and throwing it away. That's my right. I can do that if I want.
If you want to run software on my computer, you play by my rules. That means an ad blocker. If you don't like that then figure it out. I'm not gonna figure it out for you.
>Its like getting a free sample at Costco and then taking it home and throwing it away. That's my right. I can do that if I want.
It's also like stealing a TV from Costco. Just because you technically can pick up a TV and then bring it to your car without paying and drive off, doesn't mean you should do it. It's unfair to Costco for them to play by your rules.
I'm not wanting anything, I'm telling you literally they are playing by my rules.
They are requesting to run scripts on my computer. It is my computer. If I say no, then the answer is no.
This is merely a request from them. I can abide, and I often will, but I have absolutely no moral, technical, or legal obligation to do so.
> I's also like stealing a TV from Costco.
No, because that's illegal.
You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer. I can deny that request.
If you don't like that, then don't allow me access. It is my responsibility, solely, to decide what scripts are running on my computer.
If Google asked you to download heartbleed and run it, you wouldn't do it, would you? Great, so you understand the concept.
The disconnect here is you believe I am entitled. And I am - I am entitled to deciding what runs on my computer.
You are not entitled to run arbitrary code on my computer because your business model requires it. I'm not your accountant, figure it out.
But why is it illegal if it's physically possible for you to take it? By your line of reasoning it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
>You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer.
That's an implementation detail of how the webpage works and does not matter. You are focusing too much on the way it's implemented and not the high level picture of how it works. If you have to get to the point of describing the HTTP protocol to justify why what you are doing is moral, you need to realize that you are just coming up with a justification for your actions to not feel bad about doing bad things. You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience.
Lol, not bending over and letting whoever the fuck run whatever the fuck programs on my computer is an "implementation detail".
> You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience.
This is so, so obviously wrong it's actually frustrating I have to reply to this level of rhetoric.
Once again, I am not your accountant. It is not my responsibility to make sure your business model makes sense.
I don't have the time to babysit and hand hold every corporation in my life and make sure their business model makes sense. I just don't, and it's not my responsibility.
If your business model relies solely on me allowing you to run potential malware on my computer, then that is YOUR problem. Not mine. Figure it out, or don't. Youre always allowed to go bankrupt. Not every business model is viable.
You are not entitled to a viable business model. You are not God. If your business model doesn't work, then you lose. Too bad, so sad, not my fucking problem.
And on the topic of money: running ads on my computer is a computer system security problem.
The FBI recommends running an aggressive ad blocker. The reality is most ads are basically malware and often literally malware. They can be phishing, linking to malicious sites. They can be deceptive. They can be spyware, collecting information about my computer, identity, or web browsing activity.
Google, Meta, et. all have demonstrated they simply do not take adequate steps to prevent malicious advertisement payloads.
You do not have a god-given right to run software on my computer, but you CERTAINLY don't have a god-given right to run malware on my computer.
If you disagree, take it up with the FBI, I don't care.
And there is no alternative to YouTube, for example, including for videos that were uploaded before they went completely overboard with ads.
So no, I am not giving up on my ad blockers.
This is an exaggeration. There are ad free alternatives.
>And there is no alternative to YouTube
Youtube has a subscription you can pay for no ads. There other video sites who charge a subscription instead of offering ads too.
Again, their (mostly Google and Facebook’s, but there are many companies tracking me with whom I never had direct contact) trackers are all over the web and I see them in the blocked list very regularly on websites that have nothing to do with them.
> Youtube has a subscription you can pay for no ads. There other video sites who charge a subscription instead of offering ads too.
Yeah, cool. They changed their terms of use, and I changed mine. Happy to negotiate when they are available.
The technical details do not matter. Social contacts are about societal expectations, not about your personal ones. Do you think a thief has a meeting of the minds about not stealing something from a shop keeper? It's not the theifs world view that matters here. Similar to your example the physics of the world say it's possible for a human to pick up an item without paying for it, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Or (back on topic) when I'm watching cable TV and they send an ad over the wire. There's no societal expectation that I watch that ad. I could hit the mute button. I could get up to take a piss or grab a beer. I could record the broadcast and watch it later, fast forwarding through the ads.
This is not like a store where there's a clear societal expectation that I don't go in and rob them. I don't think anyone would equate leaving the sofa during a commercial with robbery.
Yes, there is. If you had a group of 100 people and asked what google.com should look like and showed them how Chrome renders the page and your 80x24 modification does that all 100 would say that yours is not expected. You are still too hung up on these technical details of how things are implemented than how the average person thinks of these things.
There is not, and has never been, a social contract that says I have to look at the ads served with any website. If you think there is, then I'm sorry, but you're sorely mistaken.
Similarly, there is no social contract that says I have to watch commercials while I'm watching TV (not that I've watched linear TV in over a decade, but...). I can mute it, change the channel, go to the bathroom, whatever. If you think there is, then I'm not sure what to tell you; your opinions on this are so outside the mainstream that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.
We were talking about societal expectations.
>I can mute it, change the channel, go to the bathroom, whatever.
You are free to do the same for websites. You can click the x button on the ad, mute the video ad, or change to a different website.
And those that disagreed would still think it in their heads.
People like free stuff.
Attempting to normalize such a thing is disgusting.