Ad Blocking Ethics

You agree that when viewing a public site whose main revenue model is ads, you enter an implicit contract to view those ads? If so, why? If not, why do you agree that being selective about what HTTP reqs you make is morally equivalent to theft just because the site owner expects you not to be and hopes to gain money off that?

Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment. You don't see the "content" of the store until you walk through the door.Deciding afterwards that you don't agree with how the website is monetized but then consume the content anyway, is the same as deciding you don't like how the physical establishment operates, but you feel entitled to take something anyway.There is no logical difference, and you are using a co

I am going to a publicly available web page, that they provide for the purpose of consuming their content, using standard protocols. I'm just filtering some of it out on my end on the computer I own and control. I don't see anything wrong with this, no matter what BS they might try to claim in their TOS.

Lmao are you serious? You're specifically visiting their website. You are explicitly requesting whatever they're serving up. It's akin to complaining that a program you downloaded is gasp executing code on YOUR computer!

no you request a resource (webpage) the ad was sent to you by the owner of the resource (it's his right to put whatever he want the the webpage) as your right to not request it/block itPS:in another comment i tried to explain how i see it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33919824

You have the right to disagree, but that's the way World Wide Web was built. Feel free to use alternative service(s) or stop publishing your stuff. Put it behind password or don't answer to my scrapers or browsers requests. Fair and simple.Web is for people from people, not solely for company(s) financial interests.

You're requesting that you load their site by the act of visiting it. It's very reasonable that they should have the right to decide to serve what you are requesting or not depending on if your request is going to make them money or cost them money. If you don't want what they're serving then don't visit the site, it's pretty simple.Do you go into stores and demand they take down the displays that you don't like while you're shopping?

I'm sorry but I just can't sympathize.Imagine a newspaper trying to go after someone for not reading the ads in the news paper, or for cutting the ads out before reading the paper.That's what you sound like to the rest of us.When my browser asks for a page from your webserver, I'm under no obligation to render or even receive the packets that you send back to me. If you seek further guarantees or protections I encourage you to find a different medium.

You act like there's some sort of contract that says I have to download and display everything in your html.There is not.

It's sad to see this sort of thing on HN. A web browser is a user agent that operates on behalf of the user. Let's say it again for emphasis: the web browser serves the user, not the site owner. The user is free to manipulate the received web page however they see fit. If the site operator wants to get paid, they can put the service behind a login paywall, or else they can go pound sand. There has never, ever been an obligation for users to respect the wishes of site owners; onc