from Hacker News

Lea Verou: “AdBlock is morally equivalent to theft IMO”

by okey on 2/22/15, 7:30 PM with 14 comments

  • by bucma on 2/22/15, 8:06 PM

    That means going to the bathroom during a commercial on TV is also theft.

    I have an idea: get a better business model instead of thinking you're going to be rich selling advertising on the internet.

  • by okey on 2/22/15, 7:56 PM

    I really hope that this view isn't widespread amongst W3C people. "Controlling what HTTP reqs my device sends is morally wrong because the server owner expects to monetise them" is absurd.

  • by Terr_ on 2/22/15, 7:56 PM

    OK then, your website and the ad-networks are now CRIMINALLY LIABLE for any and all malicious code that arrives on my computer through them, so that if some ransomware destroys my files you will pay me to cover damages.

    Sound like a good start?

    Maybe later we can talk about you compensating me for how any of your badly-behaved ads degrade my service on other sites by burning CPU cycles, using outsize amounts of connections and bandwidth.

    .. And that's not even touching the whole confidentiality/privacy aspect.

  • by jordanpg on 2/22/15, 9:07 PM

    FYI, this is interesting because of who the tweet is coming from. About the author:

    > I’m currently a Research Assistant at MIT CSAIL, in David Karger’s Haystack group and an Invited Expert in the W3C CSS Working Group.

    Unfortunately, reading the whole conversation does not give much insight as to the logic behind this moral claim. It's just asserted. The author takes it as self-evident that viewing ads is the cost of visiting some websites.

  • by sowhatquestion on 2/22/15, 8:08 PM

    There are people who think advertising is morally equivalent to theft of other people's time and attention. I don't know if I'd go that far, but I do believe that AdBlock lets me get more out of the Web by eliminating the constant cognitive background noise produced by ads.

  • by striking on 2/22/15, 7:42 PM

    I believe in paying people. Just let me directly pay them for things that I actually think I need, and I will.

    Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to uBlock sites that don't respect my need for keeping garbage out of my mind.

  • by agapos on 2/22/15, 8:53 PM

    I am curious, is he willing to compensate me in case I am infected through ads on my PC/mobile, can he protect my online life from advertisers monitoring and tracking my movements, or any other similar direct or indirect malicious case?

    Edit: Also, I believe I have not been informed by a single site ever, saying that "This site uses ads as a revenue source, in case you disagree with the method please move on." Usually it just shaves those ads down my browser and if I don't like it, apparently 'I am the thief'.

  • by viggity on 2/22/15, 8:01 PM

    I agree with her completely and didn't use adblock until ~6 months ago. But, the click bait "one weird trick" and "you'll never believe what XYZ did to ABC" horseshit ads made me crack. I just couldn't deal with seeing that nonsense anymore. I'd be happy to do micropayments, but at this point it looks unlikely to happen.

  • by nailer on 2/22/15, 9:04 PM

    Plenty of people think this. Let's not pick on any one specifically.

  • by busterarm on 2/22/15, 7:47 PM

    Since we're making ridiculous claims here:

    If AdBlock is morally equivalent to theft, having a business model where you have no legal protection against working for free is functionally equivalent to idiocy.