OK, then modify the statement, but use the same mobster voice: "It would be a shame if your browser got overloaded with pop-overs, malware and javascript trackers. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price."

I think it's BS to cast "people who respond to GET requests" as mobsters. If you want them to leave you alone just stop asking them for things.

Well yes, that's what an ad blocker does. But a lot of people believe ad blockers are unethical.

Pretend there is a Museum. It's free to the public with a suggested donation. You go there every weekend because of it's interesting collection of $thing. You never pay the suggested donation.

Is this ethical? It's not illegal. But that isn't the question.

Not a good analogy. If there was a donation mechanism, many people might choose to pay it. I contribute to several sites via Patreon, for instance.

But if every time you visit the museum someone follows you around talking in your ear about the products available in the gift shop, you might choose not to go, or (if the content is interesting enough) you might start wearing headphones or earplugs and go anyway.

I don't think Google generally has popovers and malware. And you probably get trackers anyway.

So a paywall, except it's intentionally obnoxious/dangerous to the very people it's trying to get to pay them money? I don't think this is a realistic thing to worry about.

It's not your browser, either.

As soon as their content hits my client though, they don't have any right to control what my client does with it.

They still have copyright on their content and how you use it.

> They still have copyright on their content

Certainly.

> and how you use it

Now that's an interesting question. I wonder if we'll start seeing people try to use explicit copyright licenses to say that your license is revoked if you use an ad blocker. Not sure what that'd look like.

That's not really relevant to this subthread, though.