Many times they also payed to make it hard for me to get to the content that I actually wanted. This is commonly known as SEO.
Because you want to consume what they've produced. That is how they are paying you.
You keep saying "I did not enter into any agreement" like it changes anything. It's juvenile.
What I do with that data isn't up to you. That includes viewing all, parts, or none of the information I received from your server. That especially includes deciding about what code gets executed on my machine.
If advertisers want to control what I am doing with the content I get, please find yourself a new protocol and DRM it to your hearts' content. Just leave the Web alone.
So Facebook says that the foundation of the web is sending data to the server (such as cookies) and receiving information back.
Nowhere in the protocol does it say they can't track you. Ergo, tracking is perfectly legal and moral.
The foundation of the internet is that the server sends you data. Your browser happens to have a security hole and you got a virus.
Totally ethical and legal. Nowhere in the HTTP protocol does it say not to send viruses.
It is currently legal, but that doesn't imply that it's moral. Legality does not define morality.
> Nowhere in the HTTP protocol does it say not to send viruses.
Correct.
> Totally ethical and legal.
Sending a virus is patently unethical regardless of the transport mechanism. as for legality, see a lawyer about 18 U.S.C. ยง 1030(a)(5).
I know. The examples were still factually incorrect straw-men.
> it must be legal and ethical to block them
That's the point; it is legal and ethical to use data that was voluntarily given. If you want control over how things are used, stop sending to everybody freely and require a contract.
> harass those who spend money on them.
Clicking a link isn't harassment.
You are making people lose money (not the malware adnetworks, not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement) to prove a point to the ad-network (which is actually making money off this), I consider it close to harassment.
So now when you run this program, the two entities you're most against (Google for not having safe-ads) and the content website (for not working for free) are actually getting payed!
If you want to hurt Google, just block ads.
Yes, that is one of the intended goals.
> not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement
Targeting the source of funding is often an effective strategy.
> {,malware} ad-network
> trackers
> guy buying advertisement
All of these are responsible, so they are all intended targets.
> I consider it close to harassment
If following a website's href suggestion to load a URL is "harassment", then advertising is also harassment.
I didn't say it was.
That is not how the web works, and that is not the social contract that it was built on. Sorry if it doesn't fit advertisers' needs, but that is really not my problem. Maybe advertisers and payed content could go to some other medium that accommodates all the restrictions you desire, and then we can all be happy?
No such relationship exists.
You want something, they have something. You communicate your desire and they provide you with something. That is a relationship.
When I click a link, there is a relationship between me and some entity in the same sense that the term is used in computer science to describe relational databases.
This is not a relationship in the legal or ethical senses. By clicking a link, I did not agree to anything at all. All I did was react to an announcement that there is some resource somewhere, and deciding to take a look at it. If I decide to do it from a terminal and read the HTML directly without rendering, that is no one's business and my actions are not unethical in any way.
The advertisement industry is starting to behave like the music industry in the early days of the web. They are willing to destroy the best tool ever created for global human communication and knowledge sharing for the purpose of protecting an obsolete business model.
So I'm agreeing to the contract before even seeing the content? I guess you're fine with me having 30 days to return the content under the Consumer Rights Act (UK) if it's not as described and they'll refund me the advertising money they made from me, right?
Particularly, if you say it's a trade of content for attention, then:
For goods and services bought online, your rights are the same as if you'd bought them from a shop.
You can make a claim for a refund, repair or replacement when the digital content you've bought doesn't meet these three standards: [..]
Fit for purpose: You should be able to use it for what the seller says it will do (its purpose), whether that's their statement when you buy it, or an answer to your question. For instance, an audio track should play, and a game shouldn't infect your computer with a virus.
As described: It should match its description when you bought it. For example, a film should be in the format you chose when you bought it.
So an advert from CNN shouldn't infect my computer with malware, and a link which claims I "won't believe" something [2] should leave me in disbelief.
[1] http://www.rica.org.uk/content/consumer-rights
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/02/world/gallery/astonishing-...
Yeah?
I get payed for my attention in euros, after signing a contract or entering an agreement. Maybe that sounds silly to you, but that is how I roll.
I assume that you are implying that I have some moral obligation to the people publishing publicly accessible content. If you are not implying that, then we are all in agreement and there is nothing further to discuss. We both agree that ad blockers are fine, case closed.
If you are implying that, you are wrong. The WORLD WIDE WEB was not built on that premise and we were here before the marketeers and advertisers arrived. If the former manage to make some money while providing people with something they want, that's fine. I have nothing against honest business. But don't try to pretend that I have any obligation to do anything just because I accessed a resource that you made public. If you want to charge for your resource, name the price and make it private. Maybe I'll buy it. I buy books all the time. But it's not my fault or moral failing if your business model doesn't work.
And I'm disagreeing, by analogy. That's how it's relevant.
Should the site be able to ask for a refund on their content since you didn't provide what they expected(ad views)?
Also valid, and also leads to the same conclusion: it's a nonsensical idea. Therefore one thing is not 'payment' for the other. There's one protocol that making a HTTP request returns content at the discretion of the server, and there's no advance agreement that the content has value, or that the client is agreeing to trade anything at all for the alleged value.
I didn't say you were legally bound to watch the ads at any point.
I didn't say you said I was, only that content is not payment for watching adverts - and that it would be daft if that was the case.
They are free to take "counter measures". But that doesn't stop the fact that they are paying for both your time and the content.