News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Pr... by __jal on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @06:49PM (#13225486)
The facts are these.

If I connect to, say, port 80 on www.cnn.com and send some particular ASCII, then the machine on the other end will likely respond with some text. The owners of that machine invite these connections.

I can then: pipe that to /dev/null; read it in a text editor; read it with a web browser; print it out; file it away somewhere. (There are of course other options.)

So pray-tell, if my browser is `wget | html2txt | more`, do you consider me in the moral wrong for failing to also send various bits of PII to whomever CNN considers a Trusted Sponsor today and retrieve images, flash cruft, malware, or whatever else those Trusted Sponsors choose to respond with?

Re:AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Pr... by sanswork on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @07:03PM (#13225560)
I didn't say I consider ad blockers morally wrong.
Re:AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Pr... by __jal on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @07:28PM (#13225716)
Ok.

"In breach of implied contract?"

"Failing to respect social mores?"

"Doin' the wrong thing?"

I'm vastly less interested in quibbling about word choice than the underlying concepts being discussed.

Re:AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Pr... by sanswork on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @07:31PM (#13225732)
I didn't imply any of that at all. I disputed their claim that they received no compensation for their attention.