I am sorry, was it you that wrote "I don't think they were saying there was a legal agreement, just a moral and social one. It's like taking all the eggs from an honesty box outside someone's house - you didn't sign anything saying you wouldn't, but it's pretty clear you're in the wrong."? If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is.

> I am sorry, was it you that wrote

HN lets you see who wrote a comment - it says above each one.

> If that’s not putting moral and social burden onto tracking blockers, I don’t know what is.

I mean you don't have a burden to visit their website if you don't want to. If it was a government organisation then yes.

I don't know what code their sites will send my browser until they send it. But I do know that my browser tells them not to track me in its initial request, so they are free to send me away and not let me "in the door".

But they don't, they let me in despite me being very clear that I am entering on the condition that they don't track me, so here we are. They don't get to pull the surprised-face card when I then proceed to not let them track me.

Adjacent to that, I think a "I'm not going to display your ads" or bluntly "don't show me ads" header would make perfect sense and yet I'm quite sure that webmasters would treat it the exact same way that they've treated do-not-track.

If they don't want people to customize the way they view content, they shouldn't put it on the web. Nobody is forcing them to use HTML.