c0nkflict5uxway
c0nkflict5uxway on Hacker News
Consent absolutely cannot happen implicitly - would you make a claim like that to a judge? Hotel buffets advertise their prices, and you can always get breakfast somewhere else.
EULAs are not enforceable contracts, as they are offered under conditions of durress with no real alternative. No court will enforce an "I agree" checkbox, and most websites actively hide their usage/privacy/etc policies.
I pay subscriptions to high-quality news sources. But I read them online, and I still block their ads. If the sites want to charge more, they can, but "ad-free" has always been included in the charges where I subscribe.
The major one is simple: I never consented to see the ad. Therefore, I should not see the ad.
I use an adblocker for the same reason I boycott broadcast TV, broadcast radio, and paper magazines. Like my body and my property, my attention is not something that people should feel free to steal just because it is convenient for them.
Walmart does this too. Newegg made the switch several years ago. Large retail outlets which do not have a "marketplace" online option are the exception rather than the rule.
Different companies do different levels of vetting, but the retail ecosystem is vastly more accessible to small-timers than it was in the 2000s.
Moral: they probably left a lot behind and are traumatized to some degree. A little kindness goes a long ways in situations like that.
Pragmatic: they had the means, wits, and luck to escape conflict to relative safety. People like that probably have good values and won't be freeloaders.
History: it works. "Brain drain" is a trope for a reason. NASA would have had a much harder time with the cold war space race if the US had been less willing to accept German refugees in WWII, for example.
The list goes on. And it ends with conscience: it's the right thing to do.