seirdy.one/content/notes/adblocking-with-a-clear-conscience.md

---
title: "Adblocking with a clear conscience"
date: 2023-08-22T01:43:42-07:00
replyURI: "https://nzsocial.net/@tinfoilhat/110931692229194778"
replyTitle: "do you pay to remove ads, or continue to view content while breaking the agreement with ad blocking"
replyType: "SocialMediaPosting"
replyAuthor: "tinfoilhat"
replyAuthorURI: "https://nzsocial.net/@tinfoilhat"
syndicatedCopies:
    - title: 'The Fediverse'
      url: 'https://pleroma.envs.net/notice/AYz2rpF6pH4G8dzWGO'
    - title: 'jstpst'
      url: 'https://www.jstpst.net/f/just_post/8640/adblocking-with-a-clear-conscience'
    - title: 'IndieNews'
      url: 'https://news.indieweb.org/en'
---

[There is no such agreement on the web](https://seirdy.one/notes/2022/08/12/user-agents-set-the-terms/):

- On the users's end, we don't have advance notice that a link destination will contain malware (such as ads). The page has already downloaded; the content is already on our device before we agreed to anything. We were handed the goods and only told they had a price after leaving the store.
- On a site owner's end, Terms of Service should not a shield to enable discrimination. ToS that discriminate against marginalized groups have historically warranted civil disobedience and lawsuits ending in legal reform that outlawed such practices; why should ToS discriminating against neurodivergent users be any different?

I have ADHD and overstimulation sensitivity. Requiring me to view ads is discriminatory. So yes, I would violate the fuck out of such a ToS with a clearer conscience than the site owners, and side with the plaintiffs should the site ever face an accessibility lawsuit.