From ad52f42b74843c0825198a5bfd25821257951cbc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rohan Kumar Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 01:43:42 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] New note: adblocking with a clear conscience --- .../notes/adblocking-with-a-clear-conscience.md | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 content/notes/adblocking-with-a-clear-conscience.md diff --git a/content/notes/adblocking-with-a-clear-conscience.md b/content/notes/adblocking-with-a-clear-conscience.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ed23d20 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/notes/adblocking-with-a-clear-conscience.md @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +--- +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" +--- + +[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.