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

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

There is no such agreement on the web:

• 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.