1.8 KiB
| title | date | replyURI | replyTitle | replyType | replyAuthor | replyAuthorURI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In defense of content blocking | 2022-09-10T18:23:54-07:00 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32765329 | I think running an ad blocker is freeloading | DiscussionForumPosting | Jeff Kaufman | https://www.jefftk.com |
First off, some of your comments have referred to ad-blocking being wrong due to conflict with existing business models.
Businesses are not entitled to the success of their business models. If a business model fails due to consumer behavior, the business was in the wrong for expecting different behavior.
I would be fine with ad blockers that only blocked ads, as long as publishers could chose to refuse service to users running ad blockers or ask them to turn their ad blocker off.
Distracting content (most ads), color schemes with bad contrast, bright images on dark pages, etc. are accessibility hazards (particularly cognitive accessibility hazards). Restricting the use of page-alteration software (e.g. color and font alteration, disabling images, and blocking frames) is therefore a discriminatory practice.
The part of your analogy where you say people who want burgers don't have any other choice seems not to fit: you can eat other foods which don't have this requirement, just like there are lots of places on the internet where you can exchange money for ad-free content.
The default behavior on the Web is one in which [user-agents set their terms]({{<relref "/notes/user-agents-set-the-terms.md">}}), and websites must agree to them.
The libertarian perspective is a two-way street. Nobody is forcing a person to publish content on the Web. If the "comply with the user's wishes" model of the Web is problematic to a content creator, they don't need to participate in the Web.