mirror of
https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one
synced 2024-12-25 02:02:11 +00:00
1.6 KiB
1.6 KiB
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 |
|
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.