* Trade practices / commercial laws: it could be claimed that the use of third party software to remove paid advertising constitutes interference with contractual relations, eg an advertiser and a website have entered into a contract whereby the site will display an advertisement in return for a fee or commission*
Yeah? And this is my problem as a consumer how? The website upheld their obligation and met the specifications of the contract, I just made the conscious decision to use property I purchased (A 2010 Macbook Pro enabled with Google Chrome and AdBlock) to prevent these ads from going into my eyeball, through the optical nerves and into the part of the brain that causes me to twitch and mutter obscenities under my breath whenever an ad starts playing sound on its own.
If any government sides with content producers and decides to make ad blocking an issue just so some company can save face/revenue I hope people bitch-en masse-about the ridiculous nature of it. That there hasn't been a deeper inquiry into the absurd nature advertisers are going to in order to get our eyeballs on flashing banners and ridiculous audio clips played from unwelcome sources is frustrating.
A web site cannot make any promises about what happens on some arbitrary client. Insisting that a site owner be responsible for what happens in a browser is like advertisers insisting from broadcasters that nobody talks or turns down the sound on a TV or radio when an ad is played. (I am aware that at least one Hollywoodroid has accused people of theft when they leave the room during TV commercial breaks. Even he did not put the blame on broadcasters.)
There may be some contract between a site user and site owner regarding the manipulation of served content and how it is rendered, but so far I've yet to see a site that makes me agree to not use any ad-blocking tools.
Worst I've seen is one or another site that detects when certain ad blockers are active and then blocks content.
OTOH, given some some legal issues and decisions regarding the peculiar notion of "deep linking" I fear that the people making laws do not actually understand how the Internet and Web technologies work.
You just made the conscious decision to use the paid property they purchased (bandwidth) to deliver you content that came at some expense. If the content is worth your time, the only revenue model available to sustain the content is not?
Comments
* Trade practices / commercial laws: it could be claimed that the use of third party software to remove paid advertising constitutes interference with contractual relations, eg an advertiser and a website have entered into a contract whereby the site will display an advertisement in return for a fee or commission*
Yeah? And this is my problem as a consumer how? The website upheld their obligation and met the specifications of the contract, I just made the conscious decision to use property I purchased (A 2010 Macbook Pro enabled with Google Chrome and AdBlock) to prevent these ads from going into my eyeball, through the optical nerves and into the part of the brain that causes me to twitch and mutter obscenities under my breath whenever an ad starts playing sound on its own.
If any government sides with content producers and decides to make ad blocking an issue just so some company can save face/revenue I hope people bitch-en masse-about the ridiculous nature of it. That there hasn't been a deeper inquiry into the absurd nature advertisers are going to in order to get our eyeballs on flashing banners and ridiculous audio clips played from unwelcome sources is frustrating.
A web site cannot make any promises about what happens on some arbitrary client. Insisting that a site owner be responsible for what happens in a browser is like advertisers insisting from broadcasters that nobody talks or turns down the sound on a TV or radio when an ad is played. (I am aware that at least one Hollywoodroid has accused people of theft when they leave the room during TV commercial breaks. Even he did not put the blame on broadcasters.)
There may be some contract between a site user and site owner regarding the manipulation of served content and how it is rendered, but so far I've yet to see a site that makes me agree to not use any ad-blocking tools.
Worst I've seen is one or another site that detects when certain ad blockers are active and then blocks content.
OTOH, given some some legal issues and decisions regarding the peculiar notion of "deep linking" I fear that the people making laws do not actually understand how the Internet and Web technologies work.
Yeah?
You just made the conscious decision to use the paid property they purchased (bandwidth) to deliver you content that came at some expense. If the content is worth your time, the only revenue model available to sustain the content is not?
Self-entitled madness.
This little tagline gimmick was done before it started.
A one-line drive-by snipe. HN has indeed fallen low of late.
Men of straw need not apply.