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.
Comments
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.