←back to thread

178 points elsewhen | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.389s | source
Show context
keb_ ◴[] No.41854693[source]
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of malware and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.

There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).

If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.

replies(10): >>41854706 #>>41854711 #>>41855498 #>>41856070 #>>41856197 #>>41856284 #>>41856893 #>>41858217 #>>41858534 #>>41861410 #
1. fhdsgbbcaA ◴[] No.41855498[source]
Except the “social contract” is manifested as laws and enforced by the state.

Currently at least 50% of online ads are outright illegal in most parts of the world.

Nobody is morally required to have their legal rights violated to get information. Period.

replies(1): >>41855983 #
2. gruez ◴[] No.41855983[source]
>Currently at least 50% of online ads are outright illegal in most parts of the world.

source?