Are blocker blockers ethically correct?

a boat load of UNOBTRUSIVE ads on the right margin is fine

4 autoplay videos, and a pop-up with a "wait" until you cal click out is you abusing my computer resources and p!ssing me off.
If ads weren't so obtrusive, there would be no need for blockers

originally posted by: acackohfcc
a boat load of UNOBTRUSIVE ads on the right margin is fine

4 autoplay videos, and a pop-up with a "wait" until you cal click out is you abusing my computer resources and p!ssing me off.
If ads weren't so obtrusive, there would be no need for blockers

If you would log in every time, and if you would contribute more, all you would see is the unobtrusive ads on the right margin. It's all I see.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

In as far as Law is concerned, it might be argued that ATS owners might be breaking the Law, at least the British Law. For example, the Computer Misuse Act (1990)...

Actually, as a matter of interest, why is someone in the Netherlands using British law to discredit an American website?

There may well be a very good reason. I'm just intrigued why you're not using Dutch law (as a user identifying as being in the Netherlands) or American law (as the country where the server is located)?

originally posted by: laurentius
One can use a linux running on vmware in windows, or have a linux box as firewall, redirect traffic thru it using iptables and drop unwanted ad-sources, a problem I solved 15yrs ago.

Or if you have to protect an entire network: use a local DNS, perhaps a pixel server and a freely downloadable blacklist to redirect all ad domains to the pixel server. Indeed, there are many ways to stop ads.

I don't use it anymore, it doesn't bother me no longer but I still have my homemade scripts.
So, if someone wants me to wrap my lazy ass over this again, I would be happy to help, free of charge.

It's perfectly legal, we all agree on that. But is it ethical?

Sorry admins, i'm just more qualified, you guys and chills and the site are funded enough :p

The problem I have with you - and perhaps me - is that we, the computer savvy, can come up with at least 3 different solutions to scratch our personal itch - but that does not help the clueless. Many here would really LOVE to stop the ads popping up, but some even don't have a clue how to install AdBlocker, let alone how to fiddel around with DNS, local scripting, iptables or whatever. So, is it ethical to enjoy an adfree ATS yourself - because you can - and not share that knowledge with others?

Perhaps you just found a perfectly ethical correct reason for anybody to DO provide that URL? What do you think: what is the bigger ethical issue: depriving people from the possibility to filter unwanted content by NOT publishing the URL / software / solution - or depriving the hard working staff of ATS from the deserved income they make from the sweat of their brow?

originally posted by: EvillerBobActually, as a matter of interest, why is someone in the Netherlands using British law to discredit an American website?

And all that whilst drinking Italian coffee, staring at a South-Korean screen, whilst in the back the German washing machine cleans the China made pair of trousers I spilt French wine on?

There may well be a very good reason. I'm just intrigued why you're not using Dutch law (as a user identifying as being in the Netherlands) or American law (as the country where the server is located)?

Simple coincidence: I had the CMA lyiing around here as I was just studying a case in which the CMA was applied.

originally posted by: acackohfcc
a boat load of UNOBTRUSIVE ads on the right margin is fine

4 autoplay videos, and a pop-up with a "wait" until you cal click out is you abusing my computer resources and p!ssing me off.
If ads weren't so obtrusive, there would be no need for blockers

In other words: if there were a professional ethics on the advertisements behalf there wouldn't be a need to discuss this topic at all.

Now let's assume for a second ATS needs those revenues to exist in this form. Yes of course they made a deal with the devil to get their finances straight, just like many other site owners did. Would it be ethically correct to block ads, given this lack of any decent professional ethics in the first place? Probably, yes. Would it be also illoyal and short-sighted, as your actions would only hurt the messenger/ site owner but not the ads industry? Probably, yes.

As long as I don't have to listen to the really annoying sound ads and such, I'm willing to priorize loyalty over my godgiven right to disregard ads for the lack of professional ethics. Isn't loyalty a moral obligation as well and thus another layer of meta-ethics in this whole topic?

Fortean, I like the way you handled your thread and didn't shy back from explaining things thoroughly. All thumbs up!

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: XTexanI believe ethically you agreed to those terms when you created the account.

I somewhat lean towards your opinion: a man a man, a word a word and yes, if you sign a contract, you are bound to it. There are a number of issues here: firstly, are the T&C lawful? If not, signing them has no value at all. Also: given that we are all virtual persons here and TTBOMK currently the Law does not provide any provisions to allow VIRTUAL entities to sign a contract or agreement, and in as far as I know I, as a physical being, have NOT really signed anything, am I bound to the T&C? I don't think so.

Many here will probably not even have read the T&C. Come on, you just signed on to publish the story about your abduction and subsequent travel to Alpha Centauri. Oh, wait, there is a lengthy blob of somewhat legalese .. scroll (not 'read' let alone understand).. scroll .. ah, the button to click *click*. Write. Publish. Enjoy.

Now, say that there was a line in the T&C that says that by signing the T&C you agree to give ATS your credit card number. You never saw that. You did not SIGN anything, you merely ticked a box and clicked a button. Now, one day it proves that clever ad malware snooped your credit card number and published that. ATS now says "oh, but wait, we have this clause in our T&C so we are covered". I don't think so..

I guess I misunderstand your OP. You initially asked about ethics, and I stand on the fact that if you agree to something you should stand by that. Not reading the T&C is not the fault of the site operators, the fault lies with individual who clicked "I agree" without reading the items they are agreeing to. As an example, to my knowledge when you sign up for facebook the T&C stipulate that facebook gets the rights to any and all photos you upload. It doesn't matter if you read them or not, if you clicked on "i agree" then they own them. (this may have changed but facebook was like that at one point).

You can always find those who will say that the T&C aren't law or aren't enforceable. To a point they are correct, but the site operators can definitely take action if they find you are breaking them. It is private property, and they can remove you from their "house" if you break their "house rules".

I used to work at a skating rink long ago, at the entrance the rules were posted. By buying a ticket to enter you agreed to those rules. If you broke those rules you were kicked out, didn't matter if you said you read them or not.

originally posted by: XTexan


You initially asked about ethics, and I stand on the fact that if you agree to something you should stand by that.

Yes, that would be the ethical thing to do.

a reply to: kaylaluv

But... Given the fact that ads 'developed' a lot since the T&C were written down, we may not agree on them anymore with regards to blatant sound-ads and such.

Telling me that I did sign up for the ads-unculture is one thing, assuming it didn't change at all is another. Back in the days I usually got some pics or gif animations, but we're on a whole new level by now und thus the T&C argument is pretty moot.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Lots of products have lots of T&C's to use. I'm of the opinion that a service provider has no right to dictate how their service will be used. It's no different than Apple's T&C that claims they get your power of attorney for using an IPhone or when Sony removed the ability for PS3 owners to use Linux on their game systems.

Providing a product does not give one the authority to dictate how that product is used. Ethically, everyone who tries to demand unrelated behavior from someone for using their product/service is in the wrong. That goes for the products I listed above to employers who monitor an employee's social media to make sure they act in the proper way.

a reply to: Aazadan

Azadan,

Your opinion is all very well and good, but it has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the situation.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TrueBrit

Lots of products have lots of T&C's to use. I'm of the opinion that a service provider has no right to dictate how their service will be used. It's no different than Apple's T&C that claims they get your power of attorney for using an IPhone or when Sony removed the ability for PS3 owners to use Linux on their game systems.

Providing a product does not give one the authority to dictate how that product is used. Ethically, everyone who tries to demand unrelated behavior from someone for using their product/service is in the wrong. That goes for the products I listed above to employers who monitor an employee's social media to make sure they act in the proper way.

I'm unaware of Apple's T&C so I can't comment on them. But with the PS3 I don't see your point. You can use a PS3 without the update you refer to you just can't connect to Sony's online services, and game developers can choose to not allow your game to work based on the software version you run. Are you saying that Sony and the game developers don't have that right?

Please continue the conversation in the ongoing, original thread.

Thread.

Thread closed.