Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Let's look at it from the other side though. Not doing so is implying that I am okay with website owners adding whatever ads and tracking they like, terms unseen. I am not.

> One day when our tech will limit you to a binary choice of ads+tracking versus paying money, which way are you going to swing once your hand is forced?

Easy, paying money. I already do where it's an option.



> Not doing so is implying that I am okay with website owners adding whatever ads and tracking they like, terms unseen.

This is precisely my objection. The narrative that blocking ads and trackers breaks an agreement with site owners makes no sense to me when I can't see the terms of that "agreement" until after I've landed on the site. Shrinkwrap contracts didn't become a reasonable practice when they turned into browsewrap, and indeed courts consistently hold that those contracts are valid only after presenting proper notice of terms to the user. Visiting a webpage is certainly not assent to allow third-party tracking or code execution.

If the site host wants to object to my continued use while blocking ads and trackers, fine. They're welcome to do so; sometimes I reduce my blocking and sometimes I leave the site, depending on the nature of the tracking and the value of the site. That's an agreement, blindly accepting whatever someone cares to serve is not.


> breaks an agreement with site owners

I love when people throw this argument out there. I made no such agreement. I signed nothing. My device will behave exactly how I tell it, not how advertisers tell it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: