undefined | Better HN

0 pointschongli11mo ago0 comments

Is it taken without consent?

There's no clearer lack of consent than attempts by advertisers to circumvent, block, or ban ad-blockers.

These advertisers could choose to put up paywalls but that would harm their search rankings, so they don't. Instead, they play games with cloaking [1] and other SEO techniques in order to bypass the user's wishes and show them ads (or even ads + cloaked paywalls).

At least YouTube offers a paid premium service which remains ad-free.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking

0 comments

luckylion11mo ago

> There's no clearer lack of consent than attempts by advertisers to circumvent, block, or ban ad-blockers.

There is consent (otherwise you wouldn't visit the website in the first place), users with adblock are just trying to minimize their exposure. Totally reasonable (I do it too), but nobody is forcing them.

That may be true for e.g. a malicious software on your computer that force-redirects your regular browsing activity to some evil site, but that's not what we're discussing.

chongliOP11mo ago

There is consent (otherwise you wouldn't visit the website in the first place)

Clicking a link is not consent. I have no idea what I am going to see until I reach the website. My browser has rendered the website and executed their JavaScript long before I've had any chance to even process what I'm seeing, let alone consent to it.

Clicking a link is equivalent to walking into a tattoo parlour. We don't infer that I consent to receiving a tattoo just by walking through the doorway. Stealing my attention with ads is less extreme of an intrusion onto my person than a tattoo, obviously, but it is still an intrusion.

luckylion11mo ago

I'd say the intrusion is similar to you seeing tattoo designs after walking into a tattoo studio - it's expected and accepted, you consent by entering.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointschongli11mo ago0 comments

Is it taken without consent?

There's no clearer lack of consent than attempts by advertisers to circumvent, block, or ban ad-blockers.

At least YouTube offers a paid premium service which remains ad-free.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking

0 comments

luckylion11mo ago

> There's no clearer lack of consent than attempts by advertisers to circumvent, block, or ban ad-blockers.

That may be true for e.g. a malicious software on your computer that force-redirects your regular browsing activity to some evil site, but that's not what we're discussing.

chongliOP11mo ago

There is consent (otherwise you wouldn't visit the website in the first place)

luckylion11mo ago

I'd say the intrusion is similar to you seeing tattoo designs after walking into a tattoo studio - it's expected and accepted, you consent by entering.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse