The "implicit contract" says they shouldn't be attacking my computer with malware or attacking me with scams.
The "implicit contract" says the ads for a single page should not "take over" the rest of my computing-experience with stuff like auto-playing sound.
The "implicit contract" says one site's ads should not be part of a global panopticon secretly spying on my internet-wide activity through a thousand sources.
The "implicit contract" says the ads should not drastically change the page-loading time or cause the experience to stutter.
I believe at least 90% of all ad-blocking is attributable to these systematic violations of the users' trust.
Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to uBlock sites that don't respect my need for keeping garbage out of my mind.
I have an idea: get a better business model instead of thinking you're going to be rich selling advertising on the internet.
Sound like a good start?
Maybe later we can talk about you compensating me for how any of your badly-behaved ads degrade my service on other sites by burning CPU cycles, using outsize amounts of connections and bandwidth.
.. And that's not even touching the whole confidentiality/privacy aspect.
> I’m currently a Research Assistant at MIT CSAIL, in David Karger’s Haystack group and an Invited Expert in the W3C CSS Working Group.
Unfortunately, reading the whole conversation does not give much insight as to the logic behind this moral claim. It's just asserted. The author takes it as self-evident that viewing ads is the cost of visiting some websites.
Edit: Also, I believe I have not been informed by a single site ever, saying that "This site uses ads as a revenue source, in case you disagree with the method please move on." Usually it just shaves those ads down my browser and if I don't like it, apparently 'I am the thief'.
If AdBlock is morally equivalent to theft, having a business model where you have no legal protection against working for free is functionally equivalent to idiocy.
