There are two ways of thinking about what a webpage is:
1) A web page is a billboard
2) A web page is a pamphlet
If a webpage is a billboard, then it is morally wrong for me to paint over those sections of the billboard that I do not like (i.e., using an ad-blocker). This viewpoint is held by those who own webpages (because they want control over it) and by those who cannot change what a webpage looks like (common users).
If a webpage is a pamphlet, then I'm free to cut it up and re-arrange it however I want. Naturally, those with knowledge to cut and re-arrange are more likely to take this view. This viewpoint is more technically correct, a webpage is just a few bits of information handed to me, and to the extent I control my own computer I can cut up those bits and view them however I want.
It's fair to say that Amazon.com contains Amazon's webpage, and that Amazon owns that web page. And yet, I've never once viewed Amazon.com without using an electronic device owned by myself or another non-Amazon entity. Amazon.com doesn't exist on a billboard, it requires the use of electronic devices owned by other people. What rights do the owners of those electronic devices have? Any? At what point do the pixels on my screen become your protected space?
For the case of the billboard, what happens if you viewed them thru glasses (let's suppose it's google glass), and you use software to blot out the parts of the billboard you don't like?
You're not painting over the billboard, just blocking the light reflected off it for yourself. It does not affect others.
To play devil's advocate, what about selling that device? What if it's integrated into an existing smartglasses platform?
What if you only block your competator's ads?
What if you replace them with your own? (..does Brave do this?)
What if you block all ads (yours, and your competitors), but in so doing, exploit the inertia of a consumer who is a.) already using your product, and b.) actively sheltered from exposure to the market?
Are trying to make a point? Because none of any of this is any worse than ads in the first place? Why would it be ok to influence customers using ads but not by blocking ads?
I'm gunna plug AdNauseam. I like it better than uBO or the ilk, because it clicks every ad it blocks. It completely breaks marketing platforms for me, i never get relevant ads when i do see them. According to marketer data, i want to see ads for everything. It also makes some websearch hilarious - i search for "microwave frequency QAM" and it's all ads for kenmore and GE countertop cookers. I avoid search engines that give crap data, because they're trying to get me to buy stuff, i just want search results, thanks.
It also keeps a handy "cost to advertisers" metric you can view. I'm over $40,000 at this point.
> If a webpage is a billboard, then it is morally wrong for me to paint over those sections of the billboard that I do not like (i.e., using an ad-blocker). This viewpoint is held by those who own webpages (because they want control over it) and by those who cannot change what a webpage looks like (common users).
Why is it morally wrong to paint over billboards?
But even if we accept that unfounded premise, the equivalent of ad blocking would be to hold something in front your eyes blocking the billboard as an ad blocker does not prevent other visitors from seeing the ads but paint does.
There are two ways of thinking about what a webpage is:
1) A web page is a billboard
2) A web page is a pamphlet
If a webpage is a billboard, then it is morally wrong for me to paint over those sections of the billboard that I do not like (i.e., using an ad-blocker). This viewpoint is held by those who own webpages (because they want control over it) and by those who cannot change what a webpage looks like (common users).
If a webpage is a pamphlet, then I'm free to cut it up and re-arrange it however I want. Naturally, those with knowledge to cut and re-arrange are more likely to take this view. This viewpoint is more technically correct, a webpage is just a few bits of information handed to me, and to the extent I control my own computer I can cut up those bits and view them however I want.
It's fair to say that Amazon.com contains Amazon's webpage, and that Amazon owns that web page. And yet, I've never once viewed Amazon.com without using an electronic device owned by myself or another non-Amazon entity. Amazon.com doesn't exist on a billboard, it requires the use of electronic devices owned by other people. What rights do the owners of those electronic devices have? Any? At what point do the pixels on my screen become your protected space?