cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What a shit website and article. At least post the one from Mozilla themselves.

The case is not just blocking adblockers: the issue is that Adblock Plus specifically charges companies to let their ads go through. That is one of the main concerns.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even that shouldn't be illegal. It's shitty, but it's still too far

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What should be illegal here is the kind of misinformation, if you permit some ads and allow others, you're an advertising agency and should be upfront about it. If your whole business model is "I hide ads" but you only hide those ads that didn't pay you, that's false advertisement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I thought there was a reason why they sued Adblock Plus and not the vastly more popular uBO. I thought it's just because they are a company (possibly German). But this makes much more sense.

    This article is FUD and I suspect Mozilla's is at least significantly less so.

  • source
  • parent
  • It doesn't matter what Adblock plus is doing, it is perfectly legal, there is no case here. If a verdict affects adblock plus it will affect all browsers. No matter what they claim editing html files on the client side is not a copyright violation.

  • source
  • parent