1991
"i am shocked at how many people don't have an actively hostile relationship with advertising" (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
285 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

๐Ÿ’ฏ

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 137 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Ad-blocking is a property right. I have every right to control what my device does or does not display, by definition of ownership. Conversely, advertisers or other parties attempting to colonize my device by forcing it to display something against my (the owner's) will is a hostile act that violates my rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 34 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Except we are beginning to not own what we own. The computer is yours, the software is just licensed, and they are trying to take everything away from us, from ovens to washing machines, they want to make it all subscription, spying on us, and serving us ads. We don't have the right to repair the products when we break, and it's a federal felony to "break" any sort of digital lock on a device, and I think to change it's programming too.

    That said, it's a moot point as of yet, because while websites forced me to whitelist their sites to use them when I had adblock, I was told about ublockorigin, and I see no ads, and the sites can't tell I am using it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 25 points 6 months ago

    the software is just licensed

    That is a GODDAMN LIE perpetrated by copyright cartel shysters to swindle all of us. The entire legal theory that assertion rests on is absolute nonsense: they want to pretend that you "need" to accept an "EULA" to use the software because otherwise copying it from the installation media onto your hard drive and/or into RAM would be a violation, but that is wrong because 17 U.S. Code ยง 117 (a) (1) carves out an explicit exception that allows it. EULAs are bunk and do not constitute a valid contact, as they not only lack 'acceptance' because they attempt to work on adhesion (trying to impose new terms after-the-fact when the transaction to obtain the copy has already occurred and concluded), but fail to provide any meaningful 'consideration' to begin with!

    They can pry my hardware and software that I own from my cold, dead hands.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 3 points 6 months ago*

    Sadly, and I am not a lawyer so this is not even close to legal advice(!!), "beginning" is potentially the wrong word when talking about licenses due to copyright. Because even a single flipped bit in RAM on your computer could be constructed as a copyright infringement if pushed in a legal battle and decided in a court. (This all sounds squishy because, again, I am not a lawyer and as far as I know nothing of this sort has had clear ground setting or breaking rulings yet...)

    Why am I of this opinion despite also usually loving to take the "my device my rules stance"? Because I got to proof read some final exams for legal professionals-to-be for their technical accuracy and let me tell you: the most likely legal outcome they saw was not good for most of us. (So now I really really hope that some high up court rules on a case like this and sides with "common sense" about what is and is not allowed with our owned hardware!)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Thats fair if you also hold the stance that they can block you if you aren't paying to use the service. But i doubt you do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 16 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    What fucking "service?" Software running locally on my own computer isn't a goddamned "service" to begin with!

    Also, fuck off with your bullshit assumption of bad faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    The web browser and the website are two different piecee of software. Running a web browser doesnt entitle you to access a web server.

    You are asking the web server for the page and its giving it to you with ads. If you then decide you dont want the ads the webserver has every right to not serve you the page.

    It would be different if it was a local application. Web servers have a material cost for processing a request it costs money to serve you that page. Its completely fair for you to decide that your browser isnt going to display ads but its also just as fair for the website to turn around and reject your request or choose to serve you something else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent