• Yuri addict@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This has the same energy as shutting your eyes and blocking your ears during a commercial being piracy.

  • BlueÆther@no.lastname.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    One would think that this is very thin ice for a counter suit, in that how may advertising houses have looked at the source of adblockers to work around them?

  • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well that’s dystopian as fuck, ads are a legitimate security threat with the amount of malware, scams, and other shady stuff advertisements online frequent contain.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s dystopian as fuck for an even more fundamental reason: your computer is your property, and propagandists have no right to colonize it!

      That goes double for the fact that the copy"right" they’re trying to justify this invasion of control with isn’t actually a right at all, but rather a mere temporary monopoly privilege. They’re literally just borrowing from the Public Domain and think they not only own something, but that it somehow supersedes the actual property rights of everybody else!

  • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I wonder when they will start going after screen reader companies for changing how the page looks like for their blind users.

    • somnuz@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hey there! They are simply being inclusive, blind people are potential customers too and should not miss on any “opportunities”

  • ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    You can take my ad blockers when you pry them from my cold, dead body.

    Fucking fascists.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Forcing my computer to display ads infringes on my actual property rights as owner of the machine.

    It’s beyond the pale that we’re even contemplating letting Imaginary Property “rights” (read: temporary privileges) trump actual property rights, let alone actually doing it.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Once again, copyright maximalists fail to understand the medium they profit from, and propose to destroy it.

    The display of hypertext always involves the active participation of both clients and servers. It has never been dictated solely by document authors. A given hypertext document (e.g. a web page) may involve resources drawn from many servers, including ones not under the control of the document’s author. In addition, client behavior may vary from that expected by the document’s author; in matters as minor as the selection of font size, or as major as whether to display images or execute script code. This separation of control is a fundamental feature of the medium, and gives rise to many of the medium’s strengths: for instance, the development of servers, clients, and documents may advance semi-independently, serving different interests.

    Users may choose clients that they believe will better serve their needs. In many cases, users have chosen clients that take steps to mitigate the power of advertisers to control the medium: see e.g. the adoption of pop-up blocking (pioneered in Netscape plug-ins and minority browsers like iCab and Opera) and the later adoption of anti-malware technology such as Google Safe Browsing by Firefox and Opera as well as Google’s own Chrome. These choices have strengthened the medium, making it more usable and thus more popular: imagine how unpleasant the web would be today without the pop-up blocking developed 20+ years ago.