> Wanting everyone to play by your rules is selfish and doesn't acknowledge the needs of others.

I'm not wanting anything, I'm telling you literally they are playing by my rules.

They are requesting to run scripts on my computer. It is my computer. If I say no, then the answer is no.

This is merely a request from them. I can abide, and I often will, but I have absolutely no moral, technical, or legal obligation to do so.

> I's also like stealing a TV from Costco.

No, because that's illegal.

You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer. I can deny that request.

If you don't like that, then don't allow me access. It is my responsibility, solely, to decide what scripts are running on my computer.

If Google asked you to download heartbleed and run it, you wouldn't do it, would you? Great, so you understand the concept.

The disconnect here is you believe I am entitled. And I am - I am entitled to deciding what runs on my computer.

You are not entitled to run arbitrary code on my computer because your business model requires it. I'm not your accountant, figure it out.

▲

charcircuit 2 days ago | parent [-]

>No, because that's illegal.

But why is it illegal if it's physically possible for you to take it? By your line of reasoning it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

>You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer.

That's an implementation detail of how the webpage works and does not matter. You are focusing too much on the way it's implemented and not the high level picture of how it works. If you have to get to the point of describing the HTTP protocol to justify why what you are doing is moral, you need to realize that you are just coming up with a justification for your actions to not feel bad about doing bad things. You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience.

	▲	const_cast a day ago \| parent [-]
		> That's an implementation detail of how the webpage works and does not matter. Lol, not bending over and letting whoever the fuck run whatever the fuck programs on my computer is an "implementation detail". > You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience. This is so, so obviously wrong it's actually frustrating I have to reply to this level of rhetoric. Once again, I am not your accountant. It is not my responsibility to make sure your business model makes sense. I don't have the time to babysit and hand hold every corporation in my life and make sure their business model makes sense. I just don't, and it's not my responsibility. If your business model relies solely on me allowing you to run potential malware on my computer, then that is YOUR problem. Not mine. Figure it out, or don't. Youre always allowed to go bankrupt. Not every business model is viable. You are not entitled to a viable business model. You are not God. If your business model doesn't work, then you lose. Too bad, so sad, not my fucking problem. And on the topic of money: running ads on my computer is a computer system security problem. The FBI recommends running an aggressive ad blocker. The reality is most ads are basically malware and often literally malware. They can be phishing, linking to malicious sites. They can be deceptive. They can be spyware, collecting information about my computer, identity, or web browsing activity. Google, Meta, et. all have demonstrated they simply do not take adequate steps to prevent malicious advertisement payloads. You do not have a god-given right to run software on my computer, but you CERTAINLY don't have a god-given right to run malware on my computer. If you disagree, take it up with the FBI, I don't care.