On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:40:40 -0600
Joseph Frazier <j0zffraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Personally, I
> > > consider ad-blocking a form of theft,
> >
> > priceless. You might have not noticed but people are
> > supposed to own their computers. So the actual theft is done by the
> > ad publishers who are criminally accessing hardware they do not
> > own. That's especially blatant in the case of the tons of
> > javashit tracking malware they run on the computers of their
> > victims.
> >
>
> Sure, it's their computer, but they chose to visit a site which is not
> theirs,
so? If you don't want your site 'visited' then don't make it
public. This is a variation of a non-argument for 'intellectual
property'. if you don't want 'your' ideas 'stolen' then keep
them secret.
> One that was created and maintained by somebody else. It
> costs to create and host sites,
so?
> if there is no means for monetization
> then the likely macro repercussion is less sites
you mean, less garbage, less misinformation and the like?
Sounds like a good thing.
> or more pay-sites.
but you want people to pay through advertising so what's the
difference?
> Perhaps someday on some sites you may choose: 1. micro-crypto
> payments. 2. give me ads. 3. allow my browser to mini-mine crypto
.... 4 - put people who run malware on my machine in jail.
> for
> the site owner. 4. by donation ie wikipedia.... There is no free
> lunch, the attitude that people should get something for nothing in
> my opinion is a cancer to society.
nah, it's the greedy idiots who want to sell or advertise
garbage and who think they own the computers of other people.
so now go back to your outrageous claim that "
ad-blocking [is] a form of theft" and try to grasp how fucked
the claim is.
