Skip to content

Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal

Technology
130 86 1
  • This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.

    Dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard of.

    Will they make Reader Mode in browsers illegal, too?

    What about "dark mode" or "resize font" when the website doesn't offer those accessibility features?

    Will they make the "mute" function on browser tabs illegal, since it modifies the website author's intention to play audio upon page load?

    I will continue to block ads, spyware, trackers, unwanted elements, popups, and social media links, "illegal" or not.

  • I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this because everyone here despises ads, but I can see an argument for it. I don't know if it is legaly sound, but morally, it boils down to the fact that you are literally using a service without paying for it. The website is offering you a product and the payment is ads. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it, otherwise you really are just stealing it (even if that "stealing" costs very little to the site). I personally use an adblocker and agree that ads on most sites are obnoxious, but I also feel like people make adblockers out to be completely black and white, which they are not.

    'using a service without paying for it' alright. do you want us to sign contractual agreements before visiting websites? Most companies want people to use mobile apps these days because of the legal implications of editing those apps. The ads are baked in.

    it comes down to the philosophy of internet systems you ascribe to.

    I'd like to see your reaction to that television patent that forces people to stand up and clap after the advertisement.

    I'd like to see your reaction to me placing sticky notes on my physical screen over the advertisement's location such that I never perceive the content.

    I'd like to see you kneel, subordinate human worker. Do my bidding. Watch my ads. It's the moral thing to do.

  • and if the ad blocker modified the byte code (either directly or by modifying the source), then that would constitute a modification of code and hence run afoul of copyright protections as derivative work.

    Insanity - modifying code that runs on your machine in no way is even remotely related to copyright.

    Cracking code/verification systems on your computer is also code running on your system, there are literally people in prison for running the code that cracks a program, BECAUSE of copyright laws.

    So I'm not sure your setting how bad it already is for users.

    (What should be, is not what we are talking about, for the record)

  • 'using a service without paying for it' alright. do you want us to sign contractual agreements before visiting websites? Most companies want people to use mobile apps these days because of the legal implications of editing those apps. The ads are baked in.

    it comes down to the philosophy of internet systems you ascribe to.

    I'd like to see your reaction to that television patent that forces people to stand up and clap after the advertisement.

    I'd like to see your reaction to me placing sticky notes on my physical screen over the advertisement's location such that I never perceive the content.

    I'd like to see you kneel, subordinate human worker. Do my bidding. Watch my ads. It's the moral thing to do.

    I'm not advocating for you being forced physically to watch ads, I'm saying that as it stands, ads are the payment method and you actively blocking them means you're not paying for what you're using. I'm not criticising people for that, I'm simply stating a fact. If everyone on the internet was to use adblockers, most of the web would die out, and first to die would be actually useful sites that provide helpful information that they invested time and money into making, such as news, review sites, etc. Perhaps the threat of adblockers itself is benefitial for the internet as it might force websites to find alternate, better payment methods, but I don't see what you could replace ads with since people won't be willing to pay a monthly subscription for every site they visit, and most people won't pay for donations if you try a donations based model.

  • Eh, next try (Nr. 7? 8?) of Axel Springer, a tabloid that wanted to declare their site as a protected piece of art you aren't allowed to modify (block stuff).

  • Had that

    longer in the eastern part

  • I'm not advocating for you being forced physically to watch ads, I'm saying that as it stands, ads are the payment method and you actively blocking them means you're not paying for what you're using. I'm not criticising people for that, I'm simply stating a fact. If everyone on the internet was to use adblockers, most of the web would die out, and first to die would be actually useful sites that provide helpful information that they invested time and money into making, such as news, review sites, etc. Perhaps the threat of adblockers itself is benefitial for the internet as it might force websites to find alternate, better payment methods, but I don't see what you could replace ads with since people won't be willing to pay a monthly subscription for every site they visit, and most people won't pay for donations if you try a donations based model.

    If everyone on the internet was to use adblockers, most of the web would die out

    Websites existed before internet ads came about, and while it may be true that most would die without ads I'd be happy to see them go because the vast majority of websites have no value and only exist to try and make a few bucks off ads.

    Hosting for most websites these days is virtually free. For about 80% of mine I only have to pay for the domain names, and I have no desire to serve ads to my visitors under the guise of covering costs.

    The alternatives are directly charging for access to a service, or providing it for free and relying on donations or payment just for extra/bonus features/content. These methods are very successful when something is actually worth paying for.

  • If everyone on the internet was to use adblockers, most of the web would die out

    Websites existed before internet ads came about, and while it may be true that most would die without ads I'd be happy to see them go because the vast majority of websites have no value and only exist to try and make a few bucks off ads.

    Hosting for most websites these days is virtually free. For about 80% of mine I only have to pay for the domain names, and I have no desire to serve ads to my visitors under the guise of covering costs.

    The alternatives are directly charging for access to a service, or providing it for free and relying on donations or payment just for extra/bonus features/content. These methods are very successful when something is actually worth paying for.

    Hosting costs heavily depend on the type of service, YouTube's costs are very much not negligible, but it is true that for most sites it is very cheap. But hosting costs aren't the only cost, many sites provide useful reviews, news, or testing that costs them money to produce, which they pay for with ads. Yes, some sites survive using alternative payment methods, but I'm skeptical that this can scale to the rest of the internet. My fear is that we'll end up in a situation where 90% of the internet is just YouTube, Facebook, Reddit and other giants and people get all of their news, reviews and other information from those sites, which I think is worse than having ads.

  • We are all criminals on this blessed day.

  • In that case, make sure the judge gets to watch 4x 10 minute ads for every 30 minutes of watching anything in 720p after having paid in full for the highest tier 4K subscription plan.

  • Perplexity offers to buy Google Chrome for $34.5 billion

    Technology technology
    51
    1
    244 Stimmen
    51 Beiträge
    202 Aufrufe
    hupf@feddit.orgH
    https://youtu.be/dgct3Jn8pFA
  • mRNA vaccines for HIV trigger strong immune response in people

    Technology technology
    30
    288 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    136 Aufrufe
    S
    It's like pidgeon chess, isn't it? Things are clear and well-studied, but people like you think that ignorance is a virtue and that something that you don't know can't be known by anyone else.
  • 255 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    275 Aufrufe
    srmono@feddit.orgS
    Rethink/Adguard/pihole all interfere with the DNS lookup. Depending on the quality of your blocklist, the servers they try to send the data too will simply not be reachable.
  • 20 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    138 Aufrufe
    sentient_loom@sh.itjust.worksS
    Nobody's complaining about the simple.wikipedia part, but you already know that.
  • 178 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    104 Aufrufe
    R
    They've probably just crunched the numbers and determined the cost of a recall in Canada was greater than the cost of law suits when your house does burn down
  • 281 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    151 Aufrufe
    fingolfinz@lemmy.worldF
    Magats wanted people with their same mental capacity to run things and oh look, it’s lots of incompetence
  • 7 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    95 Aufrufe
    V
    Ah yeah, that doesn't look like my cup of tea.
  • Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    121 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    103 Aufrufe
    L
    (Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism) I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you. People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). ...what? What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you're making about me criticizing capitalism means I 'blame [it] for everything', this tirade you've launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation. People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. Please allow me to reiterate: ...what? Capitalists didn't build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this... vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism's chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It's the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they're lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps. That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. I'm going to go ahead an assume that 'the problem' has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to 'ape (or any other animal's) power dynamics' than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how: LOL no. Also, do you remember when I said this? ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires?' Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.