On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:40:40 -0600 Joseph Frazier <j0zffrazier@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.