On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 12:45:38AM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:05:18 +0200 > <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:59:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > >[...] > > > >> The only case I can see in which such offloading would > >> be unethical is where the website operator is somehow engaging in > >> deceptive behavior, but assuming it is not [...] > > > >A pretty strong assumption given that the crushing maturity of > >the internet is fuelled by the ad industry [...] > So somehow there still is no such thing as free lunch. You could just > as well "blame" a cable TV network for running all those ads, your TV > set after all won't eat less power. No profit means no fancy > shows, sports, nor fancy websites. On the web things get quickly fuzzy > of course, but in general neither is exactly deceptive. Ad industry /is/ about convincing people to do things which potentially damage them. So it is deceptive by design. Read up on Big Tobacco for a good example. > We know what > we're doing and what we're doing is voluntary and the catches, if not > obvious, are obviously well known. Know a workaround or work without > it. I'm still a (somewhat) regular terminal links user, a text browser > that is, no javascript not to mention anything more demanding [...] We are some kind of elite, don't forget that. Think of all those folks pushed to standard browsers (banking) and smartphones (again, banking, in some countries even basic public services). They haven't the means to fight that; things are set up so they don't even realise it, so most of the time they haven't even motive. So it's on us. > [...] After all those years uBlock > Origin probably saved me tangible money too, especially with German > electricity costs (who's to blame?), but then what's cheating? Ah. uBlock. A free lunch, after all? ;-) Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature