Unblocking User Freedom: the right to use adblockers
Many commenters argue that users have an inherent right to control what runs on their devices, framing adblocking as akin to a firewall rather than “theft” or piracy. Others stress that online content isn’t truly free and that blocking ads undermines ad-funded business models, but this is countered by concerns over tracking, malware, manipulative ad tactics, and growing technical measures like remote attestation that could lock out unapproved browsers or blockers. The thread also explores alternatives such as subscriptions, micropayments, and Patreon-style funding, alongside wider worries about inequality, surveillance capitalism, and the societal harms of pervasive advertising.
Legal framing and mutual blocking
- Several argue courts were right to allow both ad blocking and site blocking of adblock users: each party controls their own systems.
- Others say that “arms race” logic is wasteful; they’d prefer a clear, principled legal outcome that avoids constant technical escalation.
- Many equate adblockers with other user-side controls (firewalls, JS blocking) and insist users must control what runs on their devices.
Ethics: theft, piracy, and negotiation
- One view: blocking ads is akin to theft or piracy because it reduces creators’ revenue while consuming content.
- Counter‑view: no one has a right to show content or ads on a user’s device; if providers dislike adblocking they can withhold content, embed unskippable ads, or charge directly.
- Some frame adblocking as “negotiation” or simple refusal to accept the offered trade (attention for content).
User experience, security, and tracking
- Many cite intrusive UX: modal adblock walls, autoplaying videos, popups, “spin the wheel” gimmicks, large banners, and scammy or misleading ads.
- Security/Malware risk from ad networks (including on major sites) is a recurring justification for blocking, as is bandwidth and device performance.
- Tracking and profiling by adtech are widely viewed as unacceptable; some equate ad/spyware with malware.
Business models and alternatives
- Strong criticism of ad‑only models; some say if a product can’t be sold directly, it may not be worth much.
- Alternatives proposed: micropayments, ISP‑level revenue pooling, Patreon/merch/sponsorships, paywalls, or wallet‑based per‑article fees.
- Brave’s model and YouTube Premium are debated: some like having a paid, ad‑free option; others distrust intermediaries taking large cuts or still tracking users.
Remote attestation and platform control
- Concern that “approved” browsers, DRM, and remote attestation could eventually block adblockers and user‑controlled software.
- Some hope such mechanisms will remain limited to enterprise; others note many consumer devices already have attestation hardware.
Equity and social impact
- One line of argument: pay‑to‑remove‑ads creates a divide where poorer, often less‑educated users are more exposed to manipulative ads.
- Others push back on framing certain groups as “weaker,” but agree ubiquitous advertising has broad societal costs.