Hacker News Reader

> What I do refuse to accept is that once they have sent me the data that they have any right to control how I consume it. If you want to prevent me from accessing your site unless I view ads, you have a very simple way to do that -- have your webserver return an error code unless I have viewed the ads. But once you have sent me the bytes, in my eyes, you lose any right to dictate how those bytes are processed or blackholed.

This is my view as well and I argue the danger of any other policy is authoritarian abuse of humans. Mandating that these companies have rights on devices _we_ paid for is a stepping stone to more egregious things.

But isn't this the case? Who's going after people to do whatever they want to data they already have?

In my view, this falls under fair use.

If you have a private copy of a printed newspaper, you're free to tear out a page, draw pen-mustaches, wrap a fish in it, make a paper airplane, solve the crossword puzzle incorrectly, wipe yourself, basically anything you like - for your own amusement.

I don't see how your private copy of the webpage bytes should be any different.

In both cases there are very clear boundaries: you can't redistribute derivative works without permission & attribution (copyright), you can't publicly broadcast, etc. Everything else should be fair game.

One generally pays for the newspaper.

Not at all. There are many legal ways to receive free copies of newspapers. No one is going to come beat me up just because I didn’t read all the ads.

Denying access to a site is hardly like beating one up for not reading newspaper ads. It's more like they'd refuse to give you another edition of the paper on your next visit, or insisted you pay for the paper instead.

As genocidicbunny points out all the way up in the thread, if the server responds with 402 Payment Required, I'll honor it and either pay or go elsewhere. If it responds 200 OK and sends me the content - I'll use the content however I want, end of story.

Not even close. I get one dumped on my yard twice a week that I don't even want, and can't stop even after calling their office. I am not the customer.

A newsstand may not give me a paper in the first place without me paying first, but if one is in my possession, then it's mine to use incorrectly.

The web site has the option to not put it's content out where the public can see it anonymously.

What the sibling said, plus: There are plenty of free newspapers, and even magazines. All of this applies to them as well.

And websites are free to put up a paywall in front of the content to get me to pay for it.

> you lose any right to dictate how those bytes are processed or blackholed.

Stop running their code locally if you don't like what it's doing! You're choosing to let them dictate, and if it's not running on your machine, they didnt' "take back" the bytes.

Also, realistically, most places send javascript to check for ad-blocking, and if it's positive, they skip sending you the content. I can't imagine why anyone would send you the content so it's local THEN try to keep you from seeing it.