
Edward Snowden says it's your 'duty' to install ad blockers - hellofunk
http://mashable.com/2015/11/17/edward-snowden-says-its-your-duty-to-install-ad-blockers/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link#BkfDRPKzRuqy
======
hellofunk
Ironically, this site presents a huge ad at its top that makes reading on a
small laptop a challenge until the ad disappears.

~~~
krapp
"Edward Snowden Says X" has become pretty effective clickbait.

~~~
hellofunk
It's hard to deny that he says smart things that make sense, that's probably
why. Whatever people may think about what he did, he remains quite an
intelligent fellow with a good knowledge of relevant matters.

~~~
krapp
It's also hard to deny he's become a brand, and most of what's attributed to
him, now, comes second and third-hand from sources with a stake in viewership.

Not that this discredits anything, but if we're moving into a post-Snowden age
in terms of most coverage being meta-coverage, people might need to start
being concerned about the biases and motives behind stories attached to him.

------
probablypat
Im personally more concerned about trackers more than ads. I don't want
commerical companies collecting more than 2000 data points on me then selling
it to some other data broker. I've used many tracker blockers, and one that
lets me keep organized is [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/redmorph-
browser-c...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/redmorph-browser-
controll/ghpfnohpiocmklpejkcliiloniceahdo).

------
zeveb
I happen to agree that it's a good thing to use ad blockers (and that
malvertising is becoming a bigger and bigger problem), but it's a bit much
being lectured on duty by someone who betrayed his duty, betrayed his
colleagues and betrayed his nation.

~~~
ionised
How did he betray his nation exactly?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like he did everyone except the government a
huge fucking favour.

Your government is not your nation, and your government are the ones betraying
you.

~~~
zeveb
> How did he betray his nation exactly?

He revealed information about supposed national-security intelligence-
collection measures.

> From where I'm sitting, it looks like he did everyone except the government
> a huge fucking favour.

He certainly did the Chinese and Russian governments a huge favour.

> Your government is not your nation, and your government are the ones
> betraying you.

Hardly. Nothing he has alleged is illegal; nothing he has alleged is
unconstitutional; everything he has alleged was appropriately targeted.

I'll grant him this much: he doesn't think he's evil; he thinks he's doing
good. But what he's actually done is cause exceptionally grave damage to the
government _and people_ of the United States of America (and, insofar as the
United States act as guarantors of the Pax Americana, he's endangered the rest
of the world as well).

~~~
ionised
> He certainly did the Chinese and Russian governments a huge favour.

How?

> Hardly. Nothing he has alleged is illegal; nothing he has alleged is
> unconstitutional; everything he has alleged was appropriately targeted.

Have you been reading the same news/leaks as I have?

> But what he's actually done is cause exceptionally grave damage to the
> government and people of the United States of America (and, insofar as the
> United States act as guarantors of the Pax Americana, he's endangered the
> rest of the world as well).

Again, how do you know this?

------
nickpsecurity
I'm guessing that Edward pays for all content and services he uses along with
the rest of the world so the ad model is unnecessary. And so his advice
doesn't equate to stealing. ;)

~~~
feld
The ads are "stealing" your: cpu, battery, bandwidth. Thanks to economies of
scale it costs them almost nothing to serve the ad while it costs you a
measurable amount to download it and display it. If it cost equally for them
to serve the ad there wouldn't be so many obnoxious ads.

Also, malware.

~~~
nickpsecurity
They're not stealing anything. You are agreeing to them when you consume ad-
supported content. You are free to never use that site again. Yet, you come
back because you think the benefits are worth the cost. There are people who
don't come back and gripe about a different kind of ad: those snuck into paid
services by oligopolies. I feel their pain as _they_ are getting shafted by
the power the oligopolies have.

The rest of you want to freeload and aren't getting the freeloading experience
you desire. Feel free to try but be responsible enough to admit what you're
doing. Otherwise, many services that are ad-supported can be replaced with
paid ones with more privacy-focused ones than ever post-Snowden. There's also
the alternative of not using what you won't pay for in attention to ads. If
you're just getting robbed by ads, feel free to give up the content as it had
no value to you and was a robbery rather than an exchange.

~~~
tremon
No. Clicking a link does not constitute consenting to ads, as the link itself
does not come with any legalese saying so. And since I'm already using an
adblocker by default, the content as displayed on my screen gives no
indication whether or not I'm missing anything. So me being a return visitor
is also not any indication that I've consented to whatever my browser is not
showing.

There are a few sites that don't work at all with an adblocker, and those
sites I'm happy to not visit again. But the whole "consent by default" is not
a valid interpretation of consumer law in the EU, whether you phrase it as
freeloading or not.

In fact, my browser is muted by default, and I always mute TV commercials
(used to have a mythtv plugin for it, even). Are you now going to accuse me of
stealing for protecting the silence of my own home?

~~~
nickpsecurity
I already agreed with another commenter that I should've exempted the first
click. The rest of your arguments seems to go like this.

1\. You know that most of the web's content is paid for with ads.

2\. You've installed an ad-blocker to prevent them from loading.

3\. You didn't see them when you do so it doesn't count.

That's a funny argument, right there. You could just as easily cover your eyes
as you're driving through traffic and make the same argument. However, you
knew what would be ahead of you, the significance, and made the decision
anyway for selfish reasons. Fine if you do as I run an adblocker, too.

Strange that so many pretend like they aren't ripping off sites giving them
content or a huge uptake of this wouldn't damage those same sites. Why do you
keep pretending?

"In fact, my browser is muted by default, and I always mute TV commercials
(used to have a mythtv plugin for it, even). Are you now going to accuse me of
stealing for protecting the silence of my own home?"

Did you blank the content that the ads paid for, as well? Or just your end of
the arrangement? I'm accusing you of talking content while blocking what pays
of it. If it's not stealing, it's something very similar.

Many ads are visual or textual, though, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up
the silence of your home as a counter to all ads except as a reframing of the
discussion to make your ad-avoidance seem more sensible. Realistically, you
don't care if they loose money and go out of business so long as you get the
content with little to nothing in return. That's your actual position.

~~~
tremon
I don't pretend. You make it seem like I need to defend my choice of using an
adblocker, I disagree with that premise. There is no sales contract, and I
have no obligation to waste my attention on webpage ads anymore than I have an
obligation to listen to TV commercials. There is no moral argument to be had
either, as long as we ignore the morality of user profiling by the same ad
community.

Besides, the cash flow for ad monetization is so convoluted that it would be
very hard to conclusive demonstrate financial harm by my actions.

~~~
nickpsecurity
The user profiling and obscure cash flow I agree with. They certainly have to
get some shit straight on their end, too. Haha.

