I never understood this argument. You agree to see ads when you use a service someone provides you for free. You are within your right to block ads but they also have every right to show them.
> You are within your right to block ads but they also have every right to show them.
No, they don't have the right to show them. They don't own my computer and my display, what's show on my display is entirely up to me and my browser that I own and control.
However they have every right to choose what data they send my way, including their main content.
You're being pedantic about verbiage. They have every right to accept payment from other companies in order to arrange RGB values on their website that may inform you about products from that paying company. Is that better?
What they are saying is that they have the right to filter out the content that is being sent over to their computer before displaying it locally.
If a company is adamant that ads should always be seen alongside the main content and they know the target computer is capable of doing this filtering, then their only solution is not send anything at all (pay to view instead of ad-supported).
If that is what they are saying, then are just repeating what I said initially. They have a right to send ads, you have a right to block them. I'm not seeing what's getting lost in translation here.
> agree to see ads when you use a service someone provides you for free
I agree to absolutely nothing. I consent to absolutely nothing. That they insist on showing me their noise puts them in malware category and they should be treated as such.
