Tweaktown Adblock Message

[Kamikaze_Badger]

Where in the lawbooks is that stated?

[Waco]

In fact I do. If something is on the internet, it's public by default. It's only private if it's behind some sort of security. This my friend is the very nature of the internet. ^_^

You have a very warped view of the world.

 

Something being on the internet does not make it public and it most certainly does not make it free for you to use as you see fit regardless of what the content holder agrees with.

[Andariel]

I lol'd. Seriously, a website is privately owned. You have no rights on the webernets.

You are confusing ownership rights with simple access rights. Anyone can access whatever they want on the public internet and view it in whatever way they desire. I can't replicate it unless they allow me to, because they own it, but I'm only talking about viewing what they have freely put on the public internet. Again, if they would like the content to be private and available only to an exclusive few, it should be secured by passwords / some sort of subscription system.

[Compxpert]

No on the contrary I think I heard that they were thinking of making internet free but charging you to view websites. That would suck.

[Andariel]

You have a very warped view of the world.

 

Something being on the internet does not make it public and it most certainly does not make it free for you to use as you see fit regardless of what the content holder agrees with.

But I'm not using the content (i.e. replicating it or doing anything with it beyond viewing it in a web browser), I'm only viewing it, which I have explained in the previous post. I think that some of you need to get off your high horses here. If you put something on the internet that is unsecured, you have no expectation of privacy in regards to that information.

[Compxpert]

You are confusing ownership rights with simple access rights. Anyone can access whatever they want on the public internet and view it in whatever way they desire. I can't replicate it unless they allow me to, because they own it, but I'm only talking about viewing what they have freely put on the public internet. Again, if they would like the content to be private and available only to an exclusive few, it should be secured by passwords / some sort of subscription system.

Subscription as in to a website that offers subscriptions to an Ad-Free version. They are in full right to have ads on thier site and force you to view them. Idk if Tweaktown has a subscription feature to remove ads but I know of a few sites like Phoronix that have ad-free subscription systems. Just be glad that OCC doesn't force you do to this stuff.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

You are confusing ownership rights with simple access rights. Anyone can access whatever they want on the public internet and view it in whatever way they desire. I can't replicate it unless they allow me to, because they own it, but I'm only talking about viewing what they have freely put on the public internet. Again, if they would like the content to be private and available only to an exclusive few, it should be secured by passwords / some sort of subscription system.

I'll ask you again, where in the law is this stated? Since when is content on the internet public record? Because if people had the legal right to access all the porn on the internet, I can assure you, there'll be a lot of college students in court fighting for their rights. How does charging money change things from advertising?

 

EDIT: Saw your second post. WHICH LAW MAKES CONTENT ON THE INTERNET PUBLIC RECORD? Please, I want to know.

[Waco]

If you put something on the internet that is unsecured, you have no expectation of privacy in regards to that information.

 

The whole point of this thread is that Tweaktown is enforcing that people view the ads to view their content. Just because you can break the security doesn't mean you have a right to view the website as you see fit.

 

 

There's no law that says you can access whatever you want on the internet however you see fit simply because there is no security. There are, however, laws that prevent you from accessing sites without permission. You know, sites that implement security measures to make sure you can log in...or view ads...or whatever.

[Andariel]

Subscription as in to a website that offers subscriptions to an Ad-Free version. They are in full right to have ads on thier site and force you to view them. Idk if Tweaktown has a subscription feature to remove ads but I know of a few sites like Phoronix that have ad-free subscription systems. Just be glad that OCC doesn't force you do to this stuff.

That's fine if sites want to have a subscription model that removes ads; I've already mentioned that's perfectly acceptable, but I am still free to block the ads anyway if I so choose. I was talking about subscription models in the sense that if they only want certain people to be able to see the actual content of the site, they should be charging for access to the entire site and leaving nothing public. Their choice. But they don't want to do that, they want it to be available to the public, but then keep out people who look at the content differently (by blocking ads) - they want to have their cake and eat it too. What about people who view their site in a text browser? They see no ads either, should they be denied access?

 

I'll ask you again, where in the law is this stated? Since when is content on the internet public record? Because if people had the legal right to access all the porn on the internet, I can assure you, there'll be a lot of college students in court fighting for their rights. How does charging money change things from advertising?

 

EDIT: Saw your second post. WHICH LAW MAKES CONTENT ON THE INTERNET PUBLIC RECORD? Please, I want to know.

Why are you even bringing up law? Clearly it's not illegal to access a non secured public internet page. I don't get the point of bringing up law. This has nothing to do with legality. It would only be illegal to break down security such as password protection in order to access a system. A javascript detecting Adblock is not illegal to bypass; otherwise everyone with javascript diabled in their browser would be breaking the law! Obviously that is silly.

 

Also, let me use an analogy here. Let's use television since it's easier. I pay for the delivery of TV content with my satellite bill just as I pay for the delivery of internet content with my ISP bill. Now, if I choose to not watch the commercials on a certain channel (by changing the channel - or muting it and looking elsewhere - or recording it on a DVR and then skipping the commercials - or even recording it to my computer and then manually removing the commercials), do you think that particular channel should have the right to tell me I'm not allowed to watch their channel anymore? Ignore that this is not technically possible, and just look at the principle here.

[Waco]

but I am still free to block the ads anyway if I so choose.

...and they are free to restrict your access to the site because of it.

 

Honestly I'm having a little trouble figuring out why this is so hard for you to understand. It's their content, they can choose who gets to view it. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[Andariel]

Honestly I'm having a little trouble figuring out why this is so hard for you to understand. It's their content, they can choose who gets to view it. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

The minute that content is posted in a place accessible by the public, anyone can view it whether they like it or not. They can prevent people from replicating it sure, but not from viewing it. They don't get to "choose" anything. The choice was made when they posted content in a publicly accessible area.

 

They can't actually restrict me from viewing their content without password protecting it. All I have to do is not load the javascript that detects Adblock, and I can view their content. Do you see now that there is no choice for them in the matter? All they have chosen to do is annoy me with their javascript message. Which I think is a poor way to treat someone who visited their site and recommended them to other people. The proper way to do things would be if Adblock is detected, show a message somewhere asking the user to whitelist TweakTown, but still let them view the site normally regardless. That sort of approach would get a much better reaction from people than the one they chose.

[Waco]

They can't actually restrict me from viewing their content without password protecting it. All I have to do is not load the javascript that detects Adblock, and I can view their content.

I reiterate...just because you can break the security does not mean that you can access it freely just because you think it's fair.