Does Adblock Violate A Social Contract?

Posted by Zonk on Friday April 15, 2005 @06:47AM from the do-your-part-citizen dept.

almondjoy writes "Newsforge is currently running a story on Firefox extensions where the author states the following regarding use of the AdBlock extension: 'If you use this tool ... there are those who would assert you are not holding up your end of a 'social contract' between yourself and the Web site that you are browsing' Would you be volating a social contract hitting the 30sec skip button on Tivo? Or putting a strip of paper across the bottom of our TV screen to block out those super annoying scrolling banners? I have found that using the combination of AdBlock and FlashBlock extensions in Firefox has greatly enhanced my browsing experience. Has acceptance of web sites crammed with advertising content become part of my social contract with society?"

2 of 1,043 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:What social contract? by Tlosk · 2005-04-15 07:00 · Score: 0, Flamebait

If you don't agree to subject yourself to the advertising, the appropriate course of action in a social contract situation is to not use the content that comes with the advertising. Of course social contracts are nonbinding, but there are deleterious effects if ignored. If more people observed their half of the social contract we wouldn't have the escalating arms race that has created this mess we have today.
Re:the answer is.. by lewiz · 2005-04-15 07:11 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Doesn't SPAM violate the same contract.

That's the answer? Are you sure? To what?

Last time I checked I wasn't forcibly required to have Slashdot show up in my inbox four or five times a day.

Ads are a legitimate form of advertising, spam (by definition) is not.