A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.
I can buy a book and cross out words with a sharpie if I want. I can't go make copies of my edited book and distribute them, but I can do what I want with my copy that I legally acquired.
An ad blocker just edits the local copy. It's not re-publishing the site without ads.
You tell that to the lawmakers. Because right now the only ones talking to them are the industry lobbyists
You made one mistake: expecting laws to make logical sense, especially when it comes to technology
I wonder if someone set up a Language Model that just regurgitated the information in its own words without the ads (like LLMs do) how sites would be able to complain about it.
Yeah LLMs are actually a tricky copy-right problem and they seem to be getting a free pass.
Ad blockers don't seem to be tricky.
they seem to be getting a free pass
Because the legal system is a war of attrition in who can pay the lawyers the longest. The traditional media knows they'll lose that ware against the tech magnates. They also know they'll win against the browser addon developer.
It's because the billionaires are the ones controlling the businesses of generative AI.
Adblockers are benefitting the middle class and the poors at the expense of billionaires, so they can't stay.
It's literally that simple, unfortunately.
This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.
“There are many reasons, in addition to ad blocking, that users might want their browser or a browser extension to alter a webpage,” Nazer says, explaining that some causes could stem from the need "to improve accessibility, to evaluate accessibility, or to protect privacy."
Stylus and Greasemonkey would presumably violate that, for example.
Not even that, it would technically outlaw developer tools. Your browser allows you to freely edit the DOM at any point.
Swatted for not viewing e-mail with remote content enabled
Not unrealistic. You can easily get swatted for having mildly left takes and publishing them in the wrong form/media, or calling a politician "1 pecker".
Andry Grote ist 1 Pimmel.
(looking at the world)
Can you not make bull shit
FOR FIVE FUCKING MINUTES?!?
World:
The German government openly supports a genocide, so I don't give a flying fuck what those Nazi shitwanks think about adblockers.
The case stems from online media company Axel Springer’s lawsuit
Think of that as Germany’s version of Fox news.
Ad-Blocker stellen eine wichtige Maßnahme zum Schutz der NutzerInnen im Internet dar, da sie effektiv vor Angriffen durch Schadprogramme schützen, die über extern eingebettete Werbeeinblendungen erfolgen.
Ad blockers are an important tool for the protection of users on the internet, since they protect against attacks launched from malware embedded into advertising banners. [1]
The German Federal Institute for Security in Information Technology.
Another good day to be a VPN provider, I guess.
This just in. Cutting up a magazine or newspaper is also illegal /s
If website developers don’t want browsers to “tamper” with their code in any way, then I say: Go for it. From now on, only perfectly valid websites will be displayed, since leniency toward the rules would in effect change the website.
Headings not in order? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed”.
JavaScript error? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
Forgot to close a <div>? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
An <input> without an associated <label>? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
<img> without an <alt> text? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
Duplicate IDs on the page? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
I don't disagree with you, but this is how internet explorer stayed the #1 browser for so long. It would accept any garbage and display it somewhat properly, while Netscape tried sticking to standards.
Thanks for quoting the lore. I wasn’t there when it was written.
~ouch~
Lets bring back xhtml then.
Can I not choose what executes on my computer?
If your malware is copyrighted, don't send it to my computer
Good fucking luck germany
This seems outrageous. If I don’t want to see an ad by closing my eyes, or using an automated mechanism (like an ad blocker), then stopping me should be illegal, not the other way around
After Don't Copy That Floppy, here comes Don't Close Those Eyes !
Gah! Et tu, Germany? You were supposed to be one of the good ones when it came to privacy! Who is left now, Switzerland?
Switzerland are working on that.