In the technical sense, sure, you're allowed (entitled) to do whatever you want.
But that's not what tptacek is referring to. He's referring to the "I want something for nothing" sense of entitlement. You have no moral right (entitlement) to read their content without viewing the ads the put up. That's why ad-blocking has never sat right with me: it's implicitly accepting that the model of ad supported, free content can not work on the internet.
Boss: can you compile for me today's important news from the paper?
Secretary: right away. [takes out scissors and cuts out only the relevant parts]
Boss: great!
s/Boss/user/, s/Secretary/Software/
Once a byte stream of information comes under the control of another user, what they do in their own time and privacy is entirely up to them. It may even be illegal, but it is outside of your control.
We can do this whole "immoral vs moral" and "gentleman's agreement thing." But depending on how gentlemanly you want to be, you can make the tacit agreements infinitely complicated, inefficient, and uneconomical. Example: reading on a small-screen device. Another example: ads on train.
If you make the content of your site freely available with the knowledge that users can access your site in a way that circumvents your business model you've signed up for a business model that isn't dependable.
This is no different than a street musician wanting money from people that stop to listen to the music they play. Maybe the listener, having heard the music, determines it's not of any monetary value. Are they obligated to pay anyway? No, and the street musician knows this. They understand that only a certain percentage of people that stop to listen will actually pay anything. It's true, too, that maybe someone will listen to the music and be unable to pay. Should they block their ears as they walk past because they cannot give what the musician would like to receive for his service? In the case of a screen reader, maybe the user doesn't even know the ads exist.
If the street musician decides his business model isn't supporting him as much as he'd like, maybe he'll stop playing music. And will the public that decided to not pay him anything really care that he doesn't play it anymore? No. They decided it wasn't valuable enough to pay for.
If you feel your content is worth something or you need money to continue providing it, you should charge people for it outright, or make an explicit request for donations. If people find value in your content and are able to, they will pay for it.
It should not be expected that when you put content freely available somewhere, whether it be publishing a blog or playing music in the street that everyone who reads or hears it finds it of equal value or is willing and able to pay for it. You, as that site owner or musician do yourself a disservice if you expect otherwise.
Agree with erso. Much of the internet consists of buskers, and buskers cannot rely on revenue. They sing on the street for the love of it, or for self-promotion, or because they don't have headshots and an agent to book a concert hall, or because they're crazy--not because this will bring them a fortune, because it won't. Pay-per-view, however, is booking a concert hall and charging admission. And selling subscriptions is selling season passes to the shows. Very different. Busking might drum up a fan base, but bona fide concerts are where the real revenue is. Think for a moment: pay-per-view and subscription pr0n are where the internet revenue is.
Do I also have a moral obligation to click on the ads, in case the ad purchaser is being paid by the click instead of by the audience size?
If I watch a TV show with commercials, do I have a moral right to go to the bathroom during the commercial breaks, even if I won't be able to hear the commercials from inside the bathroom?
I would say that it depends upon your sense of obligation really, but that there IS no requirement.
My personal stance, evolved over the years, basically allows me to do anything short of blocking ads. The cost, I have decided, for accessing ad-supported content is the open-mindedness that while I will subconsciously ignore almost every ad on the web, that I am mentally open to the possibility of being intrigued by an ad enough to click on it.
It seldom happens, but not having blocked the ads, the fact that it happens ever gives me a clean conscience.
So I have no moral right to use a text-only browser? I have no moral right to browse without a Flash plugin or without JavaScript? I have no moral right to block ads to protect my machine from spyware and make the browsing experience palatable? Most ads are decent, but a minority are extremely intrusive when searching random sites on Google for information.
I'm trying to use the term "moral right" to distinguish between things that you are entitled to do because of living in a (mostly) free society, and the things you are entitled to do because of gentlemen's agreements.
You have the right to browse the internet in any manner that you see fit. But you are in no way morally entitled to any particular content just because it exists. I see ad-supported sites as gentlemen's agreements: we give you content if you view our ads.
> That's why ad-blocking has never sat right with me: it's implicitly accepting that the model of ad supported, free content can not work on the internet.
I'm sure back in the Dark Ages, DARPA and the universities did not invent the interwebs with advertising and in mind. Trying to come up with a "business model" for "generating revenue" while "delivering content" has been bolted on to a system this wasn't designed for. (Aside: and the internet wasn't invented with security in mind, which is why we perpetually bolt together solutions to thwart spammers and botnets.)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Ad-supported sites have an implicit agreement: view these ads, and you can get access to the content. I feel that disabling the ads violates that agreement. Further, I'm worried about what would happen if everyone blocked the ads. These sites need to make money, and if they don't, the content goes away.
Sites like Wikepedia are donation based, and run as non-profits.
Heres an analogy that most hackers can identify with-- the local coffee shop. The agreement there is implicit as well (and sometimes explicit): buy this coffee, and you can use the internet. Should you get free internet without buying the coffee?
Except coffee shops are for-profit. I'm not concerned Wikipedia will disappear. I am concerned that the NY Times online will disappear, because it needs to sustain a profit.
(For the record, I actually worry if my coffee purchase really does offset my resource usage when I stay for 3-4 hours in my local coffee shop on weekends.)
WiFi or no WiFi, beverage or no beverage, a coffee house lets you hang out until the manager decides to throw you out. Likewise, NYTimes.com can revamp its site such that nonsubscribers are limited to 1 hour at the site with 24 hours in between, like HN's noprocrast.
But that's not what tptacek is referring to. He's referring to the "I want something for nothing" sense of entitlement. You have no moral right (entitlement) to read their content without viewing the ads the put up. That's why ad-blocking has never sat right with me: it's implicitly accepting that the model of ad supported, free content can not work on the internet.