InformAction Forums

Blocking ads is one thing. Given the current Internet landscape, that's a smart thing to do in terms of both security and privacy, and it's the choice of the end user.
Replacing ads with pictures of cats, or something else the end user chooses, is also fine IMO - their browser, their user-experience.

But I thought that any entity (aside the end user) replacing ads on a web page with other ads, is a form of theft in a way?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016 ... for-a-day/
Doesn't sound opt-in to me.
Legitimacy questions aside, and regardless of how "good" the cause may be, how do you think user would feel towards the cause after being subjected to such unwanted advertising?

It's surprising this isn't much more controversial. (or am I really out of touch? )

Must be the new rage, Brave Browser.

therube wrote:Brave Browser.

Yeah, I've heard of that: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... &t=2985455
IMO it's just a fancy way to grab money while looking altruistic, so I'm steering clear.

barbaz wrote:how do you think user would feel towards the cause after being subjected to such unwanted advertising?

Myself, I'd check whether the product had terms and conditions of use, and consider switching to another one. If it was a one-off, though, and I felt that the specific adblocking product worked better than the other options, I might stay.