A website displays on _my_ computer. I should have more control over that "space" than a "public space", for sure. There's nothing wrong with wanting complete control of how my computer is being used.
If the business model of the advertisers requires that they trust that my computer displays their ads then I see it as their fault for misplacing their trust.
> A website displays on _my_ computer. I should have more control over that "space" than a "public space", for sure. There's nothing wrong with wanting complete control of how my computer is being used.
Who cares if it's _your_ computer? It's _their_ product or service you're using, which is offered to you under well-defined terms of use. You're free to not use it if you don't agree with the terms of use.
Let's assume that breaking the terms of use is illegal or immoral. Then how does doing it on _your_ computer absolve you of responsibility? A person's basement is also _his_ private space. Should he have free reign to hold people there against their will? Having a private space doesn't give you carte blanche, especially when other people are involved (e.g. the people who built the products or services you're using).
> If the business model of the advertisers requires that they trust that my computer displays their ads then I see it as their fault for misplacing their trust.
The essence of your argument is that whenever you can screw somebody over and they're powerless to stop you, it's their fault when you screw them over. This is not an argument I'd be proud to make.
By this logic, a local convenience store that hasn't installed security cameras is at fault when you steal from them, because they misplaced their trust in their customers. A woman walking alone at night is at fault when someone attacks her, because she misplaced her trust in society.
By the way, I use AdBlock. But I don't think your attempts at ethically justifying AdBlock hold any water.
The site sends a bunch of data to my computer. My computer can choose to render it or not, and make further requests e.g. from ad servers or not. If a bunch of people show up at my house and I only let some of them into my basement, that's not the same as kidnapping!
The position that an owner of a computer should be obligated to cede control of their computer to third-parties seems more ethically dubious to me than the position that they should not. I am certainly proud to make the argument that the owner of a computer should control its operation.
I would argue that terms-of-service "agreements" which assume I will cede control of my computer to a third-party are immoral. I find it offensive that anyone would argue that it's alright for others to tell me what I can do with my computer. I wish more people would take a stand against attempts to control how owners of computers use their devices. We might not have gotten ugly legislative constructs (like the DMCA in the US) if people had cared more about their rights.
The "essence" of my argument is this: Private owners get to control their computers (at least right now). It is a false reality to think things are different.
I don't think your analogies about unlawful detention of persons, theft of scarce physical goods, and some kind of victim-blaming rape accusation follow at all. I certainly can't formulate how to respond to these non sequiturs. Code executing inside a computer has very little to do with kidnapping, theft, or rape. I certainly don't see any of them as even remotely equivalent or analogous.
I might have made an argument about the "morality" of skipping commercials using digital video recorders (DVRs), which seems a lot closer to analogizing altering how a web site displays on my computer. Television producers are learning that owners of DVRs skip commercials and, rather than (for the most part) making arguments about taking away the rights of owners of DVRs, are moving to other business models (like product placement).
Rather than assuming my computer will display their Customers' ads (or doing odious things like trying to get laws passed to make private ownership of general purpose computers illegal) I'd rather see website operators move to new business models. If that means that some "free" services disappear then so be it. If a service can't finance itself by having its users be its Customers then I'd argue there's probably a pretty good chance we're better off without it.
(I do find it exceedingly amusing that you admit to using AdBlock yet make the argument you do. I haven't ever used any advertisement blocking software. I simply eschew services that I find inundate me with advertising, or just "look around" the ads when a service is compelling enough to use.)
That's like saying "I should have a say of what you put in your house, because it's my eyes that see it when I come over". If you don't like my house, don't come over. If you don't like a website, don't visit it. It's not yours, any more than you can dictate what goes on a TV channel just because your TV shows it.
I don't see arguing about the "house" analogy could be productive. Viewing a website causes code to execute on my computer. Changing how that code executes on my computer doesn't change the website for the owner or for others visiting the site. Having a physical presence in someone's home arguably causes physical changes in the world for the owner of the house and for others visiting. It's not a useful analogy for this argument, to my mind.
I do like the television analogy, though. Presumably you'd argue that I shouldn't be permitted to mute the audio, change the channel, or skip ahead or back in the video stream when the "owner" of the video being displayed says I shouldn't. Does that "owner" have some kind of moral right in how I "consume" their content? Sounds like an argument for the "broadcast flag" and even more draconian restrictions to make the television that I paid for and own "belong" to someone else. Yikes! I wouldn't want to "consume" that content or buy a television that had that kind of functionality in it. (I'm already frustrated enough at DVDs with "unskippable" material that, effectively, punish me for using a legally-licensed media in a legally-licensed player.)
Arguing that I shouldn't be permitted to alter how a website displays on my computer is, effectively, arguing that I don't actually own my computer when a third-party says that I don't. "In consideration for viewing our website you agree that you don't own your computer." I definitely wouldn't visit that website. Nobody says that kind of thing out right, though. Website operators just require silly things like DRM-plugins (Silverlight for Netflix, for example) that erode my control of my owner computer. I don't partake of those kinds of "services", personally, and I definitely wouldn't recommend them to others.
