1872

💯

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] grue@lemmy.world 129 points 1 day ago

Ad-blocking is a property right. I have every right to control what my device does or does not display, by definition of ownership. Conversely, advertisers or other parties attempting to colonize my device by forcing it to display something against my (the owner's) will is a hostile act that violates my rights.

[-] hector@lemmy.today 29 points 1 day ago

Except we are beginning to not own what we own. The computer is yours, the software is just licensed, and they are trying to take everything away from us, from ovens to washing machines, they want to make it all subscription, spying on us, and serving us ads. We don't have the right to repair the products when we break, and it's a federal felony to "break" any sort of digital lock on a device, and I think to change it's programming too.

That said, it's a moot point as of yet, because while websites forced me to whitelist their sites to use them when I had adblock, I was told about ublockorigin, and I see no ads, and the sites can't tell I am using it.

[-] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago
[-] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 14 hours ago

Need free food, rent, healthcare, education, and housing first. As long as we still need money to pay for those things then there'll always be too few experts with skills willing to work for free.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

the software is just licensed

That is a GODDAMN LIE perpetrated by copyright cartel shysters to swindle all of us. The entire legal theory that assertion rests on is absolute nonsense: they want to pretend that you "need" to accept an "EULA" to use the software because otherwise copying it from the installation media onto your hard drive and/or into RAM would be a violation, but that is wrong because 17 U.S. Code § 117 (a) (1) carves out an explicit exception that allows it. EULAs are bunk and do not constitute a valid contact, as they not only lack 'acceptance' because they attempt to work on adhesion (trying to impose new terms after-the-fact when the transaction to obtain the copy has already occurred and concluded), but fail to provide any meaningful 'consideration' to begin with!

They can pry my hardware and software that I own from my cold, dead hands.

[-] Quantenteilchen@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sadly, and I am not a lawyer so this is not even close to legal advice(!!), "beginning" is potentially the wrong word when talking about licenses due to copyright. Because even a single flipped bit in RAM on your computer could be constructed as a copyright infringement if pushed in a legal battle and decided in a court. (This all sounds squishy because, again, I am not a lawyer and as far as I know nothing of this sort has had clear ground setting or breaking rulings yet...)

Why am I of this opinion despite also usually loving to take the "my device my rules stance"? Because I got to proof read some final exams for legal professionals-to-be for their technical accuracy and let me tell you: the most likely legal outcome they saw was not good for most of us. (So now I really really hope that some high up court rules on a case like this and sides with "common sense" about what is and is not allowed with our owned hardware!)

this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
1872 points (99.7% liked)

Privacy

45997 readers
1147 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS