view the rest of the comments
news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
I'm honestly surprised congress hasn't already criminalized ad blocking software on the basis of it interfering with commerce.
You think they even know what an ad blocker is? They struggled to understand ads themselves during those zucc hearings
I don't, but I also don't think they understand most other things they legislate: they just uncritically pass whatever language is given to them by the biggest industry trade groups. The reasoning behind the DMCA's criminalization of things like circumventing DRM or noncommercial file sharing as "stealing hypothetical future profits" don't seem considerably different to an argument that you already see from companies that blocking ads is "stealing" from the site owners. It's not the sort of thing I'd expect a single elected official to oppose if Google dropped a draft bill in their lap.
It's piracy you evil people, you wouldn't download a site page for free, would you?!