Receptional_Andy - 10:34 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

The internet is a public medium and by putting it on the internet over public protocols you are giving everyone the ability to look at it. Not true. With htaccess I can block users by internet provider, region, browser, and referrer. You have the right to use adblockers. I have the right to block you.

But this is somewhat different from what I was saying. Once someone arrives at the site that you have made publicly available and linked to via public sources, you're free to show (or not show) whatever content you like. Just as people are free to choose which content and which elements of that content they want to see on their computer. The suggestion that at some point of this process a law may have been broken seems strange to me. Browsers request content, and site owners choose how and whether or not to fulfill the request.

And again, I'm struggling to see at which point this becomes an ethical/legal problem. What about if ads are in flash and the user does not or cannot install the flash player? Is that illegal? At what point does user choice about what content they view become an ethical or legal issue? The natural end of this would appear to be that some site owners want to dictate what technology is allowed on a user's PC.

Of course, I fully agree that as a site owner you are free to try impose whatever restrictions you like on your users. But I think a legal case against a technology like adblock would be misguided at best.