What URLs I load and choose not to load should always be my absolute whole discretion. And yes I can pick and choose not to load a whole website.
But don’t use Adblock Plus, use uBlock. Being the gatekeeper of ads to extort money out of advertisers is still a dick move and a middleman that doesn’t need to exist.
uBlock Origin, to be precise!
To expand - uBlock was sold to AdBlock, and so uses the same Acceptable Ads policy. uBlock Origin is a fork made by the original creator of uBlock.
Can’t stress this enough
Ad blockers don’t even modify websites usually. Many just block web requests to certain domains and addresses. You can’t force people to load stuff, that sets a dangerous precedent for protecting against malware. Glad this German court saw reason.
Yep. Even if conventional ad blocker addons get “banned” or Chrome breaks them and forces that on the world, people are just going to block it at the OS or router level.
It’s really a marvellous surprise that the court in Hamburg did not make a completely stupid judgement regarding IT topics, given their history of bad decisions in that area.
Can you provide some examples of their bad decisions?
If this idiocy was accepted, screen readers would be outlawed.
They know they won’t get what they’re asking for, they’re just trying to chill other Adblocking groups and kill then with legal fees
Sounds like hackivists need to get involved with Axel Springer
