I completely understand, hence making a joke about Google’s pedantic argument by referencing a satirical cartoon bureaucrat who cares more about technicalities than lived experiences.
Google argues that functionally, “blocking ads” means no ads are displayed, and functionally, paying Google’s ransom also means no ads are displayed, therefore the two are interchangeable. Whereas the rest of us can plainly see this is a debate over principles rather than outcomes, and the way something is accomplished does matter. Especially when the article we’re talking about is intentionally designed as click-bait and doesn’t list the one thing they imply will be in it: ad-subverting plugins that don’t pay Google.
They aren’t correct. Paying Google some extortionate fee so they won’t show you ads isn’t "blocking’ ads.
I completely understand, hence making a joke about Google’s pedantic argument by referencing a satirical cartoon bureaucrat who cares more about technicalities than lived experiences.
Google argues that functionally, “blocking ads” means no ads are displayed, and functionally, paying Google’s ransom also means no ads are displayed, therefore the two are interchangeable. Whereas the rest of us can plainly see this is a debate over principles rather than outcomes, and the way something is accomplished does matter. Especially when the article we’re talking about is intentionally designed as click-bait and doesn’t list the one thing they imply will be in it: ad-subverting plugins that don’t pay Google.