This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.
“There are many reasons, in addition to ad blocking, that users might want their browser or a browser extension to alter a webpage,” Nazer says, explaining that some causes could stem from the need “to improve accessibility, to evaluate accessibility, or to protect privacy.”
Stylus and Greasemonkey would presumably violate that, for example.
Not unrealistic. You can easily get swatted for having mildly left takes and publishing them in the wrong form/media, or calling a politician “1 pecker”.
Stylus and Greasemonkey would presumably violate that, for example.
Not even that, it would technically outlaw developer tools. Your browser allows you to freely edit the DOM at any point.
Swatted for not viewing e-mail with remote content enabled
Not unrealistic. You can easily get swatted for having mildly left takes and publishing them in the wrong form/media, or calling a politician “1 pecker”.
Andry Grote ist 1 Pimmel.
They should be shamed for implying that HTML is a programming language alone.