> Well within their rights, I guess, but it still seems like they are throwing a tantrum to me.
I still don't see how it has anything to do with a tantrum. A tantrum is someone yelling and screaming because they aren't getting what they want. This is Google getting exactly what it wants, and I don't see any yelling and screaming.
It's just quietly asserting its rights to block adblockers.
Does google really have the right to block my control over what is shown or not shown on my computer? They may have the ability to do so, but that is not necessarily equivalent to a right.
For example, what if I had a robot that detected when an ad was being played on youtube, and automatically turned off my monitor and headphones momentarily, turning them back on once the ad was over. Would that violate google's "rights"?
> Does google really have the right to block my control over what is shown or not shown on my computer?
In general? Of course not.
On a webpage they serve to you? Of course they have the right to, to the extent JavaScript makes it possible. What possible legal basis could there be for them not to have that right? With limited exceptions, they have the right to do wherever they want with their webpage code. And there is no legal exception against blocking adblockers.
You didn't answer my hypothetical. Do they have the right to ensure that I am looking at their ads?
I don't see how they could, I can always look away. In that case, what is the effective difference between that and ad blockers that control what code/images run/display on my computer?
I still don't see how it has anything to do with a tantrum. A tantrum is someone yelling and screaming because they aren't getting what they want. This is Google getting exactly what it wants, and I don't see any yelling and screaming.
It's just quietly asserting its rights to block adblockers.