[iopq]

I don't know if I want to see the content or not until I request the page.

What if I go on youtube, but some scammer replaced it with a page that says "your computer is hacked, send BTC to enable youtube, go to scamwebsite.com". My safe browsing add-on should be able to block the content of scamwebsite.com, or even block this message completely if the maintainers act more quickly than youtube

To argue "you visited youtube.com and the scammer has the right to show you the scam message" is not logical, so why should "you visited youtube.com and Google has the right to show you advertisements" hold? You only argued from the act of visiting the website and it costing someone money. It costs the scammer money to serve the requests from billions of people hitting the website, that doesn't change from the perspective of your argument.

[Terr_]

A closely related way to think about this is that with control comes liability for damages.

If the content provider wants to argue they deserve control over What calculations and things my computer does, then they ought be liable for any crashes or scams or exploits that come from that.

I find there's a lot of frustrating internet crap that boils down to someone demanding power without responsibility.

[mvdtnz]

You've invented a scenario that doesn't even make glancing contact with reality in order to rationalize your point of view. I'm actually on your side in this argument but not for this totally contrived reason.

[8organicbits]

The scenario is very real. Ad networks don't review ad content well enough, so scams and other malicious content are sometimes shown to users. This is also why the FBI recommends using an ad blocker [1]. Pretty embarrassing for Google that a public service announcement like this was needed.

[1] https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-fbi-now-recommends-using-...

[iopq]

It doesn't have to be youtube.com

plenty of sites get hacked and hackers phish their users, it's very real