Well, it sounds like management is heaps easier to do and a lot less work...

Remind me why again it's also much better paid?

I'm pretty sure there's a gay joke in there somewhere, but maybe I'm not tasteless enough to find it.

Again, same for either program. Both are installed by the user to filter out unwanted content, with the program's maker in the end deciding what's considered "unwanted" (the user only gets to set a category, i.e. "porn" in one and "ad junk" in the other).

Hint: you can't, because it doesn't. More likely the contrary (as in: seeing a naked body every now & then lets kids grow up to be healthy adults). As has been shown at least a few times in serious studies

The best way for anyone to see how this is true is to see what goes on at a Nudist park, village, beach, etc. and my direct study (this summer) of the situation confirms your answer. Nudity != sex in spades. Also, people talk about body acceptance. If a nudist camp experience can't give you that with bodies all over the spectrum, then you really do need help.

I joined Cedar Waters Village http://nhnude.com/ this year, after a lifetime of avoiding places like that (except for that one visit to Moonstone Beach (PPTJLC)), and I can only say that I regret not doing something like this sooner in my life. The ability to just walk out of your cabin after waking up - bypassing your clothes hanging in the closet completely - and traipse off to the beach not giving a single flying fuck is refreshing.

--
BMO - Piping Plovers Taste Just Like Chicken

No, we need a court to determine whether a company can block something for you.

Which seems odd considering that Net Nanny and the likes have been offering essentially the exact same service for years now and nobody bothered to complain.

While true, judges tend to follow the ruling on the table. If only to appear consistent and not wanting to contradict their peers.

Twice so in a matter where most judges don't have the slightest inkling of an idea what's going on. Like, say, "anything computer/internet".

Your faith in humanity is commendable, but misplaced. Your argument is that companies that abuse their users and the trust those users place into it will lose them.

And you even mention Facebook in your post...

Seriously. Companies actually used to be bothered by bad customer reviews and tried to appear like they're user friendly. But by now they learned that they can essentially treat their users like garbage and they'll still come back. Pick any large company and you'll notice that their customer policy at best just sucks. At worst it's outright hostile. They should go out of business. Yet they don't.

What does visiting the page have to do with viewing ads? Is this the early 90s?

Even a service, program or product I'm interesting in becomes quickly boring and soon after annoying when I get to see the same ad or trailer over and over and over and over.

Take your favorite show. Pick the 30 most interesting seconds of it. Now try to imagine another show you like being interrupted again and again to show you those same 30 seconds.

And then tell me that this isn't going to be annoying after no later than the fifth time.

I'd sell you a pound of bread for a pound of gold. I'm pretty sure nearly any shop would do so, too.

Fiat currencies are not an outright ponzi scheme, but they're essentially exactly the same as Bitcoins: They are accepted because people think they will still have value in some foreseeable future.

That's basically pretty much the general idea behind money. Be it Euros, Dollars, Bitcoins, gold or some shiny pebbles. And all of them have in common that they cannot be multiplied by the average person at leisure.

The huge advantage our current fiat money has over the others is that governments can multiply it at leisure. But that's at best an advantage for governments, not for us. Because we have to have faith in that government giving a shit about us trusting it.

And I don't really think that's currently really something I'd put my money on, so to speak.

And that's by no means any better than "normal" commercials.

Let's look at it and see if it looks, walks, swims and flies like a duck...

Does it interrupt the program I'm watching? Yes.
Is it something that does not interest me? Yes.
Is it repeated so often that you can speak along? Hell yes.

The fact that it's for a movie instead of some female hygiene product doesn't matter.

At least we get turned back to being the customer after having been the product far too long.

What you fail to address, at least in my understanding, is the difference in the premise. Golf players are on unequal grounding because of their abilities. Not someone else's prejudice or bias they depend on. They are unequal because of skill.

The purpose of the handicap in golf is also not to make the players equal but to make a game between them interesting. You will notice that it does not apply as soon as it's no longer "for fun" but actually in professional competition. Because it makes no sense altogether to do so. Why bother learning, training, practicing and pretty much spending your life honing your skill and getting better when we get to the PGA tour and I enter, get a handicap of half a billion so I can compete with the likes of Rory McIlroy or Jordan Spieth. I should be able to compete with them, right? It would be unfair if I couldn't, just 'cause they practiced all their life and I don't even know which end of that long metal thing to grasp and what end to swing.

Because you'll have a hard time proving he based his decision on it. And unless the rapists (ex) friend is some rare and unique specialist in a hotly contested field, the employer will just toss him and move on to the next applicant who has generally the same level of experience and training but one less "bad thing" lurking about. Real or not, relevant or not, the employer will not bother to double check. Why should he? To him, hiring A or B doesn't make a difference.