4 ms·

"I shouldn't need to pay every network or affiliate to block ads." And you don't. You can do it for free. DNS is quite effective at blocking ads. It is amus

by ised 11y ago

"I shouldn't need to pay every network or affiliate to block ads." And you don't. You can do it for free. DNS is quite effective at blocking ads. It is amusing to see Google trying to push this "contribution" scheme. Clearly, ad blocking is sending a loud signal to the websites that "make you the product". Websites that are "free" through advertising sales but also attempt to make a record of everything you do at the computer (and are continually becoming more and more successful at it). There will always be content on the www. I have watched it grow since its inception and from the beginning quality content was contributed without any expectation of return. Why? I really do not know, but this is how it happened. And I have no reason to believe www users won't continue that tradition even if ads completely disappeared. Perhaps this is why sites like Google never try to charge people. Because the www has always had heaps of free content. Maybe these large sites, Facebook included, know that if they were to charge, most people would not pay. There might be a backlash. It is silly to pay for ads to be removed when they never had to be there to begin with. Yes, I remember using search engines before there were ads. But I know there are generations that never experienced that, and who probably find it hard to imagine. Ads are smothering the flow of content over the www, not enabling it.

stephengillie 11y ago
> And you don't. You can do it for free. DNS is quite effective at blocking ads. uMatrix is a much more effective way of using DNS to block ads than HOSTS file editing. You can select only certain items from certain domains. Sure, I block Google cookies on most sites, but those sites are dependent on scripts coming from the same domains. With uMatrix, I can permit just the scripts that the site needs. And I can quickly and easily test different resource combinations to customize my website experience.
- ised 11y ago
  For blocking, I use zone files, not the HOSTS file. I can select specific subdomains; I can also use wildcards. I doubt there is anything an ad blocker can block that I cannot block using DNS. But if you have examples, post them and let's see.
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    Can your method block cookies and frames from a domain, but allow Javascript and XHR?
    - ised 11y ago
      I accept session cookies only, I keep Javascript turned off except when I am forced to turn it on (banking, etc.), and I really do not like frames. If there is some site with frames that I willingly use regularly, I just bust out of the frame and access the contents directly. Hence what you are describing does not sound like something I desperately need to do. The only way I can answer your question is if you give me an example: a website with ads to block. Then I'll test it. I should note though that cookies are not ads; the original topic was blocking ads - you are shifting the goalposts.
cm2187 11y ago
The fact that it is free doesn't mean it costs nothing. I am pretty sure that google's datacentre bill is not a tiny amount, and it takes lots of developers to make a gmail. And you won't be indexing the whole of the internet on an old desktop running in a closet.
- SarahofGaia 11y ago
  > The fact that it is free doesn't mean it costs nothing. I agree. In the sense it's usually meant, "free" just means "monetarily free", but cost can come in more forms than just monetary units. :)
- ised 11y ago
  But I never suggested any of those statements you are making. What I was referring to is that Google's "product" is offered free to the user. What you refer to highlights the importance of the question: if their "product" is not free to produce, then why don't they charge users for it? No matter how well Google delivers your search results and email, if they cannot serve ads, they are in trouble. They have hundreds of millions of loyal users of these websites, but Google does not ask users for money. If they did, would you pay?

by ised 11y ago

stephengillie 11y ago

> And you don't. You can do it for free. DNS is quite effective at blocking ads. uMatrix is a much more effective way of using DNS to block ads than HOSTS file editing. You can select only certain items from certain domains. Sure, I block Google cookies on most sites, but those sites are dependent on scripts coming from the same domains. With uMatrix, I can permit just the scripts that the site needs. And I can quickly and easily test different resource combinations to customize my website experience.

ised 11y ago
For blocking, I use zone files, not the HOSTS file. I can select specific subdomains; I can also use wildcards. I doubt there is anything an ad blocker can block that I cannot block using DNS. But if you have examples, post them and let's see.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Can your method block cookies and frames from a domain, but allow Javascript and XHR?
  - ised 11y ago
    I accept session cookies only, I keep Javascript turned off except when I am forced to turn it on (banking, etc.), and I really do not like frames. If there is some site with frames that I willingly use regularly, I just bust out of the frame and access the contents directly. Hence what you are describing does not sound like something I desperately need to do. The only way I can answer your question is if you give me an example: a website with ads to block. Then I'll test it. I should note though that cookies are not ads; the original topic was blocking ads - you are shifting the goalposts.

cm2187 11y ago

The fact that it is free doesn't mean it costs nothing. I am pretty sure that google's datacentre bill is not a tiny amount, and it takes lots of developers to make a gmail. And you won't be indexing the whole of the internet on an old desktop running in a closet.

SarahofGaia 11y ago
> The fact that it is free doesn't mean it costs nothing. I agree. In the sense it's usually meant, "free" just means "monetarily free", but cost can come in more forms than just monetary units. :)
ised 11y ago
But I never suggested any of those statements you are making. What I was referring to is that Google's "product" is offered free to the user. What you refer to highlights the importance of the question: if their "product" is not free to produce, then why don't they charge users for it? No matter how well Google delivers your search results and email, if they cannot serve ads, they are in trouble. They have hundreds of millions of loyal users of these websites, but Google does not ask users for money. If they did, would you pay?