2 ms·
The first response should have been people install link removers to sites with invasive ads and paywalls. Ill-behaved sites would change a lot quicker if they k
by jasonkostempski 10y ago
The first response should have been people install link removers to sites with invasive ads and paywalls. Ill-behaved sites would change a lot quicker if they knew lots of people weren't even seeing/posting links to them. Something like that would effectively remove junk from a users entire internet experience. A natural search result to wsj.com wouldn't appear, a link in a web based email reader wouldn't appear, a link in a web based RSS reader wouldn't appear. They would hate that.
- ultramancool 10y agoThis would never work in practice though. Ad blocker users want the content, they just don't want the junk. They don't want to have to go out of their way to find content elsewhere. The point is to just get it done. I'm barely willing to exert extra effort to find content in a format I'd prefer and my less technical parents for example certainly aren't at all. If we didn't have ad blocking, they'd just be dealing with ads and I'd be dealing with a lot more malware infections. I'm not going to suggest someone use something that breaks so many common interactions. It's already at a point where I have to add Anti-Adblock Killer to prevent them from turning off ad blockers. Please don't ask to make it worse.