3 ms·

I agree with you in principle; I now use ad blockers after arguing for years that people shouldn't. But in reality that's a tough case to make. Sure, the NSA m

I agree with you in principle; I now use ad blockers after arguing for years that people shouldn't. But in reality that's a tough case to make. Sure, the NSA might find out what web sites I've been visiting, but that's a really abstract concept for most people. I don't want to attack your analogy too much, but sticking yourself with discarded needles is a much more tangible risk, and doesn't bring any benefits along with it. There are some sites I frequent that are egregious about ads, but they provide enough value to me that I keep going back.

Karunamon 10y ago
I was referring more to the creepy/invasive nature of the ad companies than the NSA, but I suppose that applies too. Remember that I mentioned malware too - that is a very tangible risk, to my computer and any computer that it's connected to. I'm not speaking hyperbolically here either, malware loaded advertising winds up on large ad networks used on reputable sites[1]. My personal policy remains unchanged: when the site owner takes responsibility for what their server does to my computer (including reimbursement for time and materials when an infection shows up), I'll consider unblocking the ads, and not a moment before. As it stands, the person who takes that snippet of Javascript from Adsense and ignorantly whacks it into their page wants all of the benefit (ad $$$) with none of the responsibility. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History