7 ms·

There are no acceptable ads

51 points by bigbugbag 10y ago

rsingel 10y ago
And yet this company's blog post has two ads blocked by AdBlock and runs Disqus as its comment section which is a web-wide data collector and ad service.
- blazespin 10y ago
  Which probably means are they are being pretty brutally honest as they are attacking their very own business model.
  - hawkice 10y ago
    There is a spectrum, for people with a certain belief, between 'hypocrisy' and 'principled', which describes how much their actions are in conflict with that belief. There is a conservation of expected probability thing happening here, so if 'hypocrisy' is more trustworthy than not knowing how someone acts, then 'principled' must be less trustworthy. But if you said someone was obviously being dishonest because their actions match their words, you'd make no sense. I am almost completely certain your statement is similarly absurd.
    - imagist 10y ago
      Sure, maybe they're untrustworthy, but we don't need to trust them to believe what they say in this case. We can evaluate what they say independently of their trustworthiness, using logic and experience.
  - BookmarkSaver 10y ago
    Considering their absolute lack of a real alternative to advertising, this doesn't seem "brutally honest" at all. Simply hypocritical. Using adblockers only works because most people don't use them. If what they are advocating actually caught on (which they know it won't, making them disingenuous) then they would have to shut down their own site.
- imagist 10y ago
  Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong. Nobody lives up to their ideals perfectly.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  Strange, using ublock origins there no ads blocked. There's three tumblr trackers blocked though. Could it be related to using pictures hosted on tumblr ? I also noticed they have addthis for facebook and twitter. Maybe someone should point them to discourse as an alternative to disqus[1]. [1]: https://www.discourse.org/ https://www.discourse.org/
fiatjaf 10y ago
What happened with the idea that ads were a means you had to get to know useful products? If all ads were banned forever from existence, how would anyone discover anything new?
- eric_the_read 10y ago
  For one example, I discovered Joule (new immersion circulator from ChefSteps) when they appeared on Cooking Issues. While they've since taken advertising from ChefSteps, I'm pretty sure the initial appearance was Dave Arnold chatting with Chris Young(? I think it was him) because he (Dave) thought it was an interesting product.
  - eropple 10y ago
    That example doesn't work, though. Follow the chain back to its source: how did ChefSteps get its first customers for its first product? And that question ends up being critical because it's kind of silly to use as an example a product that is from a company with existing direct-marketing channels with existing customers and existing relationships with what are functionally marketing venues (and while I like Dave Arnold and Cooking Issues a lot, it's in many ways a marketing venue--mostly for Arnold's own stuff, but for the occasional interesting-to-him product too, ChefSteps's guy wasn't going on there just to chat). Advertising can and regularly is done well; Giant Bomb, a CBSi joint, never takes ads for games or game-related accessories on their podcasts and the hosts don't endorse the product when they do the ad. I don't think an astroturfed universe (which is the inevitable end result of "oh, no advertising"--see the profusion of "native advertising" for similar) is a better universe.
    - imagist 10y ago
      That's a false dichotomy. The options aren't advertising or astroturfing (which is just advertising). My goal is to not look at ads, be they pop-ups or sponsored Reddit posts. It's true that companies won't be able to saturate markets quickly without ads, but I'm not sure why we want that. I'd rather see small businesses grow slowly based on the quality of their products than see companies with the best advertising grow, crushing competitors with better products. Every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar not spent on developing a good product.
RodericDay 10y ago
> Some people commented that they don’t mind ads, but object to the spying, malware, intrusive stuff that is often hard to control when the site publishing the ads isn’t in control of who produces and serves the ads. That’s a very good argument in itself for blocking ads. But even if that were dealt with tomorrow—if we got ads that didn’t spy on us, didn’t introduce malware into our machines, weren’t 'obnoxious'—we’d still be blocking them. Why? Because we’re not interested in being advertised to. It’s that simple. > We have a visceral dislike of advertising. We don’t think there’s such a thing as a 'good’ or even 'acceptable’ ad. Yes. This cannot be repeated enough.
skrause 10y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11233016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11233016
andrewflnr 10y ago
> ‘Non-invasive advertising’ is an oxymoron. Truly non-invasive advertising would be no advertising at all. You can't be taken seriously if your argument is to loudly change all the definitions to fit your worldview. Show me a better world that actually works.
- Fnoord 10y ago
  > Show me a better world that actually works. Try teleporting back to the 20th century and experience the internet in its full glory. Without advertising.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    If you think there was no advertising on the internet in the 20th century then you probably weren't on the internet in the 20th century. If anything it was more obnoxious back then with poorly animated flashing banners on every page.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      Not for the first couple of years of public early-adopter access during the mid-90s. The first couple of years were a glorious outburst of creative kookiness and cultural insanity. Then the spammers, scammers, and MBAs moved in. And here we are.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        Spam goes back to the 70s. On the web side I remember back to at least 95 pretty well and there were banner ads everywhere. I had a homepage with like 3-4 web ring banners on it + the ads from Geocities themselves. A quick look says the first banner ads appeared in 1994 and the first paid ads in 1993. I think you're probably looking back with rose tinted glasses.
    - Fnoord 10y ago
      Its not obnoxious now because uBlock and spam filters works so well, and HTML5 killed Flash. If you don't take such quality filters into account, advertising is far, far worse nowadays. We're talking about everything before the dotcom boom here. The internet was a lot bigger than WWW, and Macromedia Flash (and Doubleclick) were initiated in 1996. That covers less than 5% of the 20th century. Also, Flash wasn't (ab)used right away for advertising, and if one didn't have it installed not much was missed. Perhaps an online Flash game or two didn't work. No big deal. There was spam on Usenet (the first spam coming from Digital Equipment Corp or was it SUN in the early 80s) and IRC, but it wasn't acceptable.
BookmarkSaver 10y ago
Wait, I'm really confused. They took this quote: "A big part of the web is paid by ads. Lots of websites rely on (non-invasive) ads to sustain themselves and provide content to anyone for free." and literally only addressed the "non-invasive" part. 1. Obviously other people out there don't agree that all advertising is "invasive", and their assertion otherwise is nothing but semantics. 2. More importantly, the core part of the statement is that "A big part of the web is paid by ads." and they seem to have completely ignored this fundamental issue. But instead they just transition from painting advertising as some malicious evil into various ad blockers. So what is the solution they are proposing? Most of the internet is paid for by ads. Are people going to switch to a paid version of Facebook? Twitter? Is everyone expected to get Youtube Red? And are we only supposed to look at the few news sources that we can justify the subscription cost for? All they are advocating is to just piggy-back off of the people that are willing (or unaware of the alternatives) to deal with ads while blocking it for yourself. This is not a solution, this is just taking advantage of a technical loophole in advertising in order to make your own experience better. How exactly do they envision an Internet without advertising?
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  > their assertion otherwise is nothing but semantics Given that what counts as "invasive" is a semantic question, I'm not what you're trying to say here. You seem to be using this as a dismissal, without any justification. They didn't ignore the fact that the web is paid for by ads. They stated that they expect other models would come about, and that in any case, ads aren't an acceptable price to pay.
  - BookmarkSaver 10y ago
    >They stated that they expect other models would come about, and that in any case, ads aren't an acceptable price to pay Totally reasonable. But the fact that they don't seem capable of even beginning to suggest alternatives makes what they are saying completely useless. It would be like saying "we need to solve global warming, so we need to end all coal mining and oil drilling". Ok... but you can't just do that. You have to have alternatives and a plan to transition a society utterly dependent on fossil fuels onto something else. We do have some answers to those questions, and any useful attempt to address climate change will go over that. This is just saying "turn off the pumps, and it will work itself out" without even attempting to explain what is supposed to come next. It is pure whining, not anything more.
DanBlake 10y ago
I hate this shit. Between adblocking and piracy, people are just going to push publishers into a new form of advertising where they don't even know they are being advertised to. This is going to mean more "sponsored posts" on sites you love and less authentic content. Its going to mean your favorite movies crammed with product placement ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4 ). Its going to mean a distrust of anything you see on the web much greater than exists today. Its going to mean every product review you read about will be 90% about the affiliate payment they get and 10% because of the product itself. Ads suck, I agree. I think the major complaint is malware- But that doesnt explain blocking google adsense, which doesnt allow offsite javascript, or facebook ads, or other 'trusted' ad networks. People just remove those ads because "Fuck ads" - Well, thats fine. But those decisions will obviously not just be candidly ignored- Publishers and content producers will react and find new ways to generate revenue where they lost it.
- belorn 10y ago
  > push publishers into a new form of advertising Its such a new form that it is already illegal in most places, and common not taxed properly. If publishers are going the illegal route, there are better ways than illegal ads. Many sites with "sponsored posts" have been fined for doing this, and more sites likely will until the risk of doing so is higher than the profits.
- Fnoord 10y ago
  > I hate this shit. Between adblocking and piracy, people are just going to push publishers into a new form of advertising where they don't even know they are being advertised to. This is going to mean more "sponsored posts" on sites you love and less authentic content. Its going to mean your favorite movies crammed with product placement ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4 ). Its going to mean a distrust of anything you see on the web much greater than exists today. Its going to mean every product review you read about will be 90% about the affiliate payment they get and 10% because of the product itself. If this'd happen en masse this allows competition in the market of reviewers, news sites, and social network sites. It also allows for fact checking (which perhaps even gets automated). The model which works is akin to seed fund, or open source development by contract. There'd be say a review in the make of a product X. In order for it to be made, Y USD is required. This is then gathered via crowd funding. Then those who paid get early access, week later its in the public domain. The model isn't even new. LWN uses it, to name an example.
gorer 10y ago
I use uBlock origin, the problem is I don't like tone of your article. Advertising is site owner's decision. If you don't like it than don't visit that site. So go and fuck yourself :)
- imagist 10y ago
  Everything anyone does is their decision. That doesn't put them above criticism. Lots of people make shitty decisions.
  - gorer 10y ago
    Advertising is regular part of site content owner decided to show you. What comes next? Blockin unwanted article content on someone's blog? It's not criticism it's fascism. Do you like ads on the street? Are you destroying them? Not? Why? Aha you can't you don't have balls to do it :)
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      The ads on the street haven't teleported into my private property, so I can't do much about them. The web content that my browser fetches and displays is a different matter, obviously.
- sctb 10y ago
  Please leave things like "go and fuck yourself" out of comments here. We ban accounts that continue to post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
eptcyka 10y ago
A slightly naive message. Until more than half of the users become willing to pay for information, this will never be viable.
- imagist 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "this will never be viable". If you mean that many content providers' businesses will never be viable without ads, good. Content providers that serve advertisers rather than their users should go out of business. That would be a great benefit to humanity if content was geared toward the needs of humans rather than companies.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
iand 10y ago
The elephant in the room: a large majority of sites just don't have good enough content to support themselves through reasonable advertising. Too many have it 180 degrees reversed: instead of trying to support their content with advertising income they are trying to supporting their advertising income with content.
sliken 10y ago
Why don't ad based agencies allow users to opt out at 2x whatever they would have earned from the ads? Seems to benefit all involved, the content providers get the money, the users who are willing to pay a few $0.01 don't see ads, and the ad agency makes more money. Doubly so because the remaining ads will be worth more.
jrnichols 10y ago
I really, really wish that uBlock origin had a Safari version.
- lowmagnet 10y ago
  It does http://imgur.com/a/pJ0TY http://imgur.com/a/pJ0TY Available under "Installation" https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/ublock https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/ublock
  - jrnichols 10y ago
    No, it doesn't. That's "ublock" and not "uBlock Origin." They are not the same, and uBlock is not even being developed anymore. https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4bbuf3/whats_the_best_osx_safari_adblocking_option_now/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4bbuf3/whats_the_bes...

51 points by bigbugbag 10y ago

And yet this company's blog post has two ads blocked by AdBlock and runs Disqus as its comment section which is a web-wide data collector and ad service.

blazespin 10y ago
Which probably means are they are being pretty brutally honest as they are attacking their very own business model.
- hawkice 10y ago
  There is a spectrum, for people with a certain belief, between 'hypocrisy' and 'principled', which describes how much their actions are in conflict with that belief. There is a conservation of expected probability thing happening here, so if 'hypocrisy' is more trustworthy than not knowing how someone acts, then 'principled' must be less trustworthy. But if you said someone was obviously being dishonest because their actions match their words, you'd make no sense. I am almost completely certain your statement is similarly absurd.
  - imagist 10y ago
    Sure, maybe they're untrustworthy, but we don't need to trust them to believe what they say in this case. We can evaluate what they say independently of their trustworthiness, using logic and experience.
- BookmarkSaver 10y ago
  Considering their absolute lack of a real alternative to advertising, this doesn't seem "brutally honest" at all. Simply hypocritical. Using adblockers only works because most people don't use them. If what they are advocating actually caught on (which they know it won't, making them disingenuous) then they would have to shut down their own site.
imagist 10y ago
Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong. Nobody lives up to their ideals perfectly.
bigbugbag 10y ago
Strange, using ublock origins there no ads blocked. There's three tumblr trackers blocked though. Could it be related to using pictures hosted on tumblr ? I also noticed they have addthis for facebook and twitter. Maybe someone should point them to discourse as an alternative to disqus[1]. [1]: https://www.discourse.org/ https://www.discourse.org/

fiatjaf 10y ago

What happened with the idea that ads were a means you had to get to know useful products? If all ads were banned forever from existence, how would anyone discover anything new?

eric_the_read 10y ago
For one example, I discovered Joule (new immersion circulator from ChefSteps) when they appeared on Cooking Issues. While they've since taken advertising from ChefSteps, I'm pretty sure the initial appearance was Dave Arnold chatting with Chris Young(? I think it was him) because he (Dave) thought it was an interesting product.
- eropple 10y ago
  That example doesn't work, though. Follow the chain back to its source: how did ChefSteps get its first customers for its first product? And that question ends up being critical because it's kind of silly to use as an example a product that is from a company with existing direct-marketing channels with existing customers and existing relationships with what are functionally marketing venues (and while I like Dave Arnold and Cooking Issues a lot, it's in many ways a marketing venue--mostly for Arnold's own stuff, but for the occasional interesting-to-him product too, ChefSteps's guy wasn't going on there just to chat). Advertising can and regularly is done well; Giant Bomb, a CBSi joint, never takes ads for games or game-related accessories on their podcasts and the hosts don't endorse the product when they do the ad. I don't think an astroturfed universe (which is the inevitable end result of "oh, no advertising"--see the profusion of "native advertising" for similar) is a better universe.
  - imagist 10y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. The options aren't advertising or astroturfing (which is just advertising). My goal is to not look at ads, be they pop-ups or sponsored Reddit posts. It's true that companies won't be able to saturate markets quickly without ads, but I'm not sure why we want that. I'd rather see small businesses grow slowly based on the quality of their products than see companies with the best advertising grow, crushing competitors with better products. Every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar not spent on developing a good product.

RodericDay 10y ago

> Some people commented that they don’t mind ads, but object to the spying, malware, intrusive stuff that is often hard to control when the site publishing the ads isn’t in control of who produces and serves the ads. That’s a very good argument in itself for blocking ads. But even if that were dealt with tomorrow—if we got ads that didn’t spy on us, didn’t introduce malware into our machines, weren’t 'obnoxious'—we’d still be blocking them. Why? Because we’re not interested in being advertised to. It’s that simple. > We have a visceral dislike of advertising. We don’t think there’s such a thing as a 'good’ or even 'acceptable’ ad. Yes. This cannot be repeated enough.

skrause 10y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11233016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11233016

andrewflnr 10y ago

> ‘Non-invasive advertising’ is an oxymoron. Truly non-invasive advertising would be no advertising at all. You can't be taken seriously if your argument is to loudly change all the definitions to fit your worldview. Show me a better world that actually works.

Fnoord 10y ago
> Show me a better world that actually works. Try teleporting back to the 20th century and experience the internet in its full glory. Without advertising.
- sanswork 10y ago
  If you think there was no advertising on the internet in the 20th century then you probably weren't on the internet in the 20th century. If anything it was more obnoxious back then with poorly animated flashing banners on every page.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Not for the first couple of years of public early-adopter access during the mid-90s. The first couple of years were a glorious outburst of creative kookiness and cultural insanity. Then the spammers, scammers, and MBAs moved in. And here we are.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      Spam goes back to the 70s. On the web side I remember back to at least 95 pretty well and there were banner ads everywhere. I had a homepage with like 3-4 web ring banners on it + the ads from Geocities themselves. A quick look says the first banner ads appeared in 1994 and the first paid ads in 1993. I think you're probably looking back with rose tinted glasses.
  - Fnoord 10y ago
    Its not obnoxious now because uBlock and spam filters works so well, and HTML5 killed Flash. If you don't take such quality filters into account, advertising is far, far worse nowadays. We're talking about everything before the dotcom boom here. The internet was a lot bigger than WWW, and Macromedia Flash (and Doubleclick) were initiated in 1996. That covers less than 5% of the 20th century. Also, Flash wasn't (ab)used right away for advertising, and if one didn't have it installed not much was missed. Perhaps an online Flash game or two didn't work. No big deal. There was spam on Usenet (the first spam coming from Digital Equipment Corp or was it SUN in the early 80s) and IRC, but it wasn't acceptable.

BookmarkSaver 10y ago

Wait, I'm really confused. They took this quote: "A big part of the web is paid by ads. Lots of websites rely on (non-invasive) ads to sustain themselves and provide content to anyone for free." and literally only addressed the "non-invasive" part. 1. Obviously other people out there don't agree that all advertising is "invasive", and their assertion otherwise is nothing but semantics. 2. More importantly, the core part of the statement is that "A big part of the web is paid by ads." and they seem to have completely ignored this fundamental issue. But instead they just transition from painting advertising as some malicious evil into various ad blockers. So what is the solution they are proposing? Most of the internet is paid for by ads. Are people going to switch to a paid version of Facebook? Twitter? Is everyone expected to get Youtube Red? And are we only supposed to look at the few news sources that we can justify the subscription cost for? All they are advocating is to just piggy-back off of the people that are willing (or unaware of the alternatives) to deal with ads while blocking it for yourself. This is not a solution, this is just taking advantage of a technical loophole in advertising in order to make your own experience better. How exactly do they envision an Internet without advertising?

GavinMcG 10y ago
> their assertion otherwise is nothing but semantics Given that what counts as "invasive" is a semantic question, I'm not what you're trying to say here. You seem to be using this as a dismissal, without any justification. They didn't ignore the fact that the web is paid for by ads. They stated that they expect other models would come about, and that in any case, ads aren't an acceptable price to pay.
- BookmarkSaver 10y ago
  >They stated that they expect other models would come about, and that in any case, ads aren't an acceptable price to pay Totally reasonable. But the fact that they don't seem capable of even beginning to suggest alternatives makes what they are saying completely useless. It would be like saying "we need to solve global warming, so we need to end all coal mining and oil drilling". Ok... but you can't just do that. You have to have alternatives and a plan to transition a society utterly dependent on fossil fuels onto something else. We do have some answers to those questions, and any useful attempt to address climate change will go over that. This is just saying "turn off the pumps, and it will work itself out" without even attempting to explain what is supposed to come next. It is pure whining, not anything more.

DanBlake 10y ago

I hate this shit. Between adblocking and piracy, people are just going to push publishers into a new form of advertising where they don't even know they are being advertised to. This is going to mean more "sponsored posts" on sites you love and less authentic content. Its going to mean your favorite movies crammed with product placement ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4 ). Its going to mean a distrust of anything you see on the web much greater than exists today. Its going to mean every product review you read about will be 90% about the affiliate payment they get and 10% because of the product itself. Ads suck, I agree. I think the major complaint is malware- But that doesnt explain blocking google adsense, which doesnt allow offsite javascript, or facebook ads, or other 'trusted' ad networks. People just remove those ads because "Fuck ads" - Well, thats fine. But those decisions will obviously not just be candidly ignored- Publishers and content producers will react and find new ways to generate revenue where they lost it.

belorn 10y ago
> push publishers into a new form of advertising Its such a new form that it is already illegal in most places, and common not taxed properly. If publishers are going the illegal route, there are better ways than illegal ads. Many sites with "sponsored posts" have been fined for doing this, and more sites likely will until the risk of doing so is higher than the profits.
Fnoord 10y ago
> I hate this shit. Between adblocking and piracy, people are just going to push publishers into a new form of advertising where they don't even know they are being advertised to. This is going to mean more "sponsored posts" on sites you love and less authentic content. Its going to mean your favorite movies crammed with product placement ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4 ). Its going to mean a distrust of anything you see on the web much greater than exists today. Its going to mean every product review you read about will be 90% about the affiliate payment they get and 10% because of the product itself. If this'd happen en masse this allows competition in the market of reviewers, news sites, and social network sites. It also allows for fact checking (which perhaps even gets automated). The model which works is akin to seed fund, or open source development by contract. There'd be say a review in the make of a product X. In order for it to be made, Y USD is required. This is then gathered via crowd funding. Then those who paid get early access, week later its in the public domain. The model isn't even new. LWN uses it, to name an example.

gorer 10y ago

I use uBlock origin, the problem is I don't like tone of your article. Advertising is site owner's decision. If you don't like it than don't visit that site. So go and fuck yourself :)

imagist 10y ago
Everything anyone does is their decision. That doesn't put them above criticism. Lots of people make shitty decisions.
- gorer 10y ago
  Advertising is regular part of site content owner decided to show you. What comes next? Blockin unwanted article content on someone's blog? It's not criticism it's fascism. Do you like ads on the street? Are you destroying them? Not? Why? Aha you can't you don't have balls to do it :)
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    The ads on the street haven't teleported into my private property, so I can't do much about them. The web content that my browser fetches and displays is a different matter, obviously.
sctb 10y ago
Please leave things like "go and fuck yourself" out of comments here. We ban accounts that continue to post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

eptcyka 10y ago

A slightly naive message. Until more than half of the users become willing to pay for information, this will never be viable.

imagist 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "this will never be viable". If you mean that many content providers' businesses will never be viable without ads, good. Content providers that serve advertisers rather than their users should go out of business. That would be a great benefit to humanity if content was geared toward the needs of humans rather than companies.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

iand 10y ago

The elephant in the room: a large majority of sites just don't have good enough content to support themselves through reasonable advertising. Too many have it 180 degrees reversed: instead of trying to support their content with advertising income they are trying to supporting their advertising income with content.

sliken 10y ago

Why don't ad based agencies allow users to opt out at 2x whatever they would have earned from the ads? Seems to benefit all involved, the content providers get the money, the users who are willing to pay a few $0.01 don't see ads, and the ad agency makes more money. Doubly so because the remaining ads will be worth more.

jrnichols 10y ago

I really, really wish that uBlock origin had a Safari version.

lowmagnet 10y ago
It does http://imgur.com/a/pJ0TY http://imgur.com/a/pJ0TY Available under "Installation" https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/ublock https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/ublock
- jrnichols 10y ago
  No, it doesn't. That's "ublock" and not "uBlock Origin." They are not the same, and uBlock is not even being developed anymore. https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4bbuf3/whats_the_best_osx_safari_adblocking_option_now/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4bbuf3/whats_the_bes...