6 ms·

The bottom line is that my security is more important than your ad revenue. On this issue, there can be no debate. The fact that viewing the vast majority of a

The bottom line is that my security is more important than your ad revenue. On this issue, there can be no debate. The fact that viewing the vast majority of ads involves running completely unaudited, often heavily obfuscated JavaScript, written, published and served by companies who don't give the slightest of shits about (or in some cases, actively seek to harm) the security of the people who view them, makes them a complete non-starter for me. Any ‘immorality’ involved in blocking ads doesn't even begin to compare to that of the ad industry's disregard for security (let alone privacy).

matt4077 10y ago
What about the media? I know hating them is kinda in fashion, but do you think the world will be a better place without NYT / WSJ /Guardian? I haven't had any security issues it 10+ years, often without ad blocking. And I'm more afraid of an internet that is only Facebook, Amazon and Breitbart and what it will do to the civil society.
- ihsw 10y ago
  Considering the NYT / WSJ / Guardian have shown themselves to be senseless immoral propaganda outlets/unofficial PR firms for the highest bidder, I will absolutely and unshakingly shed no tears. Every single media outlet can be burned to the ground for all I care, there will always be a new one to readily and eagerly take its place. Find me a media outlet that actually has moral standards and I will happily concede, but before that I will sleep soundly at night knowing that ad-blocking is the best way to defeat propaganda as well as protecting myself from malware.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Nowadays? Yes, absolutely. Their job nowadays is to influence, rather than inform. I wouldn't shed a single tear to see all of them gone tomorrow. Your subtle signalling of including Breitbart in your list of things that will do unspecified bad things to "the civil society" did not go unseen.

matt4077 10y ago

What about the media? I know hating them is kinda in fashion, but do you think the world will be a better place without NYT / WSJ /Guardian? I haven't had any security issues it 10+ years, often without ad blocking. And I'm more afraid of an internet that is only Facebook, Amazon and Breitbart and what it will do to the civil society.

ihsw 10y ago
Considering the NYT / WSJ / Guardian have shown themselves to be senseless immoral propaganda outlets/unofficial PR firms for the highest bidder, I will absolutely and unshakingly shed no tears. Every single media outlet can be burned to the ground for all I care, there will always be a new one to readily and eagerly take its place. Find me a media outlet that actually has moral standards and I will happily concede, but before that I will sleep soundly at night knowing that ad-blocking is the best way to defeat propaganda as well as protecting myself from malware.
Karunamon 10y ago
Nowadays? Yes, absolutely. Their job nowadays is to influence, rather than inform. I wouldn't shed a single tear to see all of them gone tomorrow. Your subtle signalling of including Breitbart in your list of things that will do unspecified bad things to "the civil society" did not go unseen.