5 ms·

Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address

Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of their user agent. [1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280 (visually, a page with no ads) => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large

Qub3d 9y ago
BTW, this person is the creator of Ublock Origin.
- sounds 9y ago
  To Grandparent Poster: (gorhill) Thank you for creating Ublock Origin! :)
brettz 9y ago
If we stop out of control tracking and the ads model, how do we stop all content from going behind a paywall? Asking because at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free but uBlock Origin seems to go for a scorched earth approach that doesn't seem sustainable.
- jobu 9y ago
  The problem is that so many sites have absolutely no shame about how many or what kind of ads they will jam into a page. LA Times is a great example - https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/la-times-and-ads/ https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/la-times-and-ads... If a site is willing to treat their consumers that badly then fuck them. I have no respect and will not feel bad about using an ad blocker there. On the flip side, a number of sites have started asking to turn off ad blockers (e.g. Wired), and if it's a site I visit frequently I'm willing to give it a try. If the page is filled with video ads or blinky shit, the ad blocker gets turned on again.
- gorhill 9y ago
  > at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free All blockers allow you to whitelist whatever site you want -- if allowing a site to fund itself through advertising is fine with you. I personally prefer the "user decides" approach than the "yet another 3rd-party decides" approach when it comes to whitelisting.
  - brettz 9y ago
    Fair enough. I just wish it were true that users were deciding. All my research and data shows that the majority of users don't know how to whitelist a site or even that they have adblock installed. A friend told them to install it or a family member etc. Which is why Google controlling what is acceptable without user input may not be that bad.
MarkMc 9y ago
For you it's 'out of control'. For me it's 'the price I'm happy to pay to get what I want'.
- rodovich 9y ago
  I'm glad you understand what that price is and are happy to pay it. I personally have a hard time evaluating the price because the _whats_ and _hows_ of a site's tracking seldom are disclosed in a clear and concise manner that I can review ad understand before the tracking occurs. And even if it was, that would be a lot of friction to do for every site I might visit. I find it much easier to control by deciding on a policy up front and letting my browser help me enforce it.
  - MarkMc 9y ago
    The problem with that approach is that you are going against the wishes of the person who produced the website. To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. If I don't agree to the terms of use for a website I simply won't use it.
    - undersuit 9y ago
      >the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. The creator can have input, they have no say in a public environment. >To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. The permission has already been granted. If it's on the web I can download it and use it for whatever dirty personal uses I can imagine.
    - rodovich 9y ago
      > To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. I agree. That's why I want a say in how my data is consumed.

Qub3d 9y ago

BTW, this person is the creator of Ublock Origin.

sounds 9y ago
To Grandparent Poster: (gorhill) Thank you for creating Ublock Origin! :)

brettz 9y ago

If we stop out of control tracking and the ads model, how do we stop all content from going behind a paywall? Asking because at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free but uBlock Origin seems to go for a scorched earth approach that doesn't seem sustainable.

jobu 9y ago
The problem is that so many sites have absolutely no shame about how many or what kind of ads they will jam into a page. LA Times is a great example - https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/la-times-and-ads/ https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/la-times-and-ads... If a site is willing to treat their consumers that badly then fuck them. I have no respect and will not feel bad about using an ad blocker there. On the flip side, a number of sites have started asking to turn off ad blockers (e.g. Wired), and if it's a site I visit frequently I'm willing to give it a try. If the page is filled with video ads or blinky shit, the ad blocker gets turned on again.
gorhill 9y ago
> at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free All blockers allow you to whitelist whatever site you want -- if allowing a site to fund itself through advertising is fine with you. I personally prefer the "user decides" approach than the "yet another 3rd-party decides" approach when it comes to whitelisting.
- brettz 9y ago
  Fair enough. I just wish it were true that users were deciding. All my research and data shows that the majority of users don't know how to whitelist a site or even that they have adblock installed. A friend told them to install it or a family member etc. Which is why Google controlling what is acceptable without user input may not be that bad.

MarkMc 9y ago

For you it's 'out of control'. For me it's 'the price I'm happy to pay to get what I want'.

rodovich 9y ago
I'm glad you understand what that price is and are happy to pay it. I personally have a hard time evaluating the price because the _whats_ and _hows_ of a site's tracking seldom are disclosed in a clear and concise manner that I can review ad understand before the tracking occurs. And even if it was, that would be a lot of friction to do for every site I might visit. I find it much easier to control by deciding on a policy up front and letting my browser help me enforce it.
- MarkMc 9y ago
  The problem with that approach is that you are going against the wishes of the person who produced the website. To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. If I don't agree to the terms of use for a website I simply won't use it.
  - undersuit 9y ago
    >the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. The creator can have input, they have no say in a public environment. >To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. The permission has already been granted. If it's on the web I can download it and use it for whatever dirty personal uses I can imagine.
  - rodovich 9y ago
    > To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. I agree. That's why I want a say in how my data is consumed.