4 ms·

This is trivially solved with an ad blocker. Frankly, I do not see the problem. Why should you rely on Google/Paint.NET/state legislation when the solution is l

by Kenji 9y ago

This is trivially solved with an ad blocker. Frankly, I do not see the problem. Why should you rely on Google/Paint.NET/state legislation when the solution is literally a few button clicks away on both chrome and firefox? All browsers should come with ad blockers by default. Hell, the OS should come with blocking hosts.txt. That would make the digital world a whole lot safer. And before you say the internet will die, I'd be more than willing to pay a subscription fee for stuff like youtube and twitch.tv. Or there could still be ads like here on hackernews, relevant and embedded in the site.

GordonS 9y ago
As much as I agree that the problem is solved for those who know about ad blockers, many people (e.g. non-hacker news types!) do not know about them. In any case, whether users can solve this by installing an ad blocker is beside the point - this is really shitty behaviour that I wouldn't have expected Google to allow, or for Paint.NET to allow on their site.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I think a lot of the reason Google has been allowed to get away with this is because of ad blockers... the people in a position to most loudly condemn the practice and push for change... aren't using the same Internet as the rest of us, they don't see the problem.
Dolores12 9y ago
I don't see any problem too. Now they download something that is not paint.net , next they download and run malware. In this case the cost of mistake is cheap. Let them learn from their mistakes. What we need is to educate people how to download and run what they really need, not blindly clicking the biggest banner on the page.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  > In this case the cost of mistake is cheap. Let them learn from their mistakes. All well and good until they unwittingly become part of a botnet and start attacking the rest of us...
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
It has been, for some time in the U.S., frowned upon, if not simply illegal, to partake in deceptive advertising practices. This "things are different now in the internet age" is getting a bit tiring. It should not fall upon the user to protect against this when we ALREADY have laws/rules in place to protect them.

by Kenji 9y ago

GordonS 9y ago

As much as I agree that the problem is solved for those who know about ad blockers, many people (e.g. non-hacker news types!) do not know about them. In any case, whether users can solve this by installing an ad blocker is beside the point - this is really shitty behaviour that I wouldn't have expected Google to allow, or for Paint.NET to allow on their site.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I think a lot of the reason Google has been allowed to get away with this is because of ad blockers... the people in a position to most loudly condemn the practice and push for change... aren't using the same Internet as the rest of us, they don't see the problem.

Dolores12 9y ago

I don't see any problem too. Now they download something that is not paint.net , next they download and run malware. In this case the cost of mistake is cheap. Let them learn from their mistakes. What we need is to educate people how to download and run what they really need, not blindly clicking the biggest banner on the page.

SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
> In this case the cost of mistake is cheap. Let them learn from their mistakes. All well and good until they unwittingly become part of a botnet and start attacking the rest of us...

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

It has been, for some time in the U.S., frowned upon, if not simply illegal, to partake in deceptive advertising practices. This "things are different now in the internet age" is getting a bit tiring. It should not fall upon the user to protect against this when we ALREADY have laws/rules in place to protect them.