25 ms·

Please Stop Using Adblock (But Not Why You Think)

910 points by ndiscussion 8y ago

jimmaswell 8y ago
"eyeo does mention that smaller websites can be whitelisted for free. In fact, they claim that around 90 percent of their partners are given this service free of charge. But that means diddly when we all know that nearly all global ad revenue goes to just two companies: Google and Facebook." So 90% of websites get it for free, and mainly Google and Facebook have to pay. I think the author intends for me to be outraged, but I'm not. I'm also not having any reaction to the "acceptable ads" the author thinks I'm supposed to find unacceptable. They're clickbait, sure, but they fit the "no animations, no sounds, and no flashy colors" criteria.
- ndiscussion 8y ago
  I have basically no sympathy for Google and Facebook here. I think they get what they deserve with their practices. Perhaps it didn't come across clearly, but the main problem (imo) is the conflict of interest this introduced between eyeo and its users.
  - yborg 8y ago
    The fact that a product named, plainly, "AdBlock Plus" that doesn't make clear that the "Plus" means "Plus all ads from the 2 largest purveyors of Internet advertising" is worth pointing out.
    - whyever 8y ago
      You are being hysterical. The plus is there for historical reasons, way before acceptable ads were a thing.
      - dang 8y ago
        We ban accounts that do personal attacks and name-calling, so could you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do that here? Your comment would be fine with just the second sentence.
    - hungryfoolish 8y ago
      As long as those ads are not annoying. I'm guessing that the ads from google and fb still need to pass the acceptable ads guidelines.
  - ryanmerket 8y ago
    Facebook doesn’t pay. They hacked around ABP and blocked THEM from working on Facebook.com.
- Finnucane 8y ago
  It seems that the problem is people have different reactions to ads. Some want no ads at all, some don't mind ads as such, but are wary of ads with heavy js and video payloads that cause slowdowns and are potentially malign. There doesn't seem to be a good solution that allows the user to easily modulate what they'll accept.
  - digi_owl 8y ago
    An added complication is that one party will buy ad space from Google, and then turn around and sell it on to another party that may put up quite different ads from what was initially claimed.
  - qplex 8y ago
    Don't forget all the tracking and the profiling. They hardly ask your consent for that. I really wouldn't feel bad about any adblocking. And for anyone that wants to run ads : just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks.
    - davidfischer 8y ago
      > And for anyone that wants to run ads : just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks. I thought so too. Once you reach a certain size, even 1st party ads get blocked.
      - davvolun 8y ago
        Yeah, but... > Once you reach a certain size Top 5 annoying ads of all time for me are autoplaying Youtube ads -- which I would think would be self-hosted.
    - parametrek 8y ago
      > just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks. In what universe do you live? Every little forum that self-hosts ads is already in the blocklists.
    - 8y ago
- dasil003 8y ago
  I don't think the issue is about the minutiae of who's paying whom. It's more the idea that a service which was created to serve the users by blocking ads, is subverted into yet another ad-tech vendor, skimming cream for themselves based on strip-mining the brand equity of what was once a principled venture.
- RivieraKid 8y ago
  > I think the author intends for me to be outraged, but I'm not. Problem is that Google and Facebook are partial monopolies. It's not fair.
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    Google and Facebook being partial monopolies might be a bad thing, but that would mean it's even less of a bad thing that they're the only ones who have to pay Adblock Plus while the non-monopolies don't have to pay, wouldn't it?
    - RivieraKid 8y ago
      If the choice is between paying nothing to get whitelisted and paying pocket change, then the latter is preferable of course. But there's a third option, adblockers that can't be bribed by these partial monopolies. I've always used ABP without thinking about it but today I switched to uBlock Origin and it's been amazing, no sponsored links, no annoying popups. In my view, advertising doesn't create value, the world would be a better place without it.
  - exolymph 8y ago
    They're monopolies by user choice, which is a fundamentally different dynamic from monopolies of old. https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/
ndiscussion 8y ago
Full disclosure: I wrote this post. I'm sure a lot of us here have already embraced uBlock Origin. It seems to be universally acclaimed on most tech forums. Before I wrote this post, I wasn't aware that eyeo served ads directly, which is what prompted me to write it.
- kerng 8y ago
  uBlock Origin is great, I have been using it on both desktop and mobile for a while. I wish it would be there by default in Firefox and also other browsers!
- mey 8y ago
  EFF Privacy Badger combined with uBlock Origin is my current combination.
  - gruez 8y ago
    what does privacy badger do that can't be accomplished with a custom ublock list?
    - davidfischer 8y ago
      I ran Privacy Badger for a while. It is very good for finding out who is setting 3rd party cookies or using alternatives to cookies (eg. localstorage with unique identifiers). Rather than using a list, my understanding is it uses heuristics based on what cookies are set, whether they are 1st vs 3rd party, their expiry time and the like.
    - zenhack 8y ago
      Mostly automation -- you don't have to actually craft the list. It will just spot stuff it thinks it should be blocking and do so. And if you need to correct it (uncommon in my experience) the UI for doing so is right there next to the address bar. Also, it's capable of just blocking cookies for some sites, which is nice when they're hosting common J's libs/fonts or something, and blocking them outright would break the page.
    - 8y ago
imglorp 8y ago
TL;DR: Adblock sold out. Use uBlock Origin instead.
- astrodust 8y ago
  AdBlock sold you out if you use it. They're monetizing you. That's the part that's ridiculous. The downright offensive part is the companies they've chosen to whitelist serve up the absolutely stupidest ads.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Classic clickbait title: "Use uBlock because Adblock's parent company eyeo GmbH runs 'Acceptable Ads'" That's very old news, surely.
- progx 8y ago
  And? It seems many people still use Adblock, so it is a good reminder to use something else.
  - Sylos 8y ago
    Could've at least tried to not be misleading and spelt out "Adblock Plus".
smittywerben 8y ago
As the ad lists grow, chrome continues to slow.
fencepost 8y ago
Not mentioned: on Android, Firefox can use extensions including ublock origin. And on that topic, "Dark Background and Light Text" currently at 0.6.8 is also mighty handy, though there are some items that end up invisible like voting arrows on HN.
- gregschlom 8y ago
  The reason why I switched from Chrome to Firefox on Android
- vanadium 8y ago
  Yep, also why I switched from Chrome to Firefox on Android. And my home network/VPN is sitting behind a Pi-hole instance for good measure.
- thomasahle 8y ago
  If I switch to Firefox mobile, is there a way to transfer all my stored passwords from Chrome?
  - xxs 8y ago
    Firefox for desktop can import settings from Chrome and desktop can sync. passwords to mobile
- codetrotter 8y ago
  Alternatively there’s Brave, an open source browser that comes with built in blocking of ads & tracking. Brave is available for iOS also as well as Android and Linux and Windows. Brendan Eich, the guy that made JavaScript is on the Brave dev team. Brave is a bit buggy on iOS but it works well enough that I am now using it. Brave does not sync passwords and bookmarks on iOS (don’t know about the other platforms) which is a bit unfortunate but all over not too bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)
- greenyoda 8y ago
  HN's voting arrows are visible with "Dark Background and Light Text" if you use the "Simple CSS" option (which can be set on a per-site basis). (Some other sites can be made to work better with the "Invert" option.)
03- 8y ago
> On mobile, Firefox Focus I can't speak for other platforms, but Firefox for Android does support "add-ons", including uBlock Origin.
- fwn 8y ago
  Firefox for Android (other then Focus/Klar) has the added benefit of also providing cosmetic content blocking. This allows blocking ads on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, etc.. For many this might be the greater part of their mobile internet experience.
akshayB 8y ago
The industry got greedy over Ads money which transformed into a revenue generation model and destroyed the user experience in so many cases. Go to NFL or MLB and I find it extremely ridiculous that you have watch 30 seconds of video ads before watching a short 30 second game play. Some of the Ads are annoying in page popups and sometime some just hover around as you scroll.
- dexterdog 8y ago
  I get the idea behind video ads, but nothing makes me hate a product more that when I want to watch 5 different clips and each one has the same ad before it.
chrischen 8y ago
Is it possible to release the filter lists under a noncommercial license?
- hendersoon 8y ago
  Easylist and Easyprivacy, the most common community-maintained lists, are licensed under creative commons. Pretty much everybody uses them. https://easylist.to/pages/about.html https://easylist.to/pages/about.html
  - mmirate 8y ago
    According to that page, Easylist uses specifically the CC-BY-SA, which doesn't include the Non-Commercial features.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Here's the most comprehensive list of lists I know, with accompanying license terms: https://filterlists.com https://filterlists.com
- jwilk 8y ago
  Which filter lists? What do you mean by "noncommercial license"?
- jarofgreen 8y ago
  I'm guessing your intention is that uBlock origin can use them but ABP can't? The problem with this is that it's very hard to define "non-commercial". Have a look at some of the debates around the non-commercial Creative Commons license for more on this.
- detaro 8y ago
  Wouldn't that mean that you can't use uBlock with these lists active on your work machine?
lisper 8y ago
I use Safari. Whenever I go to Medium, I get this error: "Safari Web Content quite unexpectedly." I can eventually get this to go away by reloading the page several times. The number of reloads necessary to get it to work seems to be more or less random, ranging from 2-6 or so. Once the problem is gone it stays gone on subsequent reloads, but if I close the browser window and re-open it, the problem recurs. Medium is the only site on which I see this problem. I can't think of anything non-shady that a blog hosting site could possibly be doing that would cause this.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  the battle for privacy, the no tracking options, and those to prevent unwanted ads, has really made for me at least using only one browser just not possible. while I favor firefox even on my iMac I cannot visit USAToday because of some combination of settings and add ons. Yet Safari works fine. Now if I could just get Safari streaming to behave when I tab away I would use it more but for the most part I have issue with its UI. fwiw my usatoday failure with firefox is always found an invalid character in header value
- ndiscussion 8y ago
  Sorry about this. I haven't heard anything bad about Medium, but you can read the original post on my blog instead: https://sricks.com/please-stop-using-adblock/ https://sricks.com/please-stop-using-adblock/
  - dexterdog 8y ago
    You've never heard anybody talk about the design nightmare that their comment section is?
m000z0rz 8y ago
Am I reading this right, that Adblock considers chum boxes acceptable ads? I never really considered it; I have AdBlock Plus installed and have seen way too many of those. Does uBlock Origin block them?
- lorenzhs 8y ago
  Yes it does. I would recommend ublock origin over Adblock Plus any day. That said, you could also disable “acceptable ads” to get rid of these with Adblock Plus.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
  Yes, and it uses less memory. I intentionally kept the "Acceptable Ads" feature on for a long time because I am willing to support publishers (just not willing to manually sort the good from the bad), but since they decided that Taboola is a-ok, I turned it off, and at that point, there was no reason to use ABP vs. uBlock.
AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
I'd throw Brave browser into the mix, which blocks native ads and replace them with its own ads.
- mpwoz 8y ago
  Really? I haven't noticed this, admittedly I don't use it much. What's the best alternative on android?
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Firefox
- gcoda 8y ago
  Where? I am using it on android and linux, with js disabled by default. Aside from brave tokens notifications, they are monthly, i see no interruptions
paulcole 8y ago
Please stop using ad blockers for the reason you think. If you're so offended by the ads you're being shown, avoid the content. Please don't reply with whatever mental gymnastics you use to convince yourself that you've taken the ethical high ground by using an ad blocker.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  No ethical high ground here. I use Adblock because I don't like ads. You don't have the high ground to tell people what to do here either.
  - paulcole 8y ago
    I guess I didn't realize that "don't take something you know you shouldn't" was such a controversial opinion here :(
    - rcoveson 8y ago
      There is no HTTP method "TAKE". Check it out: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9
      - paulcole 8y ago
        Since it feels like you missed my original post: Please don't reply with whatever mental gymnastics you use to convince yourself that you've taken the ethical high ground by using an ad blocker.
        scrollaway 8y ago
        Since it feels like you missed mine: you are not in a position to tell people what legal things not to do from the comfort of their own home. Make a plea if you like, try to convince anyone you want, but being obtuse and arrogant with people who don't share your views is just lame.
callesgg 8y ago
"Users say that they need full control over their technology and that advertising often leads to security risks." Never heard that. At least personally I just don't want to see ads.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  It's been widely reported that malware has been served up through ads. They are a security risk.
- jstarfish 8y ago
  It used to be you had to go to shady Russian porn or warez sites to get tricked into downloding viruses and malware. Since then the same groups behind these tactics have realized you can just buy ad placement with a legit exchange and get your malware-dropping JavaScript pop up code embedded on the home page of the New York Times or CNET. There were a few high-profile instances of this happening in 2009 or so. Letting random sites run arbitrary code supplied by anonymous vendors is bad for your digital hygiene.
abpavel 8y ago
Yet another rant by an ad proponent. Forgets to mention that there is "Acceptable ads" checkbox that can turn off all ads, and whitelisting only affects users with default settings. There is no doubting the power of ads, but personally I want many publishers to go out of business because their content is crap and clickbates. Websites serve near viruses all the time, both content- and cookie-wise, and AdBlock is a good firewall for both visual and javascript exploits
- pacificmint 8y ago
  > Forgets to mention that there is "Acceptable ads" checkbox that can turn off all ads, and whitelisting only affects users with default settings. They did not forget to mention that, in fact they explicitly said that. Verbatim from the article: > Users can turn this feature off, but it’s enabled by default, and over 90 percent of users have it turned on.
- Pica_soO 8y ago
  Those checkboxes are no longer a argument. Companys have turned keeping those settings you want into a chore, constantly updating away the users work, pushing in a war of attrition their preferred settings - and sometimes even just outright ignoring the done settings altogether. So having a checkbox to turn it off- is by now nothing more then a pr-stuntstrawmen - just as the constant updates, which are used to wriggle out of responsibilities for errors and bugs.
  - hungryfoolish 8y ago
    >Companys have turned keeping those settings you want into a chore, constantly updating away the users work, pushing in a war of attrition their preferred settings - and sometimes even just outright ignoring the done settings altogether. Is it a chore though in ABP? It's front and center in the settings.
roryisok 8y ago
Is it just me, or have medium article gotten very clickbaity lately?
- anonytrary 8y ago
  More people using a publishing platform => more competition => more clickbait.
- coatmatter 8y ago
  It's always looked that way to me. That along with Hacker Noon and Kickstarter. Everything looks like a promotion and I'm less inclined to find any good articles even if they are. It still seems to be trending with a lot of people here though.
fencepost 8y ago
There's one place I still will consider using Adblock Plus - I support some users who still use IE on Windows 7 boxes, and I've kind of looked at it as "good enough" for those situations. There may be better options, but I haven't really felt the need to go digging through reviews and comparisons of software targeted at IE users.
notriddle 8y ago
This graphic from within the article https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/0*aXa0ZmMFzEgSxsOx.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/0*aXa0ZmMFzEgSxsOx.... is what drove me over the edge on the Acceptable Ads program as well, and I switched off of ABP and onto uBlock Origin for this same reason. I get that it probably doesn't break the Acceptable Ads rules, since they are probably stuff like: your ad isn't allowed to talk, or to pretend to be someone like the FBI or the user's Operating System, or include a JS payload that tries to break out of the browser sandbox, or to break the page layout, or to move around or flash. Those "Around the Web" things break none of those rules, and from a technical standpoint I don't know of anything objectionable about them. Not to mention none of this stuff is any worse than the papers I see in the grocery aisle, and Eyeo probably doesn't want to enter the business of judging whether a headline is Truth or not. But tabloids have done enough damage to our society without migrating them to the Internet. So off to UBO I go, and I'm bringing everyone else with me that I can. Also, you should delete your Facebook account and never go back, because there's tabloid crap in there, too.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  How blatant bullshit from Taboola is "acceptable" is beyond me. Our standards are really, really low if an acceptable ad merely means that it doesn't install malware or do sneaky things to your browser window. Even before I learned about uBlock Origin, I installed an extension dedicated to removing Taboola ads. It's shocking how many people willingly tolerate that garbage.
  - kjax 8y ago
    Taboola is generally known to be one of the less-shady ad platforms, amusingly enough. The fact you consider it to be particularly egregious, which I don't really disagree with, seems to reflect the state of affairs in the online advertising industry.
    - dbuder 8y ago
      They try their best to appear like another article on the site you're reading and they use clickbait titles. There are many similar platforms and they are all peddling junk.
alphabettsy 8y ago
So actually they title should be “Stop using AdBlock Plus” for reasons that are old news.
dawnerd 8y ago
I go a step further and use pihole and ublock origin. pihole can't catch everything so thats what ublock is for - mostly cosmetic filters really.
gorhill 8y ago
> hardworking volunteers continually update and maintain the filter lists This can't be said enough. Large numbers of users still have no idea that their blocker works at all because of these lists. The collective amount of work which goes into these free-to-use lists on a daily basis is impressive, especially considering it's done entirely on a voluntary basis. To get an idea just glance at the commit rate: EasyList/EasyPrivacy: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commits/master https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commits/master uBlock Origin: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commits/master https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commits/master Add to this all the regional lists, specific-purpose lists, the hosts files (Peter Lowe's, Dan Pollock, malware lists), etc.
- hiq 8y ago
  Big shout-out to all these volunteers indeed, I wouldn't use the web so much if it weren't for them making it half-decent. The amount of effort being put into these lists as well as the success of your extension also speaks volume about how unbearable ads are nowadays. I hope we will never lose this battle, at least not on the Internet.
  - standardcitizen 8y ago
    Would you be willing to turn adblocker into a time tracker and you pay for the time on site via a monthly payout via something like PayPal? If not, would be interested on how you expect publishers to make money?
    - XorNot 8y ago
      The problem is publishers assuming I care about this. That they're actually indispensable to the ecosystem, rather then what they are - a passing interest who's absence I wouldn't notice or care about. Most of internet media just isn't good enough.
      - standardcitizen 8y ago
        Thanks for getting to the point I wanted. Then I guess ads on these sites don’t matter, as they are so pointless, you’re not Visiting these sites. However, you still do, so they have value. That value comes at a price, rather you think they are good or not good for the ego system. You’re actions speak in the camp of them being good. I think we can all agree, some porn and content is not good. However, the value walks with out attention And not our moral desires. Through out this thread I’ve seen people say they have no respect for Facebook or google and their ads, yet services they use daily. Unwilling to pay, the product is you. Either pay with your money or lack of attention and this seems like it’s no longer a problem. M The issue is, we want all this but want to provide them with little or not compensation for their value. We use to speak with our attention, we didn’t like this store, so we never went there. Today, this extension is merely still going to the store, but ignoring what we dislike. Thus is the debate.
lbj 8y ago
So, they've created a product and they're making a bit of money of it. Whats the problem?
- techsin101 8y ago
  Problem is that they promised no ads and got free labor toward that mission. Now that people have marketed them into almost every browser that matters.. they're getting in bed with advertisers. And amount is going to be 100s of millions, not just a bit of money. money earned by deciving and free labor
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Um, the post literally has a "So what's the problem?" section.
fenwick67 8y ago
Ads? In my ad blocker? It's more likely than you think.
Jedd 8y ago
> Basically, they ran a survey which found that 71% of their users would allow ads with “no annoyances”. That means no animations, no sounds, and no flashy colors. This needs some context. This survey ran in 2011 - older readers may remember with some nostalgia the slightly less evil online advertising landscape back then -- pre-Facebook / partner analytics scares, pre Spectre/Meltdown, pre javascript bitcoin miners ... and various increasingly nefarious activities that may fall under the umbrella of 'online advertising'. Plus a significantly smaller ratio of mobile:desktop browser users -- advertising on mobile is rarely thoughtfully executed. This survey question was answered by just over 1500 people. AdblockPlus on Chrome alone today is showing up on the store as having an installed base of 10,000,000+ people. No idea what it was in 2011, but 1500 people -- some of whom (70 people, 4.5% of responders) indicated that "Blocking ads is wrong and I disable Adblock Plus whenever possible" -- is a tiny, skewed by self-selection, horribly dated basis for current state.
siulanilom 8y ago
You should try Brave browser. They are trying to align the incentives the righ way imho https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/
Groxx 8y ago
Somewhat related: Anyone know of a clickbait "not why you think" blocker? I bet 71% or more of users find it an annoying pattern. And a clickbait blocker would be wonderful in general.
- PmMeYourDevJob 8y ago
  I was interested in the article because of the 'not why you think' clickbait.... turns out that was exactly why I don't user eyeo blockers... So not only clickbait but misleading in my case.
  - zupa-hu 8y ago
    isn't that the definition of clickbait?
- vultour 8y ago
  NOT WHY YOU THINK - turns out to be your daily Adblock Plus rant, what a surprise. I too would like a clickbait blocker.
fulyscentedking 8y ago
TL;DR, use uBlock Origin.
Multicomp 8y ago
On Android, DNS66 via f Droid has been my go-to and works great. Blocks in app ads, and even makes my Google play music skip the audio ads.
- ttsda 8y ago
  Same here, super under-rated app
intrasight 8y ago
I'd never heard of eyeo and was only vaguely familiar with adblock plus before reading this. But I have ublock origin installed on all my browsers, and can't imagine browsing without it. For Facebook I use FBP and like wise can't imagine using Facebook without it.
gwbas1c 8y ago
Hahahaha. I browsed without any adblocking for years, and the ads just got worse and worse. I'm still running Adblock.
exabrial 8y ago
Can anyone do a shakedown on Ghostery? I'd love to know their ethical stance.
FrozenVoid 8y ago
The web advertisers have a twisted vision of ad effectiveness: 1.I don't want to see ads and i will block them as much as possible. 2.If i see ads i would not click them 3.if i accidentally click them i wouldn't buy anything advertised, even if i have the need for advertised product class: instead of trusting ads i research stuff to decide on my own and then buy it. 4.If i see a product on any site that was advertised to me,i will have a lower opinion of it because it associated with web advertising(which i consider obnoxious and avoid). So in effect, advertising will ruin your reputation in my eyes and will not get you any financial benefits. More and more users are going this way and consider all ads as visual spam that designed to steal their time. The ad industry attempts to recover user attention with "Product placement" and "organic insertion" of ads into real content have the effect of increasing distrust in content and will not work long term(wordfilters and content filtering). The whole model has no future: the problem with the concept of advertising is that it using old media "mass broadcast" techniques and isn't relevant to the content: an example is advertising in search results; Instead of search algorithm delivering "best match for query X" we get ""Best match+Artificially boosted SEO sites+Ads";i.e. the concept of advertising is essentially "pushing our stuff in front of user regardless of our quality",which reduces relevance of content itself, reduces the quality of data channel and user trust. To further understand the "anti-quality" inherent in advertising, imagine ads as biased news designed to influence people and content as neutral news: with less content(neutral news) and more ads(biased news) the site becomes less neutral and loses quality(despite still having real content). The advertising industry "broadcast" isn't accepted, so what they decided is that to tailor their broadcast to the user, creating targeting criteria and increase effectiveness of the the ad. Why would this work at all? Only if the user private information is disclosed: That reasoning is that "targeted ads require target personal data to be effective" and in effect condemn advertising to seek for this private data from all sources. Note that doesn't increase the quality of their product, its finding a cheaper way to advertise that filters out users not interested in their product. But of course advertising industry is overly-optimistic as what constitutes 'interest' and is eager to "broadcast" its message at anyone showing a minimum interest in "targeted concept". Why this doesn't create interest, is that people being targeted know that "related ads" are just accompanying noise to their content and that they are specifically targeted because they see it in action(e.g. show interest in topic X, get ads for X-related products for weeks). This fundamental break with basic psychology, being hostile to user and stealing his time is the fatal flaw. "Unobtrusive ads" are just less obnoxious way to steal our attention, they're still ads and they still degrade quality of sites. But what about ad-supported sites struggling to pay the bills? If you can't afford the minimal hosting fees associated with a website there is a problem with your finances: solving it with ads is just masking the problem. A large site with heavy traffic should depend on products and services it provides, not ads. Ads will eventually get blocked and ignored. Users don't come for the ads, they avoid them. Ads are only effective when they are centralized on one place where users come to expect them, such as e.g. craiglist categories, ebay,marketplace-type sites,etc. Classifieds outside such 'centralized marketplaces' are perceived as biased and out-of-place, becoming normal ads and losing their relevance without being embedded in a marketplace. Psychologically:ads turn sites into mini-marketplaces and are perceived as corruption of a site.
sytelus 8y ago
I have wondered many times how those bad ads keep showing up on many pages despite of AdBlock Plus and now I understand. It's eye opening that these evil people charges 30% of ad revenue to let you through their plugin called AdBlock Plus! For what? Just "reviewing" the ad? There can be one time review fee but not the recurring fee. That is pure conflict of interest and immediate give away to this whole evil money making scheme called AdBlock Plus. They are ad mafia in its very sense. Thanks for writing this article. AdBlock uninstalled. uBlock Origin installed.
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> Let me get this out of the way: I have nothing against businesses making money. Businesses which find a market need and fill that need deserve to make a profit. That’s the only way many services would exist. Let ME get this straight. I DO have issue with businesses making money by being slimy, rule breaking, ethic-breaking or otherwise deceitful so they can make a buck. A good purpose for companies is to better society by either make a product, or provide a service. I nary think that people (not other companies, mind you!) would think that some inapp pay-to-play lootbox chumfest would be bettering society. But hey, we offer them LLCs so they can engage in horrendous behaviors and then protect everyone in charge. And lets discuss ads... No, I'm not paying the bandwidth to download them. I'm not paying the CPU time or ram to display them. No, they are bastions of computer disease and poison. I will block each and every one of them as soon as I find them. I will ignore every domain that attempts to host them. I don't care if "your company relies on them" - well, too bad. Die then. My personal network/computer well being is worth more than your bad actions.
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  woah. I understand you would like to see the ads economy burn to the ground. but do you plan to build a viable alternative from the ashes? I am not criticizing your hate for ads, but as a fact they empower a sizable sector of our economy (directly or indirectly, like how amazon sell discounted devices with lock screen ads). I agree that ads-driven websites tends to turn into tabloid full of clickbaits but newspapers had always had ads, why not on the internet?
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Let me give you an alternate hypothesis. There's the story about the kid who broke a window, and all the resulting economic activity somehow 'bolstered' the economy. In truth, when all is added up, the community lost by the cost of a window. This is called the "Parable of the Broken Window" (broken window hypothesis relates to a Reagan-era policy of broken windows = crime. not related). Advertising is the same way. Their primary mode of communication is to jam up legitimate communication and crowd out others. Their best efforts is to enact in a combination of the parable of the broken window alongside the tragedy of the commons to see their wares. You ask for a viable alternative? There isn't one. The very basis of advertising is parasitic. It cannot live on its own. It has nothing of value to offer. But it can crowd out legitimate discourse and sell our attention and thoughts back to us after weakening us slightly. We wouldn't fight for a tapeworm, tick, or mosquito, would we? You also argue that they "empower a sizable sector of our economy". Again, that does look to be the case on a first look, but I say look deeper. They're costing even more, and we as a society only recoup the sizable sector as its outcome. Again, the parable of the broken window rears its ugly head. (edit: because I got the name of the thing wrong)
ficklepickle 8y ago
For those who haven't heard of it, I just deployed pi-hole on my home network and it has been great. It is a DNS server that blocks ads, running on a raspberry pi. Just point your router at it, and all clients get ad blocking. Works for mobile apps, like YouTube, too.
- goombastic 8y ago
  Doesnt work for youtube for me though. The ads come through.
  - Lev1a 8y ago
    I have that issue as well and read somewhere online that it's due to youtube serving both their ads and normal videos from the same domain name, which can be distinguished by content-based blockers like uBlock but not by pihole which only looks at the domain names.
standardcitizen 8y ago
Beyond all points, I found it interesting how people think they get to control their ads, but at the same time don’t want to pay publishers for content. I often find it funny when people complain about ads on torrent sites. I think this speaks of a culture that thinks they should get everything for free. 50 years ago, if you wanted to read the news,you paid for it. Today , we complain about want ads can the free content providers give us. Yet, we wonder why publishers provide such crap content, because their Main focus is pleasing free users with what ad they will like. I’m not surprised by how many people speak of micropayment for articles, but no one does it. The more we block legitment ads, the more crap we’ll see. The cost to behave nicely becomes too much. Hacker News has been an amazing place, but more and more things like “evil” for people pushing ads is insane. Evil is hilter, but now you’re comparing you’re as provider in the same way? Ps not in ads, just a realist.
- thefounder 8y ago
  The issue is that the ads/commercials are not relevant...and there are too many...many of them of very low quality and even misleading. I don't mind the ads from stackexchange for example or various Pro-audio forums that I use. But compare that with a file sharing website that you mentioned where you have multiple "download" links masking various ads. Micropayments don't work because nobody got them right...
- mcbits 8y ago
  I haven't read the article and don't plan to (because Medium), although usually I'll at least skim an article if the comments suggest that it's worth my minute. At the moment, by a rough word count, the comments on this page total about 6,000 words of free content that nobody wrote with the expectation of getting rich quick by slapping some ads on it. It's just people being real and sharing their thoughts, for better and for worse. I'll read a good portion of it and then be satiated. The reason I don't pay for content is not that I demand free content. It's that I'm already drowning in free content. Sometimes it's top-notch, usually not so much. I think content creators opposed to ad blockers should put up or shut up. Hide it all behind a paywall. Then I'll decide which 0.000001% of it actually delivers enough quality to squeeze it into my modest "content budget", $850 of which is already taken by my ISP each year.
standardcitizen 8y ago
Sorry for the two post, I want to pose a question for the community. 60 years ago you paid for news paper. It was direct. Plus they had ads. Business model was clear. Here my question, Would everyone be ok with adblocker to have an option for you to pay the owners of the websites you visit? Instead of them replying on ads, you just pay a fee for each visit. Then there a weekly payment sent to publishers. I’m not speaking of the likeliness, or the technical issues. Just the concept. Interested in hearing you responses. Ps I’m not a publisher or in ads.
- atom_arranger 8y ago
  I think a lot of the most valuable content is content produced by people not seeking to profit from it. I often say this about movies but it's also true of a lot of online articles: If the "content creators" can't make a profit because I won't pay for the "content" I really don't care, in fact it's probably better for me and for society if there's less "content". "content creators" - mostly companies that don't care at all about the subjects they have people write about, or about their audience "content" - pretty much just junk food for your brain
- isostatic 8y ago
  Yup Someone put head said they had something like $100 off 60k views. That's about .1p per view. I'd like to visit a page and before it loads, it would tell me the price. If that's 1/10p then I'd probably just allow it automatically. If it's 1p then I'd probably manually approve it. If it's 10p I might think "nah". I'd rather pay directly than pay through increased prices at shops that advertise. Same principle with videos on youtube - at least those one that someone actually makes. However if I choose to pay - whether that's 0.1p to read a blog post, or £15 a month for Spotify, I expect no adverts or begging or product placement of any kind. Amazon prime gives videos, and when I watch on A smart TV or on laptop it's fine. On the old fire tv box we have it prepended clips with adverts for other shows. That's not on. Currnently I pay for a couple of sites, but it's a heavyweight way to crack a nut. Some sites have this sort of model, but want far more per page than they get from adverts, and then there's a massive hassle of different accounts and managing payments. I might read a blog with a donate button, however it's u likely I've judged the page to be worth more than a penny or two, and the donate options tend to start at $1.
zeevo 8y ago
The internet is a pull medium. An "adblock" is nothing more than saying I do not wish to receive your files.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  Which is also why publishers will soon realize they can’t serve stuff in chunks where the reader can opt out of downloading or rendering certain parts. I thinking canvas+wasm and similar tech will soon be used in a second coming of flash - where a full site will be downloaded as a blob and rendered by site code.
  - patrickaljord 8y ago
    The code used by ads would still need to be hosted on third parties servers, because ad servers can't trust sites owners to host the ad code because of cheating. So blocking advertisers hosts could still work even if ads use canvas and wasm.
    - alkonaut 8y ago
      I think the idea of downloading ads (code) directly from third parties will die sooner than this “Flash 2” becomes an issue. That just isn’t sustainable regardless of the trust issue (a person described his ad network that doesn’t rely on third party served code in another comment). But if blocking advertisers’ hosts is working, it’s trivial for publishers to simply present nothing if the ad isn’t successfully downloaded. When the rendering is controlled by the third party, it’s an all or nothing affair.
- gpvos 8y ago
  Yes. I very much liked the name of the now defunct extension RequestPolicy.
dschuetz 8y ago
I don't understand. Generally I don't mind ads if a website is giving me content I want and what I need. But, what I do mind is when whole sections of a website get their content and scripts from multiple different other domains! Most of times it's easy to block such references altogether, but often it breaks the websites which rely entirely on them. Not the ads are the problem. The websites are the problem. Why don't they embed their ads entirely inside the webpages? They could do an elaborate internal dynamic ads system without needing to load a whole stream of third party content and software from other domains! What's the problem? I don't get it. So, I continue to block ads per default, and I don't care about the constant whining about how "morally wrong blocking ads is". EDIT: Having a process integrating ads internally will also give the operators of websites the opportunity to vet the ads for potentially malicious advertising campaigns, aka fake ads, etc. Just an idea.
- geocar 8y ago
  This exists. I run an ad network that offers this kind of server-to-server request of ads. My publishers pull an XML or JSON URL from their server, then render the ads however they want.
  - dschuetz 8y ago
    As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains other than the website's domain I don't mind. If that exists, every single website needs to adapt such practice. Anything else is a waste of breath.
    - rootlocus 8y ago
      > As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains other than the website's domain I don't mind So you don't care about the content, only the source? There's nothing stopping the website from simply routing malicious JS from the ad network. Even worse, it would be much harder to block it this way.
      - 8y ago
swoorup 8y ago
These days you also need a crypto miner blocker.
SeriousM 8y ago
I don't need a adblocker, the ads don't load at all because of my pi-hole box. The only adblocking thing I need is for YouTube against the in video ads.
Ice_cream_suit 8y ago
Does anyone still use Adblock ? Thought that most people jumped ship to Ublock Origin years ago.
nkkollaw 8y ago
I have AdGuard, a paid adblocker that blocks ads in apps as well. Whenever I use my girlfriend's phone I wonder how people can actually enjoy the internet in the state it is.
happybuy 8y ago
For iOS and Mac users, may I also suggest people consider using an adblock product we develop – Magic Lasso (https://www.magiclasso.co/ https://www.magiclasso.co/). We agree with the sentiment of the post and are working to create a great alternative to misleading adblockers like Adblock Plus. Magic Lasso is an efficient and high performance ad blocker with native Safari integration and we don't take kick-backs from advertisers or follow any 'acceptable ads' policies.
HurrdurrHodor 8y ago
Whatever the reasoning: HAHAHAHAHA! No.
- DanBC 8y ago
  The article says you should stop using one particular ad blocker, and has good reasons for doing so. It's not telling you to stop using all ad blockers, and it gives a name for an ad blocker that people should use.
mschwaig 8y ago
I remember reading about some project where as a user you would automatically take part in the bidding process for ad placement on the websites you yourself visited. The idea was to outbid real ad networks and serve yourself bogus no-op ads while paying the websites you visited through their usual channels. Does anyone remember reading about this as as well? What happened to that project?
- herbst 8y ago
  Not sure what exactly you mean but there are several sites that offer self service ads and also some third parties. There is a popular one in the Bitcoin world (forgot the name) that definitly paid more per click than Adsense for good sites.
  - mschwaig 8y ago
    Maybe you mean Brave. That's a browser that blocks ads, bit pays out bitcoin to site owners. I found this one today while researching.
HurrdurrHodor 8y ago
Seriously? You want people to switch from software A to software B and you write an article that for the first half of the page sounds like you want them to stop using either of those softwares?
- bartread 8y ago
  And that title is pure clickbait. Summary: don't use AdBlock, use uBlock Origin instead. (I may have got the wrong as I only skimmed the article to get the gist.)
  - calgoo 8y ago
    If you are going to complain about the article, please read it at least.
    - bartread 8y ago
      Well, you know, if it was less verbose and got to the point a bit quicker I might not have lost interest and skimmed everything after paragraph two. I may as well say, "If you want me to read the whole article, please write cogently and engagingly at least".
  - bartread 8y ago
    Why the downvotes? I don't see it as unreasonable to skim an article that's overlong, not that well written and, frankly, not that interesting. If you want me expend time reading your article properly you should write it better. If I miss what you think the point is because it's written badly, well, that's not really on me, is it?
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  the first half was an introduction to ad blockers, then it introduced eyeo acceptable ads program which was the actual topic
jk2323 8y ago
It is also good to have several lines of defense * Host File http://www.hosts-flash.com/ http://www.hosts-flash.com/ https://oldj.github.io/SwitchHosts/ https://oldj.github.io/SwitchHosts/ * Browser: uBlock uMatrix * Facebook: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/socialfixer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/socialfixer/
- nyolfen 8y ago
  there is no reason to run both ublock origin and umatrix, they run the same engine with different frontends
  - jk2323 8y ago
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/enhancing-ublock-origin-with-umatrix.388704/ https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/enhancing-ublock-ori...
rocqua 8y ago
ABP allows me to whitelist Youtube channels. Last time I checked, other blockers did not. Has that changed?
tux1968 8y ago
Blocking ads will become nearly impossible once WebAssembly becomes ubiquitous. Sites will simply have their own custom render engine and transport protocol; it will be game over.
- herbst 8y ago
  To be fair sites could use cnames and some JS trickery to deliver ads to Adblock users. I am not entirely sure why this is not done on a scale yet, but i think publishers have to accept the choice to some degree.
- firmgently 8y ago
  I don't see that as game over at all, just a change in the game. Maybe ad-blockers will become site-blockers, or when you hover over a link it will go turn [[bad-colour]] to show you it leads to a site which forces advertising. Or on touchscreens (no hover) maybe those links open into a different, purgatory window. I do something similar manually at the moment, for example when I see Bloomberg/Techcrunch/Medium stuff on here I read the HN comments but very rarely go to the original article as I expect them to force autoplaying videos on me (I'm on a limited data plan) or use horrible UI such as scrolljacking or dickbars that I don't want to spend slices of my finite life experiencing. Or maybe adblockers will use AI to detect certain images, salesy phrases, moving images etc and employ their own custom render engine to remove them.
lars_francke 8y ago
I've been looking for years for an adblocker that's disabled by default. I only want to enable it on certain sites. On those however I'd like them to behave like all the other blockers with all the lists etc. Any recommendations?
- notanote 8y ago
  Ublock Origin can work this way with a couple of clicks. Use the advanced user option. Allow all content globally, and then use local override on sites where you want ad blocking.
  - lars_francke 8y ago
    Thanks. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as straightforward (or I'm missing something) The advanced options documented here (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-settings https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-settings) don't seem to fit the description.
    - notanote 8y ago
      What advanced settings allows is to edit the blocking rules with something like the uMatrix gui. Once advanced is set, open the uBlock dropdown, then click on "requests blocked". You will see a table with three columns. The second column edits the global rules, the third one is for local rules. Each of the rows in them shows three bars once you hover over one. Green = allow, grey = noop, red = deny. (Noop is the setting to not overrule the adblocker lists.) In the "all" row at the top, click on green in the global column, to allow everything everywhere. Click the lock icon. Now uBlock won't interfere at all. On a site where you want to block according to the lists, open the dropdown, and in the row with the site's domain name, click the grey bar in the local column. Click the lock icon to save the setting across sessions. uBlock will apply the lists' rules to that site. If this is unclear, I can make a guide with images.
- digitxpc 8y ago
  I'm fairly sure you can just use uBlock Origin and just disable all the filters.
gerardnll 8y ago
Yes, we all want unobtrusive ads, but the problem with unobtrusive ads is that they not call your attention, so there are less chances of seeing them... For me the best solution is to pay for the service you want, that's the best way to asure quality and independence.
- JohnStrangeII 8y ago
  I don't want unobtrosive ads, I want no ads at all, which is why I block them all. And there is nothing wrong that. Companies that rely on ad-views aren't entitled to anything and its perfectly fine for me if they go the way of the Dodo (including e.g. Google). It's perfectly normal and reasonable to choose for yourself what you want to watch and listen to.
  - hungryfoolish 8y ago
    I on the other hand am fine with some ads, as long as they are not annoying or don't track me. I am willing to deal with ads which don't do that in exchange for consuming more content and supporting the sites I visit often. Which is why I actually am ok with the acceptable ads setting, which allows me do block most ads except the annoying ones without any major tinkering or extra effort on my part.
Nala_Alan 8y ago
I got clickbaited. I thought it's about ad blocking in general, but it's actually an ad of great piece of tool which is uBlock Origin that I already use.
sharpercoder 8y ago
Please just let me pay for not seeing ads.
- snarfy 8y ago
  Donate to ublock?
keir-rex 8y ago
Is the date 2002 correct? Which browser was that released for?
tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
While on one hand, the acceptable ads program does border on extortion, and them allowing Taboola is bullshit (and the reason why I no longer allow those ads), I think "acceptable ads" is a sane approach. I'm willing to tolerate ads to a certain extent. I'm not going to pay (in money, time, or looking at ads that I consider unacceptable) to sort the good from bad. Ad companies have consistently failed at avoiding bad ads. So some third party will have to do it, and either advertisers or publishers or platforms are going to have to pay for it. That's what Acceptable Ads is doing. Are they abusing their leading position with ABP to charge obscene amounts of money? Definitely. Could the ad industry have avoided it by introducing strict, technically enforced ads quality rules earlier? Maybe. (Depends on whether they could have convinced the early adblockers to not block those ads, which they might have been able if they enforced really strict rules instead of just banning the worst of the worst.) ABP allowed Taboola (fun fact: The Taboola ads you got with ABP are/were different, less obnoxious versions than the ones served to people without adblockers). I don't like that, so I no longer use ABP, so ABP gets less revenue. Maybe someone else will make a different "acceptable ads" system that I'll be willing to opt into - and I'm perfectly OK if they squeeze money from publishers/advertisers/platform to make it profitable to maintain such a list.
firmgently 8y ago
In conversations about ad-blocking a common idea that comes up is that "you look at the sites -> so there's value in them -> so you should be paying for them". I don't follow this chain of logic. Firstly, it presumes that humans are perfectly rational machines and that we only do things that we want to do, or that are valuable to us. This does not match my experience of reality. Often the main reason we choose to visit a site is because a link to it has been put in front of us. A lot of the time this is largely due to the site's PR/marketing budget. So we've only ended up at the site in the first place because the site wanted us there... then they act put out by our presence and consumption of their hallowed content and demand we allow marketeers' manipulations into our psyches in return. Most websites (say as a completely unsubstantiated, overgenerous guess: 99% of them) don't need to exist. internetlivestats says that there are 1.8B websites, 200M active. So even if as few as 1% managed to stay alive without ad support, that's between 2M and 18M websites still left to look at. I'd find something to read in there. Choosing to visit a website is generally extremely passive. We look at the front page of HN (for example), make a few micromovements of our fingers and now we have dozens of tabs full of stuff to read. We didn't wake up that morning desperate to read any of those things, our existence wouldn't be negatively affected if went to bed that night not having read them. Some people (especially those who currently make money from ads on sites) seem to think we're desperate for them to exist and that's why we put up with their ads. It even materialises into weird threats sometimes "wait and see what happens when we stop operating because you wouldn't watch our adverts"). Bring that world on, I say. There was plenty of content on the early internet before everybody saw it as a way to make money. People who create content online for business reasons (either to directly make money or to keep their business relevant and known) then act as if they are obliged to make them for the good of society. If it's that difficult and expensive, and you don't want to do it for the joy of it, just stop. Don't pretend you're doing it for altruistic reasons.
- greenyoda 8y ago
  > It even materialises into weird threats sometimes "wait and see what happens when we stop operating because you wouldn't watch our adverts"). Note that the threat is not "if we can't make money from our ads, we'll need to start charging a subscription fee for our content." Because they know that hardly anyone would actually find the content they provide to be useful or entertaining enough to justify paying real money for. If I woke up tomorrow to find that all commercially produced content on the web cost money, there's only a handful of sites that I'd consider subscribing to (maybe a couple of high-quality news organizations). The sites I find the most valuable are blogs where people freely share their own interests (which cost almost nothing to host).
exabrial 8y ago
Can we just write articles without click bait headlines? Like "Please stop using adblock whitelists because the companies behind them have ethics issues"
4ad 8y ago
Somewhat related: can anyone recommend an ad blocker for Safari (on macOS) that uses the Safari Content Block API (instead of JavaScript injection? Right now I am using AdGuard, but I am looking for alternatives.
cdancette 8y ago
This was what I thought, in fact it's the exactly why I stopped using adblock.
DrJaws 8y ago
I would say that even better than ublock origin is nano adblock with nano defender that it is an anti anti-adblock
sklivvz1971 8y ago
Yep, use https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
dm319 8y ago
uMatrix is very nice. Gives you fine granular control over scripts like noscript does.
- maoistinquisitr 8y ago
  I don't really see any ads just by running NoScript. I don't see the need for an ad blocker. If a site won't render with javascript disabled, then I just close the tab.
  - dm319 8y ago
    I moved to uMatrix because of this[1]. That doesn't seem very practical to me. Don't you need javascript to view, say, youtube videos? Also to make almost any sort of purchase transaction too. I do think it's a shame that that's the kind of internet we have to deal with now. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624000
kexx 8y ago
Stupid title, good title 'Please stop using adblock PLUS'. I just gave $10 for the creators of adblock (not plus) and ublock origin
thadjo 8y ago
I'd be pretty OK with this if they have me, as the viewer, 30% of the revenue they generate from ads served. Seems fair.
nimbius 8y ago
now that net neutrality is effectively a distant memory, you may also wish to consider null-routing known advertisers using pihole or your own DNS resolver null zone http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/
ddtaylor 8y ago
ABP has been known to be garbage for many years now, at least since 2014.
atomicnumber1 8y ago
I don't mind ads. What I do mind is intrusive behaviour of ads on a webpage. Some of the sites even crash my browser. I fear that, more we block ads, the more they'll find a way to show ads to users. And I fear that adblocker's might lose in this cat and mouse game.
johnchristopher 8y ago
The ads shown in the article aren't blinking gifs so I'd say it covers enough ground.
gaia 8y ago
Why does your blog post (https://sricks.com/best-ad-blockers/ https://sricks.com/best-ad-blockers/) suggest avoiding the Brave browser?
sandov 8y ago
I thought this was common knowledge among tech people, though it can't be stressed enough to non-techies.

910 points by ndiscussion 8y ago

"eyeo does mention that smaller websites can be whitelisted for free. In fact, they claim that around 90 percent of their partners are given this service free of charge. But that means diddly when we all know that nearly all global ad revenue goes to just two companies: Google and Facebook." So 90% of websites get it for free, and mainly Google and Facebook have to pay. I think the author intends for me to be outraged, but I'm not. I'm also not having any reaction to the "acceptable ads" the author thinks I'm supposed to find unacceptable. They're clickbait, sure, but they fit the "no animations, no sounds, and no flashy colors" criteria.

ndiscussion 8y ago
I have basically no sympathy for Google and Facebook here. I think they get what they deserve with their practices. Perhaps it didn't come across clearly, but the main problem (imo) is the conflict of interest this introduced between eyeo and its users.
- yborg 8y ago
  The fact that a product named, plainly, "AdBlock Plus" that doesn't make clear that the "Plus" means "Plus all ads from the 2 largest purveyors of Internet advertising" is worth pointing out.
  - whyever 8y ago
    You are being hysterical. The plus is there for historical reasons, way before acceptable ads were a thing.
    - dang 8y ago
      We ban accounts that do personal attacks and name-calling, so could you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do that here? Your comment would be fine with just the second sentence.
  - hungryfoolish 8y ago
    As long as those ads are not annoying. I'm guessing that the ads from google and fb still need to pass the acceptable ads guidelines.
- ryanmerket 8y ago
  Facebook doesn’t pay. They hacked around ABP and blocked THEM from working on Facebook.com.
Finnucane 8y ago
It seems that the problem is people have different reactions to ads. Some want no ads at all, some don't mind ads as such, but are wary of ads with heavy js and video payloads that cause slowdowns and are potentially malign. There doesn't seem to be a good solution that allows the user to easily modulate what they'll accept.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  An added complication is that one party will buy ad space from Google, and then turn around and sell it on to another party that may put up quite different ads from what was initially claimed.
- qplex 8y ago
  Don't forget all the tracking and the profiling. They hardly ask your consent for that. I really wouldn't feel bad about any adblocking. And for anyone that wants to run ads : just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks.
  - davidfischer 8y ago
    > And for anyone that wants to run ads : just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks. I thought so too. Once you reach a certain size, even 1st party ads get blocked.
    - davvolun 8y ago
      Yeah, but... > Once you reach a certain size Top 5 annoying ads of all time for me are autoplaying Youtube ads -- which I would think would be self-hosted.
  - parametrek 8y ago
    > just serve them locally in a sufficient format and you'll slip through blocks. In what universe do you live? Every little forum that self-hosts ads is already in the blocklists.
  - 8y ago
dasil003 8y ago
I don't think the issue is about the minutiae of who's paying whom. It's more the idea that a service which was created to serve the users by blocking ads, is subverted into yet another ad-tech vendor, skimming cream for themselves based on strip-mining the brand equity of what was once a principled venture.
RivieraKid 8y ago
> I think the author intends for me to be outraged, but I'm not. Problem is that Google and Facebook are partial monopolies. It's not fair.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  Google and Facebook being partial monopolies might be a bad thing, but that would mean it's even less of a bad thing that they're the only ones who have to pay Adblock Plus while the non-monopolies don't have to pay, wouldn't it?
  - RivieraKid 8y ago
    If the choice is between paying nothing to get whitelisted and paying pocket change, then the latter is preferable of course. But there's a third option, adblockers that can't be bribed by these partial monopolies. I've always used ABP without thinking about it but today I switched to uBlock Origin and it's been amazing, no sponsored links, no annoying popups. In my view, advertising doesn't create value, the world would be a better place without it.
- exolymph 8y ago
  They're monopolies by user choice, which is a fundamentally different dynamic from monopolies of old. https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/

ndiscussion 8y ago

Full disclosure: I wrote this post. I'm sure a lot of us here have already embraced uBlock Origin. It seems to be universally acclaimed on most tech forums. Before I wrote this post, I wasn't aware that eyeo served ads directly, which is what prompted me to write it.

kerng 8y ago
uBlock Origin is great, I have been using it on both desktop and mobile for a while. I wish it would be there by default in Firefox and also other browsers!
mey 8y ago
EFF Privacy Badger combined with uBlock Origin is my current combination.
- gruez 8y ago
  what does privacy badger do that can't be accomplished with a custom ublock list?
  - davidfischer 8y ago
    I ran Privacy Badger for a while. It is very good for finding out who is setting 3rd party cookies or using alternatives to cookies (eg. localstorage with unique identifiers). Rather than using a list, my understanding is it uses heuristics based on what cookies are set, whether they are 1st vs 3rd party, their expiry time and the like.
  - zenhack 8y ago
    Mostly automation -- you don't have to actually craft the list. It will just spot stuff it thinks it should be blocking and do so. And if you need to correct it (uncommon in my experience) the UI for doing so is right there next to the address bar. Also, it's capable of just blocking cookies for some sites, which is nice when they're hosting common J's libs/fonts or something, and blocking them outright would break the page.
  - 8y ago

imglorp 8y ago

TL;DR: Adblock sold out. Use uBlock Origin instead.

astrodust 8y ago
AdBlock sold you out if you use it. They're monetizing you. That's the part that's ridiculous. The downright offensive part is the companies they've chosen to whitelist serve up the absolutely stupidest ads.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Classic clickbait title: "Use uBlock because Adblock's parent company eyeo GmbH runs 'Acceptable Ads'" That's very old news, surely.

progx 8y ago
And? It seems many people still use Adblock, so it is a good reminder to use something else.
- Sylos 8y ago
  Could've at least tried to not be misleading and spelt out "Adblock Plus".

smittywerben 8y ago

As the ad lists grow, chrome continues to slow.

fencepost 8y ago

Not mentioned: on Android, Firefox can use extensions including ublock origin. And on that topic, "Dark Background and Light Text" currently at 0.6.8 is also mighty handy, though there are some items that end up invisible like voting arrows on HN.

gregschlom 8y ago
The reason why I switched from Chrome to Firefox on Android
vanadium 8y ago
Yep, also why I switched from Chrome to Firefox on Android. And my home network/VPN is sitting behind a Pi-hole instance for good measure.
thomasahle 8y ago
If I switch to Firefox mobile, is there a way to transfer all my stored passwords from Chrome?
- xxs 8y ago
  Firefox for desktop can import settings from Chrome and desktop can sync. passwords to mobile
codetrotter 8y ago
Alternatively there’s Brave, an open source browser that comes with built in blocking of ads & tracking. Brave is available for iOS also as well as Android and Linux and Windows. Brendan Eich, the guy that made JavaScript is on the Brave dev team. Brave is a bit buggy on iOS but it works well enough that I am now using it. Brave does not sync passwords and bookmarks on iOS (don’t know about the other platforms) which is a bit unfortunate but all over not too bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)
greenyoda 8y ago
HN's voting arrows are visible with "Dark Background and Light Text" if you use the "Simple CSS" option (which can be set on a per-site basis). (Some other sites can be made to work better with the "Invert" option.)

03- 8y ago

> On mobile, Firefox Focus I can't speak for other platforms, but Firefox for Android does support "add-ons", including uBlock Origin.

fwn 8y ago
Firefox for Android (other then Focus/Klar) has the added benefit of also providing cosmetic content blocking. This allows blocking ads on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, etc.. For many this might be the greater part of their mobile internet experience.

akshayB 8y ago

The industry got greedy over Ads money which transformed into a revenue generation model and destroyed the user experience in so many cases. Go to NFL or MLB and I find it extremely ridiculous that you have watch 30 seconds of video ads before watching a short 30 second game play. Some of the Ads are annoying in page popups and sometime some just hover around as you scroll.

dexterdog 8y ago
I get the idea behind video ads, but nothing makes me hate a product more that when I want to watch 5 different clips and each one has the same ad before it.

chrischen 8y ago

Is it possible to release the filter lists under a noncommercial license?

hendersoon 8y ago
Easylist and Easyprivacy, the most common community-maintained lists, are licensed under creative commons. Pretty much everybody uses them. https://easylist.to/pages/about.html https://easylist.to/pages/about.html
- mmirate 8y ago
  According to that page, Easylist uses specifically the CC-BY-SA, which doesn't include the Non-Commercial features.
kodablah 8y ago
Here's the most comprehensive list of lists I know, with accompanying license terms: https://filterlists.com https://filterlists.com
jwilk 8y ago
Which filter lists? What do you mean by "noncommercial license"?
jarofgreen 8y ago
I'm guessing your intention is that uBlock origin can use them but ABP can't? The problem with this is that it's very hard to define "non-commercial". Have a look at some of the debates around the non-commercial Creative Commons license for more on this.
detaro 8y ago
Wouldn't that mean that you can't use uBlock with these lists active on your work machine?

lisper 8y ago

I use Safari. Whenever I go to Medium, I get this error: "Safari Web Content quite unexpectedly." I can eventually get this to go away by reloading the page several times. The number of reloads necessary to get it to work seems to be more or less random, ranging from 2-6 or so. Once the problem is gone it stays gone on subsequent reloads, but if I close the browser window and re-open it, the problem recurs. Medium is the only site on which I see this problem. I can't think of anything non-shady that a blog hosting site could possibly be doing that would cause this.

Shivetya 8y ago
the battle for privacy, the no tracking options, and those to prevent unwanted ads, has really made for me at least using only one browser just not possible. while I favor firefox even on my iMac I cannot visit USAToday because of some combination of settings and add ons. Yet Safari works fine. Now if I could just get Safari streaming to behave when I tab away I would use it more but for the most part I have issue with its UI. fwiw my usatoday failure with firefox is always found an invalid character in header value
ndiscussion 8y ago
Sorry about this. I haven't heard anything bad about Medium, but you can read the original post on my blog instead: https://sricks.com/please-stop-using-adblock/ https://sricks.com/please-stop-using-adblock/
- dexterdog 8y ago
  You've never heard anybody talk about the design nightmare that their comment section is?

m000z0rz 8y ago

Am I reading this right, that Adblock considers chum boxes acceptable ads? I never really considered it; I have AdBlock Plus installed and have seen way too many of those. Does uBlock Origin block them?

lorenzhs 8y ago
Yes it does. I would recommend ublock origin over Adblock Plus any day. That said, you could also disable “acceptable ads” to get rid of these with Adblock Plus.
tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
Yes, and it uses less memory. I intentionally kept the "Acceptable Ads" feature on for a long time because I am willing to support publishers (just not willing to manually sort the good from the bad), but since they decided that Taboola is a-ok, I turned it off, and at that point, there was no reason to use ABP vs. uBlock.

AdmiralAsshat 8y ago

I'd throw Brave browser into the mix, which blocks native ads and replace them with its own ads.

mpwoz 8y ago
Really? I haven't noticed this, admittedly I don't use it much. What's the best alternative on android?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Firefox
gcoda 8y ago
Where? I am using it on android and linux, with js disabled by default. Aside from brave tokens notifications, they are monthly, i see no interruptions

paulcole 8y ago

Please stop using ad blockers for the reason you think. If you're so offended by the ads you're being shown, avoid the content. Please don't reply with whatever mental gymnastics you use to convince yourself that you've taken the ethical high ground by using an ad blocker.

scrollaway 8y ago
No ethical high ground here. I use Adblock because I don't like ads. You don't have the high ground to tell people what to do here either.
- paulcole 8y ago
  I guess I didn't realize that "don't take something you know you shouldn't" was such a controversial opinion here :(
  - rcoveson 8y ago
    There is no HTTP method "TAKE". Check it out: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9
    - paulcole 8y ago
      Since it feels like you missed my original post: Please don't reply with whatever mental gymnastics you use to convince yourself that you've taken the ethical high ground by using an ad blocker.
      - scrollaway 8y ago
        Since it feels like you missed mine: you are not in a position to tell people what legal things not to do from the comfort of their own home. Make a plea if you like, try to convince anyone you want, but being obtuse and arrogant with people who don't share your views is just lame.

callesgg 8y ago

"Users say that they need full control over their technology and that advertising often leads to security risks." Never heard that. At least personally I just don't want to see ads.

pmoriarty 8y ago
It's been widely reported that malware has been served up through ads. They are a security risk.
jstarfish 8y ago
It used to be you had to go to shady Russian porn or warez sites to get tricked into downloding viruses and malware. Since then the same groups behind these tactics have realized you can just buy ad placement with a legit exchange and get your malware-dropping JavaScript pop up code embedded on the home page of the New York Times or CNET. There were a few high-profile instances of this happening in 2009 or so. Letting random sites run arbitrary code supplied by anonymous vendors is bad for your digital hygiene.

abpavel 8y ago

Yet another rant by an ad proponent. Forgets to mention that there is "Acceptable ads" checkbox that can turn off all ads, and whitelisting only affects users with default settings. There is no doubting the power of ads, but personally I want many publishers to go out of business because their content is crap and clickbates. Websites serve near viruses all the time, both content- and cookie-wise, and AdBlock is a good firewall for both visual and javascript exploits

pacificmint 8y ago
> Forgets to mention that there is "Acceptable ads" checkbox that can turn off all ads, and whitelisting only affects users with default settings. They did not forget to mention that, in fact they explicitly said that. Verbatim from the article: > Users can turn this feature off, but it’s enabled by default, and over 90 percent of users have it turned on.
Pica_soO 8y ago
Those checkboxes are no longer a argument. Companys have turned keeping those settings you want into a chore, constantly updating away the users work, pushing in a war of attrition their preferred settings - and sometimes even just outright ignoring the done settings altogether. So having a checkbox to turn it off- is by now nothing more then a pr-stuntstrawmen - just as the constant updates, which are used to wriggle out of responsibilities for errors and bugs.
- hungryfoolish 8y ago
  >Companys have turned keeping those settings you want into a chore, constantly updating away the users work, pushing in a war of attrition their preferred settings - and sometimes even just outright ignoring the done settings altogether. Is it a chore though in ABP? It's front and center in the settings.

roryisok 8y ago

Is it just me, or have medium article gotten very clickbaity lately?

anonytrary 8y ago
More people using a publishing platform => more competition => more clickbait.
coatmatter 8y ago
It's always looked that way to me. That along with Hacker Noon and Kickstarter. Everything looks like a promotion and I'm less inclined to find any good articles even if they are. It still seems to be trending with a lot of people here though.

fencepost 8y ago

There's one place I still will consider using Adblock Plus - I support some users who still use IE on Windows 7 boxes, and I've kind of looked at it as "good enough" for those situations. There may be better options, but I haven't really felt the need to go digging through reviews and comparisons of software targeted at IE users.

notriddle 8y ago

This graphic from within the article https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/0*aXa0ZmMFzEgSxsOx.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/0*aXa0ZmMFzEgSxsOx.... is what drove me over the edge on the Acceptable Ads program as well, and I switched off of ABP and onto uBlock Origin for this same reason. I get that it probably doesn't break the Acceptable Ads rules, since they are probably stuff like: your ad isn't allowed to talk, or to pretend to be someone like the FBI or the user's Operating System, or include a JS payload that tries to break out of the browser sandbox, or to break the page layout, or to move around or flash. Those "Around the Web" things break none of those rules, and from a technical standpoint I don't know of anything objectionable about them. Not to mention none of this stuff is any worse than the papers I see in the grocery aisle, and Eyeo probably doesn't want to enter the business of judging whether a headline is Truth or not. But tabloids have done enough damage to our society without migrating them to the Internet. So off to UBO I go, and I'm bringing everyone else with me that I can. Also, you should delete your Facebook account and never go back, because there's tabloid crap in there, too.

ravenstine 8y ago
How blatant bullshit from Taboola is "acceptable" is beyond me. Our standards are really, really low if an acceptable ad merely means that it doesn't install malware or do sneaky things to your browser window. Even before I learned about uBlock Origin, I installed an extension dedicated to removing Taboola ads. It's shocking how many people willingly tolerate that garbage.
- kjax 8y ago
  Taboola is generally known to be one of the less-shady ad platforms, amusingly enough. The fact you consider it to be particularly egregious, which I don't really disagree with, seems to reflect the state of affairs in the online advertising industry.
  - dbuder 8y ago
    They try their best to appear like another article on the site you're reading and they use clickbait titles. There are many similar platforms and they are all peddling junk.

alphabettsy 8y ago

So actually they title should be “Stop using AdBlock Plus” for reasons that are old news.

dawnerd 8y ago

I go a step further and use pihole and ublock origin. pihole can't catch everything so thats what ublock is for - mostly cosmetic filters really.

gorhill 8y ago

> hardworking volunteers continually update and maintain the filter lists This can't be said enough. Large numbers of users still have no idea that their blocker works at all because of these lists. The collective amount of work which goes into these free-to-use lists on a daily basis is impressive, especially considering it's done entirely on a voluntary basis. To get an idea just glance at the commit rate: EasyList/EasyPrivacy: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commits/master https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commits/master uBlock Origin: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commits/master https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commits/master Add to this all the regional lists, specific-purpose lists, the hosts files (Peter Lowe's, Dan Pollock, malware lists), etc.

hiq 8y ago
Big shout-out to all these volunteers indeed, I wouldn't use the web so much if it weren't for them making it half-decent. The amount of effort being put into these lists as well as the success of your extension also speaks volume about how unbearable ads are nowadays. I hope we will never lose this battle, at least not on the Internet.
- standardcitizen 8y ago
  Would you be willing to turn adblocker into a time tracker and you pay for the time on site via a monthly payout via something like PayPal? If not, would be interested on how you expect publishers to make money?
  - XorNot 8y ago
    The problem is publishers assuming I care about this. That they're actually indispensable to the ecosystem, rather then what they are - a passing interest who's absence I wouldn't notice or care about. Most of internet media just isn't good enough.
    - standardcitizen 8y ago
      Thanks for getting to the point I wanted. Then I guess ads on these sites don’t matter, as they are so pointless, you’re not Visiting these sites. However, you still do, so they have value. That value comes at a price, rather you think they are good or not good for the ego system. You’re actions speak in the camp of them being good. I think we can all agree, some porn and content is not good. However, the value walks with out attention And not our moral desires. Through out this thread I’ve seen people say they have no respect for Facebook or google and their ads, yet services they use daily. Unwilling to pay, the product is you. Either pay with your money or lack of attention and this seems like it’s no longer a problem. M The issue is, we want all this but want to provide them with little or not compensation for their value. We use to speak with our attention, we didn’t like this store, so we never went there. Today, this extension is merely still going to the store, but ignoring what we dislike. Thus is the debate.

lbj 8y ago

So, they've created a product and they're making a bit of money of it. Whats the problem?

techsin101 8y ago
Problem is that they promised no ads and got free labor toward that mission. Now that people have marketed them into almost every browser that matters.. they're getting in bed with advertisers. And amount is going to be 100s of millions, not just a bit of money. money earned by deciving and free labor
rdiddly 8y ago
Um, the post literally has a "So what's the problem?" section.

fenwick67 8y ago

Ads? In my ad blocker? It's more likely than you think.

Jedd 8y ago

> Basically, they ran a survey which found that 71% of their users would allow ads with “no annoyances”. That means no animations, no sounds, and no flashy colors. This needs some context. This survey ran in 2011 - older readers may remember with some nostalgia the slightly less evil online advertising landscape back then -- pre-Facebook / partner analytics scares, pre Spectre/Meltdown, pre javascript bitcoin miners ... and various increasingly nefarious activities that may fall under the umbrella of 'online advertising'. Plus a significantly smaller ratio of mobile:desktop browser users -- advertising on mobile is rarely thoughtfully executed. This survey question was answered by just over 1500 people. AdblockPlus on Chrome alone today is showing up on the store as having an installed base of 10,000,000+ people. No idea what it was in 2011, but 1500 people -- some of whom (70 people, 4.5% of responders) indicated that "Blocking ads is wrong and I disable Adblock Plus whenever possible" -- is a tiny, skewed by self-selection, horribly dated basis for current state.

siulanilom 8y ago

You should try Brave browser. They are trying to align the incentives the righ way imho https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/

Groxx 8y ago

Somewhat related: Anyone know of a clickbait "not why you think" blocker? I bet 71% or more of users find it an annoying pattern. And a clickbait blocker would be wonderful in general.

PmMeYourDevJob 8y ago
I was interested in the article because of the 'not why you think' clickbait.... turns out that was exactly why I don't user eyeo blockers... So not only clickbait but misleading in my case.
- zupa-hu 8y ago
  isn't that the definition of clickbait?
vultour 8y ago
NOT WHY YOU THINK - turns out to be your daily Adblock Plus rant, what a surprise. I too would like a clickbait blocker.

fulyscentedking 8y ago

TL;DR, use uBlock Origin.

Multicomp 8y ago

On Android, DNS66 via f Droid has been my go-to and works great. Blocks in app ads, and even makes my Google play music skip the audio ads.

ttsda 8y ago
Same here, super under-rated app

intrasight 8y ago

I'd never heard of eyeo and was only vaguely familiar with adblock plus before reading this. But I have ublock origin installed on all my browsers, and can't imagine browsing without it. For Facebook I use FBP and like wise can't imagine using Facebook without it.

gwbas1c 8y ago

Hahahaha. I browsed without any adblocking for years, and the ads just got worse and worse. I'm still running Adblock.

exabrial 8y ago

Can anyone do a shakedown on Ghostery? I'd love to know their ethical stance.

FrozenVoid 8y ago

The web advertisers have a twisted vision of ad effectiveness: 1.I don't want to see ads and i will block them as much as possible. 2.If i see ads i would not click them 3.if i accidentally click them i wouldn't buy anything advertised, even if i have the need for advertised product class: instead of trusting ads i research stuff to decide on my own and then buy it. 4.If i see a product on any site that was advertised to me,i will have a lower opinion of it because it associated with web advertising(which i consider obnoxious and avoid). So in effect, advertising will ruin your reputation in my eyes and will not get you any financial benefits. More and more users are going this way and consider all ads as visual spam that designed to steal their time. The ad industry attempts to recover user attention with "Product placement" and "organic insertion" of ads into real content have the effect of increasing distrust in content and will not work long term(wordfilters and content filtering). The whole model has no future: the problem with the concept of advertising is that it using old media "mass broadcast" techniques and isn't relevant to the content: an example is advertising in search results; Instead of search algorithm delivering "best match for query X" we get ""Best match+Artificially boosted SEO sites+Ads";i.e. the concept of advertising is essentially "pushing our stuff in front of user regardless of our quality",which reduces relevance of content itself, reduces the quality of data channel and user trust. To further understand the "anti-quality" inherent in advertising, imagine ads as biased news designed to influence people and content as neutral news: with less content(neutral news) and more ads(biased news) the site becomes less neutral and loses quality(despite still having real content). The advertising industry "broadcast" isn't accepted, so what they decided is that to tailor their broadcast to the user, creating targeting criteria and increase effectiveness of the the ad. Why would this work at all? Only if the user private information is disclosed: That reasoning is that "targeted ads require target personal data to be effective" and in effect condemn advertising to seek for this private data from all sources. Note that doesn't increase the quality of their product, its finding a cheaper way to advertise that filters out users not interested in their product. But of course advertising industry is overly-optimistic as what constitutes 'interest' and is eager to "broadcast" its message at anyone showing a minimum interest in "targeted concept". Why this doesn't create interest, is that people being targeted know that "related ads" are just accompanying noise to their content and that they are specifically targeted because they see it in action(e.g. show interest in topic X, get ads for X-related products for weeks). This fundamental break with basic psychology, being hostile to user and stealing his time is the fatal flaw. "Unobtrusive ads" are just less obnoxious way to steal our attention, they're still ads and they still degrade quality of sites. But what about ad-supported sites struggling to pay the bills? If you can't afford the minimal hosting fees associated with a website there is a problem with your finances: solving it with ads is just masking the problem. A large site with heavy traffic should depend on products and services it provides, not ads. Ads will eventually get blocked and ignored. Users don't come for the ads, they avoid them. Ads are only effective when they are centralized on one place where users come to expect them, such as e.g. craiglist categories, ebay,marketplace-type sites,etc. Classifieds outside such 'centralized marketplaces' are perceived as biased and out-of-place, becoming normal ads and losing their relevance without being embedded in a marketplace. Psychologically:ads turn sites into mini-marketplaces and are perceived as corruption of a site.

sytelus 8y ago

I have wondered many times how those bad ads keep showing up on many pages despite of AdBlock Plus and now I understand. It's eye opening that these evil people charges 30% of ad revenue to let you through their plugin called AdBlock Plus! For what? Just "reviewing" the ad? There can be one time review fee but not the recurring fee. That is pure conflict of interest and immediate give away to this whole evil money making scheme called AdBlock Plus. They are ad mafia in its very sense. Thanks for writing this article. AdBlock uninstalled. uBlock Origin installed.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

> Let me get this out of the way: I have nothing against businesses making money. Businesses which find a market need and fill that need deserve to make a profit. That’s the only way many services would exist. Let ME get this straight. I DO have issue with businesses making money by being slimy, rule breaking, ethic-breaking or otherwise deceitful so they can make a buck. A good purpose for companies is to better society by either make a product, or provide a service. I nary think that people (not other companies, mind you!) would think that some inapp pay-to-play lootbox chumfest would be bettering society. But hey, we offer them LLCs so they can engage in horrendous behaviors and then protect everyone in charge. And lets discuss ads... No, I'm not paying the bandwidth to download them. I'm not paying the CPU time or ram to display them. No, they are bastions of computer disease and poison. I will block each and every one of them as soon as I find them. I will ignore every domain that attempts to host them. I don't care if "your company relies on them" - well, too bad. Die then. My personal network/computer well being is worth more than your bad actions.

kiriakasis 8y ago
woah. I understand you would like to see the ads economy burn to the ground. but do you plan to build a viable alternative from the ashes? I am not criticizing your hate for ads, but as a fact they empower a sizable sector of our economy (directly or indirectly, like how amazon sell discounted devices with lock screen ads). I agree that ads-driven websites tends to turn into tabloid full of clickbaits but newspapers had always had ads, why not on the internet?
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Let me give you an alternate hypothesis. There's the story about the kid who broke a window, and all the resulting economic activity somehow 'bolstered' the economy. In truth, when all is added up, the community lost by the cost of a window. This is called the "Parable of the Broken Window" (broken window hypothesis relates to a Reagan-era policy of broken windows = crime. not related). Advertising is the same way. Their primary mode of communication is to jam up legitimate communication and crowd out others. Their best efforts is to enact in a combination of the parable of the broken window alongside the tragedy of the commons to see their wares. You ask for a viable alternative? There isn't one. The very basis of advertising is parasitic. It cannot live on its own. It has nothing of value to offer. But it can crowd out legitimate discourse and sell our attention and thoughts back to us after weakening us slightly. We wouldn't fight for a tapeworm, tick, or mosquito, would we? You also argue that they "empower a sizable sector of our economy". Again, that does look to be the case on a first look, but I say look deeper. They're costing even more, and we as a society only recoup the sizable sector as its outcome. Again, the parable of the broken window rears its ugly head. (edit: because I got the name of the thing wrong)

ficklepickle 8y ago

For those who haven't heard of it, I just deployed pi-hole on my home network and it has been great. It is a DNS server that blocks ads, running on a raspberry pi. Just point your router at it, and all clients get ad blocking. Works for mobile apps, like YouTube, too.

goombastic 8y ago
Doesnt work for youtube for me though. The ads come through.
- Lev1a 8y ago
  I have that issue as well and read somewhere online that it's due to youtube serving both their ads and normal videos from the same domain name, which can be distinguished by content-based blockers like uBlock but not by pihole which only looks at the domain names.

standardcitizen 8y ago

Beyond all points, I found it interesting how people think they get to control their ads, but at the same time don’t want to pay publishers for content. I often find it funny when people complain about ads on torrent sites. I think this speaks of a culture that thinks they should get everything for free. 50 years ago, if you wanted to read the news,you paid for it. Today , we complain about want ads can the free content providers give us. Yet, we wonder why publishers provide such crap content, because their Main focus is pleasing free users with what ad they will like. I’m not surprised by how many people speak of micropayment for articles, but no one does it. The more we block legitment ads, the more crap we’ll see. The cost to behave nicely becomes too much. Hacker News has been an amazing place, but more and more things like “evil” for people pushing ads is insane. Evil is hilter, but now you’re comparing you’re as provider in the same way? Ps not in ads, just a realist.

thefounder 8y ago
The issue is that the ads/commercials are not relevant...and there are too many...many of them of very low quality and even misleading. I don't mind the ads from stackexchange for example or various Pro-audio forums that I use. But compare that with a file sharing website that you mentioned where you have multiple "download" links masking various ads. Micropayments don't work because nobody got them right...
mcbits 8y ago
I haven't read the article and don't plan to (because Medium), although usually I'll at least skim an article if the comments suggest that it's worth my minute. At the moment, by a rough word count, the comments on this page total about 6,000 words of free content that nobody wrote with the expectation of getting rich quick by slapping some ads on it. It's just people being real and sharing their thoughts, for better and for worse. I'll read a good portion of it and then be satiated. The reason I don't pay for content is not that I demand free content. It's that I'm already drowning in free content. Sometimes it's top-notch, usually not so much. I think content creators opposed to ad blockers should put up or shut up. Hide it all behind a paywall. Then I'll decide which 0.000001% of it actually delivers enough quality to squeeze it into my modest "content budget", $850 of which is already taken by my ISP each year.

standardcitizen 8y ago

Sorry for the two post, I want to pose a question for the community. 60 years ago you paid for news paper. It was direct. Plus they had ads. Business model was clear. Here my question, Would everyone be ok with adblocker to have an option for you to pay the owners of the websites you visit? Instead of them replying on ads, you just pay a fee for each visit. Then there a weekly payment sent to publishers. I’m not speaking of the likeliness, or the technical issues. Just the concept. Interested in hearing you responses. Ps I’m not a publisher or in ads.

atom_arranger 8y ago
I think a lot of the most valuable content is content produced by people not seeking to profit from it. I often say this about movies but it's also true of a lot of online articles: If the "content creators" can't make a profit because I won't pay for the "content" I really don't care, in fact it's probably better for me and for society if there's less "content". "content creators" - mostly companies that don't care at all about the subjects they have people write about, or about their audience "content" - pretty much just junk food for your brain
isostatic 8y ago
Yup Someone put head said they had something like $100 off 60k views. That's about .1p per view. I'd like to visit a page and before it loads, it would tell me the price. If that's 1/10p then I'd probably just allow it automatically. If it's 1p then I'd probably manually approve it. If it's 10p I might think "nah". I'd rather pay directly than pay through increased prices at shops that advertise. Same principle with videos on youtube - at least those one that someone actually makes. However if I choose to pay - whether that's 0.1p to read a blog post, or £15 a month for Spotify, I expect no adverts or begging or product placement of any kind. Amazon prime gives videos, and when I watch on A smart TV or on laptop it's fine. On the old fire tv box we have it prepended clips with adverts for other shows. That's not on. Currnently I pay for a couple of sites, but it's a heavyweight way to crack a nut. Some sites have this sort of model, but want far more per page than they get from adverts, and then there's a massive hassle of different accounts and managing payments. I might read a blog with a donate button, however it's u likely I've judged the page to be worth more than a penny or two, and the donate options tend to start at $1.

zeevo 8y ago

The internet is a pull medium. An "adblock" is nothing more than saying I do not wish to receive your files.

alkonaut 8y ago
Which is also why publishers will soon realize they can’t serve stuff in chunks where the reader can opt out of downloading or rendering certain parts. I thinking canvas+wasm and similar tech will soon be used in a second coming of flash - where a full site will be downloaded as a blob and rendered by site code.
- patrickaljord 8y ago
  The code used by ads would still need to be hosted on third parties servers, because ad servers can't trust sites owners to host the ad code because of cheating. So blocking advertisers hosts could still work even if ads use canvas and wasm.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    I think the idea of downloading ads (code) directly from third parties will die sooner than this “Flash 2” becomes an issue. That just isn’t sustainable regardless of the trust issue (a person described his ad network that doesn’t rely on third party served code in another comment). But if blocking advertisers’ hosts is working, it’s trivial for publishers to simply present nothing if the ad isn’t successfully downloaded. When the rendering is controlled by the third party, it’s an all or nothing affair.
gpvos 8y ago
Yes. I very much liked the name of the now defunct extension RequestPolicy.

dschuetz 8y ago

I don't understand. Generally I don't mind ads if a website is giving me content I want and what I need. But, what I do mind is when whole sections of a website get their content and scripts from multiple different other domains! Most of times it's easy to block such references altogether, but often it breaks the websites which rely entirely on them. Not the ads are the problem. The websites are the problem. Why don't they embed their ads entirely inside the webpages? They could do an elaborate internal dynamic ads system without needing to load a whole stream of third party content and software from other domains! What's the problem? I don't get it. So, I continue to block ads per default, and I don't care about the constant whining about how "morally wrong blocking ads is". EDIT: Having a process integrating ads internally will also give the operators of websites the opportunity to vet the ads for potentially malicious advertising campaigns, aka fake ads, etc. Just an idea.

geocar 8y ago
This exists. I run an ad network that offers this kind of server-to-server request of ads. My publishers pull an XML or JSON URL from their server, then render the ads however they want.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains other than the website's domain I don't mind. If that exists, every single website needs to adapt such practice. Anything else is a waste of breath.
  - rootlocus 8y ago
    > As long as my browser doesn't load anything from different domains other than the website's domain I don't mind So you don't care about the content, only the source? There's nothing stopping the website from simply routing malicious JS from the ad network. Even worse, it would be much harder to block it this way.
    - 8y ago

swoorup 8y ago

These days you also need a crypto miner blocker.

SeriousM 8y ago

I don't need a adblocker, the ads don't load at all because of my pi-hole box. The only adblocking thing I need is for YouTube against the in video ads.

Ice_cream_suit 8y ago

Does anyone still use Adblock ? Thought that most people jumped ship to Ublock Origin years ago.

nkkollaw 8y ago

I have AdGuard, a paid adblocker that blocks ads in apps as well. Whenever I use my girlfriend's phone I wonder how people can actually enjoy the internet in the state it is.

happybuy 8y ago

For iOS and Mac users, may I also suggest people consider using an adblock product we develop – Magic Lasso (https://www.magiclasso.co/ https://www.magiclasso.co/). We agree with the sentiment of the post and are working to create a great alternative to misleading adblockers like Adblock Plus. Magic Lasso is an efficient and high performance ad blocker with native Safari integration and we don't take kick-backs from advertisers or follow any 'acceptable ads' policies.

HurrdurrHodor 8y ago

Whatever the reasoning: HAHAHAHAHA! No.

DanBC 8y ago
The article says you should stop using one particular ad blocker, and has good reasons for doing so. It's not telling you to stop using all ad blockers, and it gives a name for an ad blocker that people should use.

mschwaig 8y ago

I remember reading about some project where as a user you would automatically take part in the bidding process for ad placement on the websites you yourself visited. The idea was to outbid real ad networks and serve yourself bogus no-op ads while paying the websites you visited through their usual channels. Does anyone remember reading about this as as well? What happened to that project?

herbst 8y ago
Not sure what exactly you mean but there are several sites that offer self service ads and also some third parties. There is a popular one in the Bitcoin world (forgot the name) that definitly paid more per click than Adsense for good sites.
- mschwaig 8y ago
  Maybe you mean Brave. That's a browser that blocks ads, bit pays out bitcoin to site owners. I found this one today while researching.

HurrdurrHodor 8y ago

Seriously? You want people to switch from software A to software B and you write an article that for the first half of the page sounds like you want them to stop using either of those softwares?

bartread 8y ago
And that title is pure clickbait. Summary: don't use AdBlock, use uBlock Origin instead. (I may have got the wrong as I only skimmed the article to get the gist.)
- calgoo 8y ago
  If you are going to complain about the article, please read it at least.
  - bartread 8y ago
    Well, you know, if it was less verbose and got to the point a bit quicker I might not have lost interest and skimmed everything after paragraph two. I may as well say, "If you want me to read the whole article, please write cogently and engagingly at least".
- bartread 8y ago
  Why the downvotes? I don't see it as unreasonable to skim an article that's overlong, not that well written and, frankly, not that interesting. If you want me expend time reading your article properly you should write it better. If I miss what you think the point is because it's written badly, well, that's not really on me, is it?
kiriakasis 8y ago
the first half was an introduction to ad blockers, then it introduced eyeo acceptable ads program which was the actual topic

jk2323 8y ago

It is also good to have several lines of defense * Host File http://www.hosts-flash.com/ http://www.hosts-flash.com/ https://oldj.github.io/SwitchHosts/ https://oldj.github.io/SwitchHosts/ * Browser: uBlock uMatrix * Facebook: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/socialfixer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/socialfixer/

nyolfen 8y ago
there is no reason to run both ublock origin and umatrix, they run the same engine with different frontends
- jk2323 8y ago
  https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/enhancing-ublock-origin-with-umatrix.388704/ https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/enhancing-ublock-ori...

rocqua 8y ago

ABP allows me to whitelist Youtube channels. Last time I checked, other blockers did not. Has that changed?

tux1968 8y ago

Blocking ads will become nearly impossible once WebAssembly becomes ubiquitous. Sites will simply have their own custom render engine and transport protocol; it will be game over.

herbst 8y ago
To be fair sites could use cnames and some JS trickery to deliver ads to Adblock users. I am not entirely sure why this is not done on a scale yet, but i think publishers have to accept the choice to some degree.
firmgently 8y ago
I don't see that as game over at all, just a change in the game. Maybe ad-blockers will become site-blockers, or when you hover over a link it will go turn [[bad-colour]] to show you it leads to a site which forces advertising. Or on touchscreens (no hover) maybe those links open into a different, purgatory window. I do something similar manually at the moment, for example when I see Bloomberg/Techcrunch/Medium stuff on here I read the HN comments but very rarely go to the original article as I expect them to force autoplaying videos on me (I'm on a limited data plan) or use horrible UI such as scrolljacking or dickbars that I don't want to spend slices of my finite life experiencing. Or maybe adblockers will use AI to detect certain images, salesy phrases, moving images etc and employ their own custom render engine to remove them.

lars_francke 8y ago

I've been looking for years for an adblocker that's disabled by default. I only want to enable it on certain sites. On those however I'd like them to behave like all the other blockers with all the lists etc. Any recommendations?

notanote 8y ago
Ublock Origin can work this way with a couple of clicks. Use the advanced user option. Allow all content globally, and then use local override on sites where you want ad blocking.
- lars_francke 8y ago
  Thanks. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as straightforward (or I'm missing something) The advanced options documented here (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-settings https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-settings) don't seem to fit the description.
  - notanote 8y ago
    What advanced settings allows is to edit the blocking rules with something like the uMatrix gui. Once advanced is set, open the uBlock dropdown, then click on "requests blocked". You will see a table with three columns. The second column edits the global rules, the third one is for local rules. Each of the rows in them shows three bars once you hover over one. Green = allow, grey = noop, red = deny. (Noop is the setting to not overrule the adblocker lists.) In the "all" row at the top, click on green in the global column, to allow everything everywhere. Click the lock icon. Now uBlock won't interfere at all. On a site where you want to block according to the lists, open the dropdown, and in the row with the site's domain name, click the grey bar in the local column. Click the lock icon to save the setting across sessions. uBlock will apply the lists' rules to that site. If this is unclear, I can make a guide with images.
digitxpc 8y ago
I'm fairly sure you can just use uBlock Origin and just disable all the filters.

gerardnll 8y ago

Yes, we all want unobtrusive ads, but the problem with unobtrusive ads is that they not call your attention, so there are less chances of seeing them... For me the best solution is to pay for the service you want, that's the best way to asure quality and independence.

JohnStrangeII 8y ago
I don't want unobtrosive ads, I want no ads at all, which is why I block them all. And there is nothing wrong that. Companies that rely on ad-views aren't entitled to anything and its perfectly fine for me if they go the way of the Dodo (including e.g. Google). It's perfectly normal and reasonable to choose for yourself what you want to watch and listen to.
- hungryfoolish 8y ago
  I on the other hand am fine with some ads, as long as they are not annoying or don't track me. I am willing to deal with ads which don't do that in exchange for consuming more content and supporting the sites I visit often. Which is why I actually am ok with the acceptable ads setting, which allows me do block most ads except the annoying ones without any major tinkering or extra effort on my part.

Nala_Alan 8y ago

I got clickbaited. I thought it's about ad blocking in general, but it's actually an ad of great piece of tool which is uBlock Origin that I already use.

sharpercoder 8y ago

Please just let me pay for not seeing ads.

snarfy 8y ago
Donate to ublock?

keir-rex 8y ago

Is the date 2002 correct? Which browser was that released for?

tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago

While on one hand, the acceptable ads program does border on extortion, and them allowing Taboola is bullshit (and the reason why I no longer allow those ads), I think "acceptable ads" is a sane approach. I'm willing to tolerate ads to a certain extent. I'm not going to pay (in money, time, or looking at ads that I consider unacceptable) to sort the good from bad. Ad companies have consistently failed at avoiding bad ads. So some third party will have to do it, and either advertisers or publishers or platforms are going to have to pay for it. That's what Acceptable Ads is doing. Are they abusing their leading position with ABP to charge obscene amounts of money? Definitely. Could the ad industry have avoided it by introducing strict, technically enforced ads quality rules earlier? Maybe. (Depends on whether they could have convinced the early adblockers to not block those ads, which they might have been able if they enforced really strict rules instead of just banning the worst of the worst.) ABP allowed Taboola (fun fact: The Taboola ads you got with ABP are/were different, less obnoxious versions than the ones served to people without adblockers). I don't like that, so I no longer use ABP, so ABP gets less revenue. Maybe someone else will make a different "acceptable ads" system that I'll be willing to opt into - and I'm perfectly OK if they squeeze money from publishers/advertisers/platform to make it profitable to maintain such a list.

firmgently 8y ago

In conversations about ad-blocking a common idea that comes up is that "you look at the sites -> so there's value in them -> so you should be paying for them". I don't follow this chain of logic. Firstly, it presumes that humans are perfectly rational machines and that we only do things that we want to do, or that are valuable to us. This does not match my experience of reality. Often the main reason we choose to visit a site is because a link to it has been put in front of us. A lot of the time this is largely due to the site's PR/marketing budget. So we've only ended up at the site in the first place because the site wanted us there... then they act put out by our presence and consumption of their hallowed content and demand we allow marketeers' manipulations into our psyches in return. Most websites (say as a completely unsubstantiated, overgenerous guess: 99% of them) don't need to exist. internetlivestats says that there are 1.8B websites, 200M active. So even if as few as 1% managed to stay alive without ad support, that's between 2M and 18M websites still left to look at. I'd find something to read in there. Choosing to visit a website is generally extremely passive. We look at the front page of HN (for example), make a few micromovements of our fingers and now we have dozens of tabs full of stuff to read. We didn't wake up that morning desperate to read any of those things, our existence wouldn't be negatively affected if went to bed that night not having read them. Some people (especially those who currently make money from ads on sites) seem to think we're desperate for them to exist and that's why we put up with their ads. It even materialises into weird threats sometimes "wait and see what happens when we stop operating because you wouldn't watch our adverts"). Bring that world on, I say. There was plenty of content on the early internet before everybody saw it as a way to make money. People who create content online for business reasons (either to directly make money or to keep their business relevant and known) then act as if they are obliged to make them for the good of society. If it's that difficult and expensive, and you don't want to do it for the joy of it, just stop. Don't pretend you're doing it for altruistic reasons.

greenyoda 8y ago
> It even materialises into weird threats sometimes "wait and see what happens when we stop operating because you wouldn't watch our adverts"). Note that the threat is not "if we can't make money from our ads, we'll need to start charging a subscription fee for our content." Because they know that hardly anyone would actually find the content they provide to be useful or entertaining enough to justify paying real money for. If I woke up tomorrow to find that all commercially produced content on the web cost money, there's only a handful of sites that I'd consider subscribing to (maybe a couple of high-quality news organizations). The sites I find the most valuable are blogs where people freely share their own interests (which cost almost nothing to host).

exabrial 8y ago

Can we just write articles without click bait headlines? Like "Please stop using adblock whitelists because the companies behind them have ethics issues"

4ad 8y ago

Somewhat related: can anyone recommend an ad blocker for Safari (on macOS) that uses the Safari Content Block API (instead of JavaScript injection? Right now I am using AdGuard, but I am looking for alternatives.

cdancette 8y ago

This was what I thought, in fact it's the exactly why I stopped using adblock.

DrJaws 8y ago

I would say that even better than ublock origin is nano adblock with nano defender that it is an anti anti-adblock

sklivvz1971 8y ago

Yep, use https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

dm319 8y ago

uMatrix is very nice. Gives you fine granular control over scripts like noscript does.

maoistinquisitr 8y ago
I don't really see any ads just by running NoScript. I don't see the need for an ad blocker. If a site won't render with javascript disabled, then I just close the tab.
- dm319 8y ago
  I moved to uMatrix because of this[1]. That doesn't seem very practical to me. Don't you need javascript to view, say, youtube videos? Also to make almost any sort of purchase transaction too. I do think it's a shame that that's the kind of internet we have to deal with now. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624000

kexx 8y ago

Stupid title, good title 'Please stop using adblock PLUS'. I just gave $10 for the creators of adblock (not plus) and ublock origin

thadjo 8y ago

I'd be pretty OK with this if they have me, as the viewer, 30% of the revenue they generate from ads served. Seems fair.

nimbius 8y ago

now that net neutrality is effectively a distant memory, you may also wish to consider null-routing known advertisers using pihole or your own DNS resolver null zone http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/

ddtaylor 8y ago

ABP has been known to be garbage for many years now, at least since 2014.

atomicnumber1 8y ago

I don't mind ads. What I do mind is intrusive behaviour of ads on a webpage. Some of the sites even crash my browser. I fear that, more we block ads, the more they'll find a way to show ads to users. And I fear that adblocker's might lose in this cat and mouse game.

johnchristopher 8y ago

The ads shown in the article aren't blinking gifs so I'd say it covers enough ground.

gaia 8y ago

Why does your blog post (https://sricks.com/best-ad-blockers/ https://sricks.com/best-ad-blockers/) suggest avoiding the Brave browser?

sandov 8y ago

I thought this was common knowledge among tech people, though it can't be stressed enough to non-techies.