6 ms·

Interested why you chose to focus solely on uBlock Origin as an alternative instead of something more forward thinking like AdNauseum?

hendersoon 8y ago
AdNauseum essentially defrauds advertising networks. That is not the righteous path. "Acceptable ads" allowed by default (opt-out) are inherently and OBVIOUSLY the right idea, but the acceptable ad list should be maintained by a disinterested party, not an advertiser or ad agency. Problem is that disinterested parties are just that-- nobody cares enough to do it. Who wants to go to that effort to _allow_ ads? One solution would be for Google and other large advertisers to fund a not-for-profit company to build acceptable ad lists, and then convince adblock addon developers to enable the lists by default through sheer benevolence. Enforcement is easy, if they play games like AdBlock and start allowing intrusive ads, Gorhill (uBlock Origin developer) and those like him will instantly disable the lists and their entire model falls apart.
- trophycase 8y ago
  Sorry, but there's no such thing as acceptable brainwash.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > "Acceptable ads" allowed by default are inherently and OBVIOUSLY the right idea I think you're overestimating how universal that opinion might be, and underestimating how many people don't want any ads.
  - hendersoon 8y ago
    Not at all, I'm one of those people! It's opt-out. We can simply uncheck a box to block the acceptable ads too. I edited my original post to make that clear, I thought "allowed by default" was sufficient but several people had the same reaction.
    - pmoriarty 8y ago
      It should be opt-in. The user should have to check a box to allow "acceptable" ads. Though I expect you'll find that the number of adblock users who check such an opt-in-to-ads box to be vanishingly small.
      - hendersoon 8y ago
        That's why it has to be opt-out. The goal is to make the web a markedly less hostile place to visit by eliminating intrusive ads while still allowing sites to support themselves through advertising.
        pmoriarty 8y ago
        "The goal is to make the web a markedly less hostile place to visit by eliminating intrusive ads while still allowing sites to support themselves through advertising." That's not my goal. My goal is to eliminate unsolicited advertising. I don't want it, and if websites have to find other, non-advertising-based business models to support themselves, so be it.
        atom_arranger 8y ago
        This mostly just makes it so less tech savvy users would have to be exposed to more advertisements. Even after they've gone out of their way already to install an ad-blocker. If I'm installing an ad-blocker I want it to block all ads.
        kiriakasis 8y ago
        in my case that was false. I used a manga reading site that had ads on page change making literally impossible to use their site. this is why most people use ads, they are annoying and intrusive.
    - JoshTriplett 8y ago
      It's clear that it won't work or get enough revenue to survive unless it's enabled by default. That doesn't mean it should be enabled by default.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  There's no such thing as an "acceptable ad" for me, so allowing them is not "inherently and OBVIOUSLY the right idea". What's obviously the right idea for me is making all unsolicited advertising illegal, and throwing any violators of that law in jail.
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    Ads is quite conflated as a term. should flyers be illegal? posters? tv ads? mozzila is now trying to introduce non tracking ads in their browser. how are non tracking ads different from posters on the street? (minus security concern, honestly i trust mozilla on that)
    - pmoriarty 8y ago
      "should flyers be illegal? posters? tv ads?" Yes, yes, and yes. Who needs all this junk? No one. When walking down a scenic street, you know who says to themselves, "What this street really needs to make it truly pleasing is more flyers and posters"? No one. When watching TV, who yearns for more ads? No one. This is all junk no one needs except the advertisers themselves. The rest of us don't want their garbage.
      - dcbadacd 8y ago
        "Advertising" is just a friendly name to "manipulation for monetary goals". It should honestly be illegal.
        worldexplorer 8y ago
        Seems like entire human economics need an upgrade.
- jlarocco 8y ago
  > "Acceptable ads" allowed by default (opt-out) are inherently and OBVIOUSLY the right idea, but the acceptable ad list should be maintained by a disinterested party, not an advertiser or ad agency. That's silly. If a person is installing an ad blocker, the "obvious" thing is for it to block advertisements. You may not like it, but everybody is fully capable of making up their own mind on whether they think certain advertisements are acceptable or not.
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    this is purely sophistic. It is shady to block ads and sell ads at the same time, but for me at least "ad blocker" meant "stop redirecting me to crap sites while clicking on your menus". It was about being literally unable to use some sites, I don't care about still images at the bottom of a page.
    - distances 8y ago
      > It was about being literally unable to use some sites, I don't care about still images at the bottom of a page. For me it's about privacy and security too, but most of all, I just don't want to see any ads whatsoever. I don't watch ad-supported TV, no ad-supported radio, no ads to my mailbox, won't use apps that show ads, and no ads are allowed in my web browser either.
    - jlarocco 8y ago
      Use your own definition "ad blocker" if you want to, but everybody else will see it as dishonest if a product claiming to block ads doesn't actually block ads.
- thefounder 8y ago
  Is not available in ios appstore
ndiscussion 8y ago
I remember reading about a similar project a while ago, but frankly, it had slipped my mind. Perhaps I'll write a follow-up post later. AdNauseam and similar programs certainly throw a monkey wrench into the discussion.
pmoriarty 8y ago
I've never heard of AdNauseum. Could you elaborate on why you call it "more forward thinking"?
- kuschku 8y ago
  The goal of AdNauseam is to not just avoid websites profiting from ads, it’s to destroy the ad industry as a whole. So it automatically clicks all ads your browser encounters hundreds of times to reduce the value of ad impressions.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Who pays for the content you consume then? I am assuming you are a paid subscriber to all of the sites you visit?
    - robryan 8y ago
      There are other ways to fund content that doesn’t involve slapping a bunch of third party trackers and running retargetted display ads. Some examples other than subscriptions would be sponsored content and creating a product such as an ebook or selling products that are related to your content.
    - kuschku 8y ago
      I am a subscriber to all the German-language news site I visit, or they're all paid with taxes. I run my own image host, my own irc bouncer service, and many many more for all the use cases where I'd have to rely on ad-infested services.
      - kiriakasis 8y ago
        good for you, and how are lower income countries going to do it?
        kuschku 8y ago
gorhill 8y ago
> something more forward thinking like AdNauseum I personally disagree with "forward thinking" description for what AdNauseam does, hence why I disagreed when the AdNauseam authors asked me to implement hooks in uBO[1]. To me the ideal for many reasons[2] is to reduce as much as possible the number of connections to 3rd parties on any given web page. * * * [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/67 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/67 [2] Privacy exposure, page load time, bandwidth, CPU/memory.
- BRAlNlAC 8y ago
  I care about privacy in absolute terms. The difference to me, personally, between the advertisements I'm served after using AdNauseum and TMN running in a tab for 6 months vs the ads I was seeing using other blocking protocol (such as UBO and Privacy Badger) for longer periods of time have me convinced that the only way to gain any amount of privacy on the web these days is through obfuscation. I couldn't care less about page load time(as long as the hit is <500ms), bandwidth consumed or CPU/memory load on my desktop. I hate the tracky nature of the web nowadays, and feel that AdNauseam is fighting fire with fire. UBO is fighting fire with CO2, fine unless the fire has it's own oxygen supply, which I would argue the online ad industry has in the form of copious numbers of inattentive and uncaring users.

hendersoon 8y ago

AdNauseum essentially defrauds advertising networks. That is not the righteous path. "Acceptable ads" allowed by default (opt-out) are inherently and OBVIOUSLY the right idea, but the acceptable ad list should be maintained by a disinterested party, not an advertiser or ad agency. Problem is that disinterested parties are just that-- nobody cares enough to do it. Who wants to go to that effort to _allow_ ads? One solution would be for Google and other large advertisers to fund a not-for-profit company to build acceptable ad lists, and then convince adblock addon developers to enable the lists by default through sheer benevolence. Enforcement is easy, if they play games like AdBlock and start allowing intrusive ads, Gorhill (uBlock Origin developer) and those like him will instantly disable the lists and their entire model falls apart.

trophycase 8y ago
Sorry, but there's no such thing as acceptable brainwash.
JoshTriplett 8y ago
> "Acceptable ads" allowed by default are inherently and OBVIOUSLY the right idea I think you're overestimating how universal that opinion might be, and underestimating how many people don't want any ads.
- hendersoon 8y ago
  Not at all, I'm one of those people! It's opt-out. We can simply uncheck a box to block the acceptable ads too. I edited my original post to make that clear, I thought "allowed by default" was sufficient but several people had the same reaction.
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    It should be opt-in. The user should have to check a box to allow "acceptable" ads. Though I expect you'll find that the number of adblock users who check such an opt-in-to-ads box to be vanishingly small.
    - hendersoon 8y ago
      That's why it has to be opt-out. The goal is to make the web a markedly less hostile place to visit by eliminating intrusive ads while still allowing sites to support themselves through advertising.
      - pmoriarty 8y ago
        "The goal is to make the web a markedly less hostile place to visit by eliminating intrusive ads while still allowing sites to support themselves through advertising." That's not my goal. My goal is to eliminate unsolicited advertising. I don't want it, and if websites have to find other, non-advertising-based business models to support themselves, so be it.
      - atom_arranger 8y ago
        This mostly just makes it so less tech savvy users would have to be exposed to more advertisements. Even after they've gone out of their way already to install an ad-blocker. If I'm installing an ad-blocker I want it to block all ads.
        kiriakasis 8y ago
        in my case that was false. I used a manga reading site that had ads on page change making literally impossible to use their site. this is why most people use ads, they are annoying and intrusive.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    It's clear that it won't work or get enough revenue to survive unless it's enabled by default. That doesn't mean it should be enabled by default.
pmoriarty 8y ago
There's no such thing as an "acceptable ad" for me, so allowing them is not "inherently and OBVIOUSLY the right idea". What's obviously the right idea for me is making all unsolicited advertising illegal, and throwing any violators of that law in jail.
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  Ads is quite conflated as a term. should flyers be illegal? posters? tv ads? mozzila is now trying to introduce non tracking ads in their browser. how are non tracking ads different from posters on the street? (minus security concern, honestly i trust mozilla on that)
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    "should flyers be illegal? posters? tv ads?" Yes, yes, and yes. Who needs all this junk? No one. When walking down a scenic street, you know who says to themselves, "What this street really needs to make it truly pleasing is more flyers and posters"? No one. When watching TV, who yearns for more ads? No one. This is all junk no one needs except the advertisers themselves. The rest of us don't want their garbage.
    - dcbadacd 8y ago
      "Advertising" is just a friendly name to "manipulation for monetary goals". It should honestly be illegal.
      - worldexplorer 8y ago
        Seems like entire human economics need an upgrade.
jlarocco 8y ago
> "Acceptable ads" allowed by default (opt-out) are inherently and OBVIOUSLY the right idea, but the acceptable ad list should be maintained by a disinterested party, not an advertiser or ad agency. That's silly. If a person is installing an ad blocker, the "obvious" thing is for it to block advertisements. You may not like it, but everybody is fully capable of making up their own mind on whether they think certain advertisements are acceptable or not.
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  this is purely sophistic. It is shady to block ads and sell ads at the same time, but for me at least "ad blocker" meant "stop redirecting me to crap sites while clicking on your menus". It was about being literally unable to use some sites, I don't care about still images at the bottom of a page.
  - distances 8y ago
    > It was about being literally unable to use some sites, I don't care about still images at the bottom of a page. For me it's about privacy and security too, but most of all, I just don't want to see any ads whatsoever. I don't watch ad-supported TV, no ad-supported radio, no ads to my mailbox, won't use apps that show ads, and no ads are allowed in my web browser either.
  - jlarocco 8y ago
    Use your own definition "ad blocker" if you want to, but everybody else will see it as dishonest if a product claiming to block ads doesn't actually block ads.
thefounder 8y ago
Is not available in ios appstore

ndiscussion 8y ago

I remember reading about a similar project a while ago, but frankly, it had slipped my mind. Perhaps I'll write a follow-up post later. AdNauseam and similar programs certainly throw a monkey wrench into the discussion.

pmoriarty 8y ago

I've never heard of AdNauseum. Could you elaborate on why you call it "more forward thinking"?

kuschku 8y ago
The goal of AdNauseam is to not just avoid websites profiting from ads, it’s to destroy the ad industry as a whole. So it automatically clicks all ads your browser encounters hundreds of times to reduce the value of ad impressions.
- briandear 8y ago
  Who pays for the content you consume then? I am assuming you are a paid subscriber to all of the sites you visit?
  - robryan 8y ago
    There are other ways to fund content that doesn’t involve slapping a bunch of third party trackers and running retargetted display ads. Some examples other than subscriptions would be sponsored content and creating a product such as an ebook or selling products that are related to your content.
  - kuschku 8y ago
    I am a subscriber to all the German-language news site I visit, or they're all paid with taxes. I run my own image host, my own irc bouncer service, and many many more for all the use cases where I'd have to rely on ad-infested services.
    - kiriakasis 8y ago
      good for you, and how are lower income countries going to do it?
      - kuschku 8y ago

gorhill 8y ago

> something more forward thinking like AdNauseum I personally disagree with "forward thinking" description for what AdNauseam does, hence why I disagreed when the AdNauseam authors asked me to implement hooks in uBO[1]. To me the ideal for many reasons[2] is to reduce as much as possible the number of connections to 3rd parties on any given web page. * * * [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/67 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/67 [2] Privacy exposure, page load time, bandwidth, CPU/memory.

BRAlNlAC 8y ago
I care about privacy in absolute terms. The difference to me, personally, between the advertisements I'm served after using AdNauseum and TMN running in a tab for 6 months vs the ads I was seeing using other blocking protocol (such as UBO and Privacy Badger) for longer periods of time have me convinced that the only way to gain any amount of privacy on the web these days is through obfuscation. I couldn't care less about page load time(as long as the hit is <500ms), bandwidth consumed or CPU/memory load on my desktop. I hate the tracky nature of the web nowadays, and feel that AdNauseam is fighting fire with fire. UBO is fighting fire with CO2, fine unless the fire has it's own oxygen supply, which I would argue the online ad industry has in the form of copious numbers of inattentive and uncaring users.