6 ms·

Are we really blocking ads or are we really blocking malware? Calling our privacy tools adblockers is a misnomer don't you think for any site can simple put ad

Are we really blocking ads or are we really blocking malware? Calling our privacy tools adblockers is a misnomer don't you think for any site can simple put ad in a div and not get it blocked.

yubiox 8y ago
Are there any ads that aren't just scams anyway?
- bscphil 8y ago
  "Scams" is too strong, but I don't think "undesirable" would be. Think about it: ads are nearly always unwanted. You can tell because advertisers have to pay to put their content in front of users. If consumers wanted to see ads, media would put in ads paid or not to better compete for viewers. Instead, "premium" sources are often ad-free (see Spotify, HBO, better movie theaters, etc). I think the reason for this is that ads don't exist to inform consumers about things they might want to purchase. Instead, advertisers have learned to manipulate viewers to create desire for their products. The effectiveness of ads is almost entirely non-rational. Watching ads is effectively watching corporate propaganda, in many different degrees of harmfulness. I'm admittedly an idealist. But something seems amiss to me when the supposed only way to pay for journalism (which exists to inform the public) is to embed advertisements (which exist to misinform the public).
  - B1FF_PSUVM 8y ago
    > seems amiss Try this: all is paid for by advertisers, it has always been. Deduce which of your "exist to" beliefs is mistaken - perhaps due to advertising about it ...
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
      > all is paid for by advertisers, it has always been. No. There have always been websites by people who just want to share with the world, and paid services, and useful government programs, and nonprofits (go on, find an ad on https://www.gnu.org/ https://www.gnu.org/). Your belief is mistaken.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > Think about it: ads are nearly always unwanted. You can tell because advertisers have to pay to put their content in front of users. This isn't true. Advertisers pay to access a target audience, because publishers control that access and their business model depends on their ability to monetize it. In general adverts are not unwanted. In fact, some consumers even request companies to send them adverts intentionally, and even subscribe to marketing publications. Heck, some consumers even pay to subscribe to catalogues. In general, web adverts are disliked because they are very intrusive and degrade the performance of a website, and in some cases expose content that is socially frowned upon.
  - thelasthuman 8y ago
    Here's a relevant (IMO) documentary: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Has there ever been a major professional news service, in any medium, that wasn't at least partially ad-supported? Maintaining a stable of good reporters is expensive, consumers aren't willing to pay much (if anything) for news, and the only alternative is some kind of patronage. At least with ads it's theoretically possible to maintain editorial independence.
- HenryBemis 8y ago
  Yes. Plenty.
johnchristopher 8y ago
That's not how things happened. First they came with the blink tag. Then they added animated GIFs everywhere. They came with the pop-up. Then they put the pop-up under the main window. Ad-blockers' first usage was to make the Web readable. Then years later privacy concerns took over.
- andai 8y ago
  At this point, ads are just one of many problems. Newsletter popups, cookie consent (10x worse since GDPR), auto-playing video, in-browser crypto mining..? At this point, basic self-respect demands I simply disable JavaScript. It's incredible how much faster the web is without it, and how much smoother, and how much less cluttered.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    The problem is, the people who shape the web, of which some are on HN, will soon notice that people are just switching off JS to evade their tricks, and will make sure websites are unusable without it. Now the opposite is true, but some already implemented loading loading the text via JS, so you can't just read an article without turning on JS first.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      I just close tabs that don't load without JS. There is so much content on the Internet that I don't mind going elsewhere.
    - zentiggr 8y ago
      And those are sites I don't visit anymore. Push, pull, mess with me, I go elsewhere.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Browsers became the new operating systems at some point. It only makes sense that the user controls the software that runs on them.
  - 8y ago
adrianN 8y ago
I'm not blocking ads, I'm blocking crap that sucks my battery dry and hinders me in reading the content that I came to read.
jlarocco 8y ago
I would say I'm blocking both. There's a tool in uBlock that allows blocking individual DOM elements, and I block "native" ads embedded in pages, too.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Indeed. I don't mind seeing ads. I do mind being tracked all over the internet by multiple unknown entities.

Are we really blocking ads or are we really blocking malware? Calling our privacy tools adblockers is a misnomer don't you think for any site can simple put ad in a div and not get it blocked.

yubiox 8y ago

Are there any ads that aren't just scams anyway?

bscphil 8y ago
"Scams" is too strong, but I don't think "undesirable" would be. Think about it: ads are nearly always unwanted. You can tell because advertisers have to pay to put their content in front of users. If consumers wanted to see ads, media would put in ads paid or not to better compete for viewers. Instead, "premium" sources are often ad-free (see Spotify, HBO, better movie theaters, etc). I think the reason for this is that ads don't exist to inform consumers about things they might want to purchase. Instead, advertisers have learned to manipulate viewers to create desire for their products. The effectiveness of ads is almost entirely non-rational. Watching ads is effectively watching corporate propaganda, in many different degrees of harmfulness. I'm admittedly an idealist. But something seems amiss to me when the supposed only way to pay for journalism (which exists to inform the public) is to embed advertisements (which exist to misinform the public).
- B1FF_PSUVM 8y ago
  > seems amiss Try this: all is paid for by advertisers, it has always been. Deduce which of your "exist to" beliefs is mistaken - perhaps due to advertising about it ...
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    > all is paid for by advertisers, it has always been. No. There have always been websites by people who just want to share with the world, and paid services, and useful government programs, and nonprofits (go on, find an ad on https://www.gnu.org/ https://www.gnu.org/). Your belief is mistaken.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Think about it: ads are nearly always unwanted. You can tell because advertisers have to pay to put their content in front of users. This isn't true. Advertisers pay to access a target audience, because publishers control that access and their business model depends on their ability to monetize it. In general adverts are not unwanted. In fact, some consumers even request companies to send them adverts intentionally, and even subscribe to marketing publications. Heck, some consumers even pay to subscribe to catalogues. In general, web adverts are disliked because they are very intrusive and degrade the performance of a website, and in some cases expose content that is socially frowned upon.
- thelasthuman 8y ago
  Here's a relevant (IMO) documentary: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Has there ever been a major professional news service, in any medium, that wasn't at least partially ad-supported? Maintaining a stable of good reporters is expensive, consumers aren't willing to pay much (if anything) for news, and the only alternative is some kind of patronage. At least with ads it's theoretically possible to maintain editorial independence.
HenryBemis 8y ago
Yes. Plenty.

johnchristopher 8y ago

That's not how things happened. First they came with the blink tag. Then they added animated GIFs everywhere. They came with the pop-up. Then they put the pop-up under the main window. Ad-blockers' first usage was to make the Web readable. Then years later privacy concerns took over.

andai 8y ago
At this point, ads are just one of many problems. Newsletter popups, cookie consent (10x worse since GDPR), auto-playing video, in-browser crypto mining..? At this point, basic self-respect demands I simply disable JavaScript. It's incredible how much faster the web is without it, and how much smoother, and how much less cluttered.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  The problem is, the people who shape the web, of which some are on HN, will soon notice that people are just switching off JS to evade their tricks, and will make sure websites are unusable without it. Now the opposite is true, but some already implemented loading loading the text via JS, so you can't just read an article without turning on JS first.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I just close tabs that don't load without JS. There is so much content on the Internet that I don't mind going elsewhere.
  - zentiggr 8y ago
    And those are sites I don't visit anymore. Push, pull, mess with me, I go elsewhere.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Browsers became the new operating systems at some point. It only makes sense that the user controls the software that runs on them.
- 8y ago

adrianN 8y ago

I'm not blocking ads, I'm blocking crap that sucks my battery dry and hinders me in reading the content that I came to read.

jlarocco 8y ago

I would say I'm blocking both. There's a tool in uBlock that allows blocking individual DOM elements, and I block "native" ads embedded in pages, too.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

Indeed. I don't mind seeing ads. I do mind being tracked all over the internet by multiple unknown entities.