4 ms·

The recent extension-disabling problem made me realize how awful the unfiltered web is. Trying to use mobile Chrome for the first time ever was a dreadful exper

The recent extension-disabling problem made me realize how awful the unfiltered web is. Trying to use mobile Chrome for the first time ever was a dreadful experience. I legitimately had no idea that mobile Chrome doesn't have any extension capability whatsoever. I always assumed it was a Firefox-style unified experience where the same desktop extensions worked on mobile. I was horrified to discover otherwise. Ads ads ads everywhere. How do people actually live day-to-day with mobile browsers that have no true adblocking capability? Using mobile Chrome is like taking a stroll through a plague ward.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I don’t use an Adblocker due to ethical concerns. (Not trying to convince you to do the same, just explaining.) It’s, uh, really not that bad. I rarely notice banner ads and the like. If a particular site gets really egrigious, I leave the site. I suspect that after using Adblock for years, your brain has forgotten how to ignore them.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  My brain shouldn't have to ignore them, though; that's what technology's for :)
  - kermitismyhero 7y ago
    Exactly. Technology exists to solve problems. One of the greatest problems in today's world is the metaphorical tsunami of advertising sewage flooding our mental shorelines. Browser-based adblockers neatly solve that problem. As for the "But how do we pay for all these free things then?" counterargument, I'd suggest voluntary restraint on the part of website creators. I can live with a few modest JPEG-only banner ads hosted directly from the site I'm visiting. If a site promises to not use animated images, streaming video, streaming audio, any sort of trackers, any sort of third-party content, and if they keep the screen-real-estate ratio of ads to content relatively low, then I'll whitelist them in a heartbeat.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      > If a site promises to not use animated images, streaming video, streaming audio, any sort of trackers, any sort of third-party content, and if they keep the screen-real-estate ratio of ads to content relatively low, then I'll whitelist them in a heartbeat. I just don't think this is a workable model for most users. "You want me to do extra work so I can see some (admittedly nonintrusive) ads? No way, figure out your own business." Honestly, if I started using an adblocker I'm not sure I could force myself to make that effort per website. I really wish uBlock Origin at least had the option to enable a blacklist model—ie, no sites ever have their ads blocked by default, but as soon as a site annoys me, I can go into my adblocker and disable their ads.
      - kermitismyhero 7y ago
        >I really wish uBlock Origin at least had the option to enable a blacklist model It effectively does have this capability. Just disable all the standard filter lists, and manually add one's own entries to the "my filters" section. This method has the added benefit of enabling other useful privacy features that don't directly relate to display advertising, like killing off the nastiness of hyperlink auditing, CSP reports going to 3rd parties, prefetching, and remote fonts.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        Is this per the ad network / server, or per domain like the whitelist? I would have assumed the former, but if it works like the whitelist that's great!
- ppseafield 7y ago
  I've had a similar experience as the GP, and I find it awful that autoplay videos will follow you around the page, pop-up modals will interrupt you in the middle of reading something, and ads will take up 40% or more of the page, loading between paragraphs while reading. It's hugely distracting to me. We could make the same argument: you've spend years without adblock, and they have worn you down to the point where you accept active mental blocking of highly distracting ads. And even then you say sometimes it's bad enough for you to leave the site.
  - Goronmon 7y ago
    I've had a similar experience as the GP, and I find it awful that autoplay videos will follow you around the page, pop-up modals will interrupt you in the middle of reading something, and ads will take up 40% or more of the page, loading between paragraphs while reading. It's hugely distracting to me. Why would you ever spend time on a site that did these things? Even if you have an adblocker, why would you use such a site on purpose?
    - ppseafield 7y ago
      You don't always know what a link is going to serve you before you go there.
      - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        And if the page served is unreadable, you immediately hit the back button and move on. :)
- Goronmon 7y ago
  It’s, uh, really not that bad. I rarely notice banner ads and the like. If a particular site gets really egrigious, I leave the site. Yeah, I never understood why people purposefully visit sites full of ads and then complain that the sites they visit are full of ads. It seems like a pretty simple problem to solve. And yet, even among the tech crowd, people seem to struggle with it constantly.
  - neiman 7y ago
    What you notice is a really subjective argument. I notice ads, even "small" ones; they distract my attention, and annoy me. I'd wish I had your ability to "rarely notice banner ads", but I don't, so I complain.
- benterris 7y ago
  > It’s, uh, really not that bad. I guess you got used to it. I also had the chance to re-discover how many ads are everywhere on the web thanks to firefox addons outage, and I was very surprised. Honestly, smartphones screen are already quite small (even more when the keyboard pops out) and with all the ads the actual useful surface of the screen gets ridiculously tiny. I couldn't imagine that chrome on mobile doesn't have an way to block ads, and still has such a huge user base.
- MrMorden 7y ago
  It's not so much ads being annoying as ads completely blocking the content. A lot of sites are completely unusable on a phone; a malicious ad redirects the browser to a scam almost immediately. That's how looking at a link from the Facebook application works, but opening it in Brave gets you the site you want minus malvertising.
- hughw 7y ago
  To be truly ethical, you must watch the ads.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    The way I see it, without an adblocker there is the potential that I will notice an ad. With an adblocker, that potential is completely gone. That's a big difference. Again, not trying to convince anyone here, I just don't feel comfortable with it personally.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

I don’t use an Adblocker due to ethical concerns. (Not trying to convince you to do the same, just explaining.) It’s, uh, really not that bad. I rarely notice banner ads and the like. If a particular site gets really egrigious, I leave the site. I suspect that after using Adblock for years, your brain has forgotten how to ignore them.

yellowapple 7y ago
My brain shouldn't have to ignore them, though; that's what technology's for :)
- kermitismyhero 7y ago
  Exactly. Technology exists to solve problems. One of the greatest problems in today's world is the metaphorical tsunami of advertising sewage flooding our mental shorelines. Browser-based adblockers neatly solve that problem. As for the "But how do we pay for all these free things then?" counterargument, I'd suggest voluntary restraint on the part of website creators. I can live with a few modest JPEG-only banner ads hosted directly from the site I'm visiting. If a site promises to not use animated images, streaming video, streaming audio, any sort of trackers, any sort of third-party content, and if they keep the screen-real-estate ratio of ads to content relatively low, then I'll whitelist them in a heartbeat.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > If a site promises to not use animated images, streaming video, streaming audio, any sort of trackers, any sort of third-party content, and if they keep the screen-real-estate ratio of ads to content relatively low, then I'll whitelist them in a heartbeat. I just don't think this is a workable model for most users. "You want me to do extra work so I can see some (admittedly nonintrusive) ads? No way, figure out your own business." Honestly, if I started using an adblocker I'm not sure I could force myself to make that effort per website. I really wish uBlock Origin at least had the option to enable a blacklist model—ie, no sites ever have their ads blocked by default, but as soon as a site annoys me, I can go into my adblocker and disable their ads.
    - kermitismyhero 7y ago
      >I really wish uBlock Origin at least had the option to enable a blacklist model It effectively does have this capability. Just disable all the standard filter lists, and manually add one's own entries to the "my filters" section. This method has the added benefit of enabling other useful privacy features that don't directly relate to display advertising, like killing off the nastiness of hyperlink auditing, CSP reports going to 3rd parties, prefetching, and remote fonts.
      - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        Is this per the ad network / server, or per domain like the whitelist? I would have assumed the former, but if it works like the whitelist that's great!
ppseafield 7y ago
I've had a similar experience as the GP, and I find it awful that autoplay videos will follow you around the page, pop-up modals will interrupt you in the middle of reading something, and ads will take up 40% or more of the page, loading between paragraphs while reading. It's hugely distracting to me. We could make the same argument: you've spend years without adblock, and they have worn you down to the point where you accept active mental blocking of highly distracting ads. And even then you say sometimes it's bad enough for you to leave the site.
- Goronmon 7y ago
  I've had a similar experience as the GP, and I find it awful that autoplay videos will follow you around the page, pop-up modals will interrupt you in the middle of reading something, and ads will take up 40% or more of the page, loading between paragraphs while reading. It's hugely distracting to me. Why would you ever spend time on a site that did these things? Even if you have an adblocker, why would you use such a site on purpose?
  - ppseafield 7y ago
    You don't always know what a link is going to serve you before you go there.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      And if the page served is unreadable, you immediately hit the back button and move on. :)
Goronmon 7y ago
It’s, uh, really not that bad. I rarely notice banner ads and the like. If a particular site gets really egrigious, I leave the site. Yeah, I never understood why people purposefully visit sites full of ads and then complain that the sites they visit are full of ads. It seems like a pretty simple problem to solve. And yet, even among the tech crowd, people seem to struggle with it constantly.
- neiman 7y ago
  What you notice is a really subjective argument. I notice ads, even "small" ones; they distract my attention, and annoy me. I'd wish I had your ability to "rarely notice banner ads", but I don't, so I complain.
benterris 7y ago
> It’s, uh, really not that bad. I guess you got used to it. I also had the chance to re-discover how many ads are everywhere on the web thanks to firefox addons outage, and I was very surprised. Honestly, smartphones screen are already quite small (even more when the keyboard pops out) and with all the ads the actual useful surface of the screen gets ridiculously tiny. I couldn't imagine that chrome on mobile doesn't have an way to block ads, and still has such a huge user base.
MrMorden 7y ago
It's not so much ads being annoying as ads completely blocking the content. A lot of sites are completely unusable on a phone; a malicious ad redirects the browser to a scam almost immediately. That's how looking at a link from the Facebook application works, but opening it in Brave gets you the site you want minus malvertising.
hughw 7y ago
To be truly ethical, you must watch the ads.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  The way I see it, without an adblocker there is the potential that I will notice an ad. With an adblocker, that potential is completely gone. That's a big difference. Again, not trying to convince anyone here, I just don't feel comfortable with it personally.