5 ms·

I was on a fresh setup recently and caught a glimpse of the raw internet on my way to install uBlock Origin and uMatrix. There are still fake download buttons e

by gfody 6y ago

I was on a fresh setup recently and caught a glimpse of the raw internet on my way to install uBlock Origin and uMatrix. There are still fake download buttons everywhere. I can't understand how the non-ad-blocking world tolerates that stuff - no choice and no voice I guess? The amount of autoplaying videos was disturbing as well.

wlll 6y ago
I've had this when dealing with family members computers. It's an absolute disaster.
- collyw 6y ago
  I was cleaning up my mums computer (malware, crapware, virus scan) a few years ago and she got annoyed when I removed the emoji toolbar for Internet Explorer. It was quite a facepalm moment, I assumed it had installed itself without her asking for it, but no she wanted it there.
0xCMP 6y ago
This probably an important reason people would rather browse Facebook or Instagram on their phone. It's literally a much better experience.
- sneak 6y ago
  Those are also full of unblockable ads, and spyware to boot. I don’t think that is a better experience at all.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    It still has ads, but it is also a better experience. The web ads tend to bed more intrusive and outside the UX, more irrelevant, and more malware like. I don't like those apps either, but the UI is definitely better. I'm not sure why Firefox just doesn't build adblocking into the browser as a first class feature - maybe because they rely on the Google funding? All of the "ad-supported business model supports creators, ad-supported businesses allow more people to access to the content" just feels like after the fact rationalization. The same with how good targeting is because the ads are relevant. If your content is valuable then charge for it. If browsers actually blocked all the ads like users wanted (and made a better product) then sites that couldn't support themselves without ads would die. Wouldn't that be nice.
    - kenhwang 6y ago
      > I'm not sure why Firefox just doesn't build adblocking into the browser as a first class feature - maybe because they rely on the Google funding? They kinda do. They keep building APIs requested by the adblockers so that adblocking can continue to work efficiently/effecitvely. They're also blocking the underlying abuses of advertising by increasing privacy by making it more difficult to track/fingerprint, increased security with the safe browsing checks (phishing/malware), and anti-cryptomining.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > I'm not sure why Firefox just doesn't build adblocking into the browser as a first class feature - maybe because they rely on the Google funding? I am glad that they do not. I doubt that mozilla would be able to make anything nearly as good as ublock origin. They already tried something similar with "tracker blocking" - it is uncustomizable and generally inferior to ublock.
  - 0xCMP 6y ago
    I completely agree, but websites are even worse. At least the ads are super clearly marked and they're entirely unlikely to "trick" you or infect your phone with malware.
    - sneak 6y ago
      The Facebook and Instagram apps are malware: spyware, specifically. The animals have left the barn at that point. I firmly believe that if the users could see what these client apps are actually doing on their device, they would never use them.
      - hackerman123469 6y ago
        No they're not.
divbzero 6y ago
This includes plenty of “good” sites. I kept forwarding Worldometers’ COVID-19 data site [1] to friends and families, then later realized it’s full of banner ads if viewed without ad blocking. [1]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  Without content blockers on iOS it has some garbage google ad or something advertising 5 cures for arthritis and something called nutreance. I wonder how many people get a fake Covid cure advertised there since that seems to be the level of advertiser.
- ccmcarey 6y ago
  Oh wow, I also forward that site around, and sometimes comment on the great minimal design and information density. Just had a look at it with uBlock Origin disabled, and wow, how do people browse the internet like this?
  - m0xte 6y ago
    Indeed. I showed my 80 year old mother uBlock Origin and she actually said it made her remaining time more useful. That really put it into perspective.
  - dillutedfixer 6y ago
    It really is jarring when you see your regularly visited websites without ad blocking. A news site that I look at has infinite scrolling ads of those "Dentists everywhere are furious about this trick" with a picture of an avocado boiling in water or something equally ridiculous. I realize that ad blocking does take money away from site operators, and I do pay for many of the news sites that I frequent. But honestly a site that is willing to blast me with ads about how I can cheat my insurance company with ONE SIMPLE TRICK doesn't deserve money from my clicks. And I do get that they often can't choose what ads are shown. Perhaps that's the bigger issue. Edit: elaborated on my final point.
EForEndeavour 6y ago
Browsing the internet without an ad blocker is like navigating the Warp without a Gellar field. https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Gellar_Field https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Gellar_Field
collyw 6y ago
I send my friend a link a while ago and he complained to me. I tried it with ads off and it was horrible. Google actually got that right with their ads - they were non intrusive and fitted in. Facbook started ads well, but these days they are getting annoying.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  They got it right initially, with ads being unobtrusive, but easily identifiable. Now, though, there is barely an indication that somebody paid for that link at the top. Moving the ads from the sidebar to the main results, slowly removing the yellow background, made Google ads be just as hostile, but in an insidious rather than overt manner.
DigitallyFidget 6y ago
This is exactly why I insist on using adblocks. Trying to find the actual download link on pages is an absolute nightmare without them. The fact these sites allow ads like this and then complain if you use an adblocker is beyond me. If ads were not so hurtful to the experience of websites, I would have no reason to block them. The problem is that I feel I am forced to use an adblocker just to be able to navigate a webpage without aggressive bombardment of wasted bandwidth, visual garbage, misleading marketing, videos I don't want playing, noises I don't want to hear, and other aggressive tactics. The other part of it is that I will never ever click a link from an ad. If I want cheaper insurance, I'll look up my rates myself. If I want a bigger penis, I'll go see a doctor. If I want some such product, I'll look into it on my time. I'm just not a targetable demographic for advertising, but I feel I have to block them merely because of how relentless they are on so much of the internet.

by gfody 6y ago

wlll 6y ago

I've had this when dealing with family members computers. It's an absolute disaster.

collyw 6y ago
I was cleaning up my mums computer (malware, crapware, virus scan) a few years ago and she got annoyed when I removed the emoji toolbar for Internet Explorer. It was quite a facepalm moment, I assumed it had installed itself without her asking for it, but no she wanted it there.

0xCMP 6y ago

This probably an important reason people would rather browse Facebook or Instagram on their phone. It's literally a much better experience.

sneak 6y ago
Those are also full of unblockable ads, and spyware to boot. I don’t think that is a better experience at all.
- fossuser 6y ago
  It still has ads, but it is also a better experience. The web ads tend to bed more intrusive and outside the UX, more irrelevant, and more malware like. I don't like those apps either, but the UI is definitely better. I'm not sure why Firefox just doesn't build adblocking into the browser as a first class feature - maybe because they rely on the Google funding? All of the "ad-supported business model supports creators, ad-supported businesses allow more people to access to the content" just feels like after the fact rationalization. The same with how good targeting is because the ads are relevant. If your content is valuable then charge for it. If browsers actually blocked all the ads like users wanted (and made a better product) then sites that couldn't support themselves without ads would die. Wouldn't that be nice.
  - kenhwang 6y ago
    > I'm not sure why Firefox just doesn't build adblocking into the browser as a first class feature - maybe because they rely on the Google funding? They kinda do. They keep building APIs requested by the adblockers so that adblocking can continue to work efficiently/effecitvely. They're also blocking the underlying abuses of advertising by increasing privacy by making it more difficult to track/fingerprint, increased security with the safe browsing checks (phishing/malware), and anti-cryptomining.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > I'm not sure why Firefox just doesn't build adblocking into the browser as a first class feature - maybe because they rely on the Google funding? I am glad that they do not. I doubt that mozilla would be able to make anything nearly as good as ublock origin. They already tried something similar with "tracker blocking" - it is uncustomizable and generally inferior to ublock.
- 0xCMP 6y ago
  I completely agree, but websites are even worse. At least the ads are super clearly marked and they're entirely unlikely to "trick" you or infect your phone with malware.
  - sneak 6y ago
    The Facebook and Instagram apps are malware: spyware, specifically. The animals have left the barn at that point. I firmly believe that if the users could see what these client apps are actually doing on their device, they would never use them.
    - hackerman123469 6y ago
      No they're not.

divbzero 6y ago

This includes plenty of “good” sites. I kept forwarding Worldometers’ COVID-19 data site [1] to friends and families, then later realized it’s full of banner ads if viewed without ad blocking. [1]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

mcintyre1994 6y ago
Without content blockers on iOS it has some garbage google ad or something advertising 5 cures for arthritis and something called nutreance. I wonder how many people get a fake Covid cure advertised there since that seems to be the level of advertiser.
ccmcarey 6y ago
Oh wow, I also forward that site around, and sometimes comment on the great minimal design and information density. Just had a look at it with uBlock Origin disabled, and wow, how do people browse the internet like this?
- m0xte 6y ago
  Indeed. I showed my 80 year old mother uBlock Origin and she actually said it made her remaining time more useful. That really put it into perspective.
- dillutedfixer 6y ago
  It really is jarring when you see your regularly visited websites without ad blocking. A news site that I look at has infinite scrolling ads of those "Dentists everywhere are furious about this trick" with a picture of an avocado boiling in water or something equally ridiculous. I realize that ad blocking does take money away from site operators, and I do pay for many of the news sites that I frequent. But honestly a site that is willing to blast me with ads about how I can cheat my insurance company with ONE SIMPLE TRICK doesn't deserve money from my clicks. And I do get that they often can't choose what ads are shown. Perhaps that's the bigger issue. Edit: elaborated on my final point.

EForEndeavour 6y ago

Browsing the internet without an ad blocker is like navigating the Warp without a Gellar field. https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Gellar_Field https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Gellar_Field

collyw 6y ago

I send my friend a link a while ago and he complained to me. I tried it with ads off and it was horrible. Google actually got that right with their ads - they were non intrusive and fitted in. Facbook started ads well, but these days they are getting annoying.

MereInterest 6y ago
They got it right initially, with ads being unobtrusive, but easily identifiable. Now, though, there is barely an indication that somebody paid for that link at the top. Moving the ads from the sidebar to the main results, slowly removing the yellow background, made Google ads be just as hostile, but in an insidious rather than overt manner.

DigitallyFidget 6y ago

This is exactly why I insist on using adblocks. Trying to find the actual download link on pages is an absolute nightmare without them. The fact these sites allow ads like this and then complain if you use an adblocker is beyond me. If ads were not so hurtful to the experience of websites, I would have no reason to block them. The problem is that I feel I am forced to use an adblocker just to be able to navigate a webpage without aggressive bombardment of wasted bandwidth, visual garbage, misleading marketing, videos I don't want playing, noises I don't want to hear, and other aggressive tactics. The other part of it is that I will never ever click a link from an ad. If I want cheaper insurance, I'll look up my rates myself. If I want a bigger penis, I'll go see a doctor. If I want some such product, I'll look into it on my time. I'm just not a targetable demographic for advertising, but I feel I have to block them merely because of how relentless they are on so much of the internet.