5 ms·

I still don't use an ad blocker. I know all the arguments for ad blocking and I agree with many of them. I know what difference it makes in terms of performance

I still don't use an ad blocker. I know all the arguments for ad blocking and I agree with many of them. I know what difference it makes in terms of performance and annoyance. But I just can't bring myself to indiscriminately block all ads, knowing how important they are as a funding source for the websites I use. There's only one thing that destroys privacy even more thoroughly than ad targeting: payment.

rattray 6y ago
Out of curiosity, do you mind sharing what sorts of websites you use that you feel this loyalty towards? News, community, educational, etc? Is it a small group of sites, or a wide variety?
- kbenson 6y ago
  Not GP, but I don't block youtube and I block most other stuff (because uBlock Origin blocks be default). Google is probably the most likely to track more info about me, but it's also obvious that the ads played factor into the money the content creators get, and I felt bad after a while of blocking their revenue stream. It's also got me really close to paying for YouTube red, which is the other option,and o e I wouldn't consider without the annoyance of ads.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  It's a wide variety of sites. Local news, tech news, science mags, other special interest sites, porn, discussion forums, Q&A sites, some social media. It's impossible to list them all. Essentially, it's the great variety of what's available on the open Web that I don't want to lose. I don't want everything to become one big app store with all its suffocating narrow-mindedness and oppressive control freakery.
  - rattray 6y ago
    Yeah, that makes sense. Would be way too hard to solve something like that with subscriptions. Maybe one day, concepts like Brave Rewards or Google Contributor[0] will actually work... No idea what it'd take for those to reach critical mass, maybe government intervention. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
dennisy 6y ago
I feel the same, but also hate how bad sites with ads are. There must be a better way!
gpanders 6y ago
> There's only one thing that destroys privacy even more thoroughly than ad targeting: payment. I disagree with this. Maybe you can elaborate? If I am paying for a service then there is no incentive to mine my personal data for revenue. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. And there are plenty of ways to hide your personal information (even your name) when paying for something (e.g. using a service like privacy.com).
- derivagral 6y ago
  My understanding is that the mentality is "they paid us, we have their data, we're keeping it for future leads, we could get a new line of revenue by turning that into a product."
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  I assume the meaning is that if you pay a site, they know exactly who you are; not just a cookie ID, but an actual credit card transaction with a real name attached.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  I don't know much about privacy.com because it's not available outside the US. Knowing a bit about the legal side of payments I doubt they can promise anonymity though. They're just not passing my identity on to merchants as I understand it. I doubt that there will ever be a widespread, convenient way to make anonymous electronic payments. The authorities would never allow that to happen (for understandable reasons I have to say). Incentives are not working at all. Lots of services I pay for go to great lengths to squeeze even more out of that customer relationship. And how could I possibly trust a large number of small companies I know very little about?
- ivanche 6y ago
  If you pay for a service there's every incentive to mine your data - you proved you have the money by paying for a service, thus your data is much more valuable comparing to Joe Schmuck who doesn't pay.
mindcrime 6y ago
That's basically my position as well. I don't like ads, etc., but I don't run an ad-blocker. I did briefly have on installed, before browsers got better at preventing auto-playing audio though. That annoyed me enough to tip me over the edge. Now, it still happens here and there, but it doesn't seem to be as prevalent.
minusSeven 6y ago
With Adblockers you can selectively block add blocking on sites you want to see adds on. This way you can choose where to block adds and where not to.
WorldMaker 6y ago
I also don't use an ad blocker. I don't mind ads (for the most part), and I like that they support the content that I use. I try to minimize ad problems by using containers and profiles. I have a Facebook-only container and Google-only container and never login to either in any other container. So far this approach seems to work for me.
rglullis 6y ago
Look into Brave, then. The ads are less annoying, do not invade your privacy and you can contribute anonymously to any site that is a registered publisher or content creator. They will certainly make more money from you if you do that instead of going through all of the middlemen involved in ad-tech. Also important: start asking websites that need to take payment to provide a cryptocurrency alternative. Something based on Ethereum blockchain preferably, given that is possible to easily get stable-tokens (meaning, no volatity risk) and that is on its way to get rid of Proof-of-Work. The ad-based economy needs to die and we already have the tools to kill it. All we need now is to stop with the excuses and take action.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  Maybe I don't understand Brave well enough, but wouldn't I just help create another all powerful gatekeeper? I don't believe cryptocurrencies will work. As soon as they become widespread they will be banned or regulated just like other forms of electronic payment, including know your customer rules. For the moment, I don't see that we really have the tools to replace ads, much as I would like that.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    > wouldn't I just help create another all powerful gatekeeper? No. The biggest claim of Brave is that all of the information for ad matching is in the browser. So they can not control it. The only thing that Brave can control at the moment is the on-boarding ramps - i.e, if you want to take your BAT out of their wallet and to your own, you need to go through KYC via Uphold.com. But you can pay and contribute BAT to other people even if you haven't done KYC. Even in this case, the KYC that needs to be done is only with Uphold. After you take out your tokens you are free to spend them however you want and no one will ask you anything. > I don't believe cryptocurrencies will work They already do. > regulated just like other forms of electronic payment, including know your customer rules. Even in this libertarian nightmare that you are imagining, crypto would more likely help you to keep your data away from businesses and third-parties. If every transaction needs to be authorized and monitored by the government or central authority, then there is no need for the business to collect any information from you - all they would need is to ensure that you are sending your payment from a government-validated address. Governments don't do that today due to the sheer costs of trying to run such an operation. But tracking things on the blockchain is reasonably easy, so there would be no need for banks and third-parties to do the dirty work for them.
Shared404 6y ago
I use no-script + privacy badger. If a site wants to use adds that will work despite, I have no issues seeing them. The extensions block pretty much any I would find unethical.
godelski 6y ago
> There's only one thing that destroys privacy even more thoroughly than ad targeting: payment. Can you expand? Because I disagree. I would rather a company have my name, payment info, and email address than all those things plus other personally identifying information. I feel like a payment model decentralizes the issue and that I would not be tracked around the web. I don't need the WaPo to know the other sites I've been on, what my political affiliations are, my age, gender, etc. This is because I don't see the issue as companies know who I am, but rather that I don't like that companies have intimate details of who I am, or maybe more simply put "who I am vs what I am." To me the latter (tracking) is invasive, the former (payment) is consensual. As one might say "just shut up and take my money." But I am open and interested to differing opinions.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  Subscription based services can do everything that ad funded services can do, but on top of that they can irrefutably link my real name to all of it, which makes their data even more valuable. I don't know many subscription based content publishers that promise not to monetise what they know about me in all sorts of other ways. I do have a newspaper subscription. That doesn't stop them from showing me ads or using ad networks and trackers. Payment networks and banks monetise my payment data as well. Even if a particular publisher is willing make such promises, I wouldn't have much confidence in their ability to keep my data safe. So the upshot is that I simply don't want my real name irrefutably and permanently linked to everything I read, write or watch. What ad neworks know about me is extremly patchy. Every time I see what they think about me I wonder who on earth would ever consider paying them for that rubbish. But that's not what it's about. All they need to be able to do is make predictions that are slightly better than random guesses.
  - godelski 6y ago
    So I do agree with this. But if it is an OR based situation I am less concerned with the subscription based model. When it is "don't pay for service and pay with my data and attention" vs "pay for a service and pay with my data" I tend to boycott those because they are doing the worst of both worlds (IMO).

rattray 6y ago

Out of curiosity, do you mind sharing what sorts of websites you use that you feel this loyalty towards? News, community, educational, etc? Is it a small group of sites, or a wide variety?

kbenson 6y ago
Not GP, but I don't block youtube and I block most other stuff (because uBlock Origin blocks be default). Google is probably the most likely to track more info about me, but it's also obvious that the ads played factor into the money the content creators get, and I felt bad after a while of blocking their revenue stream. It's also got me really close to paying for YouTube red, which is the other option,and o e I wouldn't consider without the annoyance of ads.
fauigerzigerk 6y ago
It's a wide variety of sites. Local news, tech news, science mags, other special interest sites, porn, discussion forums, Q&A sites, some social media. It's impossible to list them all. Essentially, it's the great variety of what's available on the open Web that I don't want to lose. I don't want everything to become one big app store with all its suffocating narrow-mindedness and oppressive control freakery.
- rattray 6y ago
  Yeah, that makes sense. Would be way too hard to solve something like that with subscriptions. Maybe one day, concepts like Brave Rewards or Google Contributor[0] will actually work... No idea what it'd take for those to reach critical mass, maybe government intervention. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor

dennisy 6y ago

I feel the same, but also hate how bad sites with ads are. There must be a better way!

gpanders 6y ago

> There's only one thing that destroys privacy even more thoroughly than ad targeting: payment. I disagree with this. Maybe you can elaborate? If I am paying for a service then there is no incentive to mine my personal data for revenue. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. And there are plenty of ways to hide your personal information (even your name) when paying for something (e.g. using a service like privacy.com).

derivagral 6y ago
My understanding is that the mentality is "they paid us, we have their data, we're keeping it for future leads, we could get a new line of revenue by turning that into a product."
yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
I assume the meaning is that if you pay a site, they know exactly who you are; not just a cookie ID, but an actual credit card transaction with a real name attached.
fauigerzigerk 6y ago
I don't know much about privacy.com because it's not available outside the US. Knowing a bit about the legal side of payments I doubt they can promise anonymity though. They're just not passing my identity on to merchants as I understand it. I doubt that there will ever be a widespread, convenient way to make anonymous electronic payments. The authorities would never allow that to happen (for understandable reasons I have to say). Incentives are not working at all. Lots of services I pay for go to great lengths to squeeze even more out of that customer relationship. And how could I possibly trust a large number of small companies I know very little about?
ivanche 6y ago
If you pay for a service there's every incentive to mine your data - you proved you have the money by paying for a service, thus your data is much more valuable comparing to Joe Schmuck who doesn't pay.

mindcrime 6y ago

That's basically my position as well. I don't like ads, etc., but I don't run an ad-blocker. I did briefly have on installed, before browsers got better at preventing auto-playing audio though. That annoyed me enough to tip me over the edge. Now, it still happens here and there, but it doesn't seem to be as prevalent.

minusSeven 6y ago

With Adblockers you can selectively block add blocking on sites you want to see adds on. This way you can choose where to block adds and where not to.

WorldMaker 6y ago

I also don't use an ad blocker. I don't mind ads (for the most part), and I like that they support the content that I use. I try to minimize ad problems by using containers and profiles. I have a Facebook-only container and Google-only container and never login to either in any other container. So far this approach seems to work for me.

rglullis 6y ago

Look into Brave, then. The ads are less annoying, do not invade your privacy and you can contribute anonymously to any site that is a registered publisher or content creator. They will certainly make more money from you if you do that instead of going through all of the middlemen involved in ad-tech. Also important: start asking websites that need to take payment to provide a cryptocurrency alternative. Something based on Ethereum blockchain preferably, given that is possible to easily get stable-tokens (meaning, no volatity risk) and that is on its way to get rid of Proof-of-Work. The ad-based economy needs to die and we already have the tools to kill it. All we need now is to stop with the excuses and take action.

fauigerzigerk 6y ago
Maybe I don't understand Brave well enough, but wouldn't I just help create another all powerful gatekeeper? I don't believe cryptocurrencies will work. As soon as they become widespread they will be banned or regulated just like other forms of electronic payment, including know your customer rules. For the moment, I don't see that we really have the tools to replace ads, much as I would like that.
- rglullis 6y ago
  > wouldn't I just help create another all powerful gatekeeper? No. The biggest claim of Brave is that all of the information for ad matching is in the browser. So they can not control it. The only thing that Brave can control at the moment is the on-boarding ramps - i.e, if you want to take your BAT out of their wallet and to your own, you need to go through KYC via Uphold.com. But you can pay and contribute BAT to other people even if you haven't done KYC. Even in this case, the KYC that needs to be done is only with Uphold. After you take out your tokens you are free to spend them however you want and no one will ask you anything. > I don't believe cryptocurrencies will work They already do. > regulated just like other forms of electronic payment, including know your customer rules. Even in this libertarian nightmare that you are imagining, crypto would more likely help you to keep your data away from businesses and third-parties. If every transaction needs to be authorized and monitored by the government or central authority, then there is no need for the business to collect any information from you - all they would need is to ensure that you are sending your payment from a government-validated address. Governments don't do that today due to the sheer costs of trying to run such an operation. But tracking things on the blockchain is reasonably easy, so there would be no need for banks and third-parties to do the dirty work for them.

Shared404 6y ago

I use no-script + privacy badger. If a site wants to use adds that will work despite, I have no issues seeing them. The extensions block pretty much any I would find unethical.

godelski 6y ago

> There's only one thing that destroys privacy even more thoroughly than ad targeting: payment. Can you expand? Because I disagree. I would rather a company have my name, payment info, and email address than all those things plus other personally identifying information. I feel like a payment model decentralizes the issue and that I would not be tracked around the web. I don't need the WaPo to know the other sites I've been on, what my political affiliations are, my age, gender, etc. This is because I don't see the issue as companies know who I am, but rather that I don't like that companies have intimate details of who I am, or maybe more simply put "who I am vs what I am." To me the latter (tracking) is invasive, the former (payment) is consensual. As one might say "just shut up and take my money." But I am open and interested to differing opinions.

fauigerzigerk 6y ago
Subscription based services can do everything that ad funded services can do, but on top of that they can irrefutably link my real name to all of it, which makes their data even more valuable. I don't know many subscription based content publishers that promise not to monetise what they know about me in all sorts of other ways. I do have a newspaper subscription. That doesn't stop them from showing me ads or using ad networks and trackers. Payment networks and banks monetise my payment data as well. Even if a particular publisher is willing make such promises, I wouldn't have much confidence in their ability to keep my data safe. So the upshot is that I simply don't want my real name irrefutably and permanently linked to everything I read, write or watch. What ad neworks know about me is extremly patchy. Every time I see what they think about me I wonder who on earth would ever consider paying them for that rubbish. But that's not what it's about. All they need to be able to do is make predictions that are slightly better than random guesses.
- godelski 6y ago
  So I do agree with this. But if it is an OR based situation I am less concerned with the subscription based model. When it is "don't pay for service and pay with my data and attention" vs "pay for a service and pay with my data" I tend to boycott those because they are doing the worst of both worlds (IMO).