34 ms·

In FireFox I have my ad blockers disabled in Private Mode so nothing is getting in the way if I'm testing or some site is being weird. Sometimes it's SHOCKINGLY

In FireFox I have my ad blockers disabled in Private Mode so nothing is getting in the way if I'm testing or some site is being weird. Sometimes it's SHOCKINGLY different how a page looks with the blockers in place. I really can't believe anyone would user a browser without an ad blocker if they knew how things would look while using one. The web is a much better place with a blocker in place. (Yes, I know, we get a huge amount of amazing "free" content thanks to the ads and assorted trackers and other garbage out there)

vbezhenar 5y ago
I'm using my own simplistic adblock at home (mostly because youtube ads driving me nuts) and I don't use any adblock at work (mostly because I'm too lazy to configure it). I'm not a fan of using browser extensions, especially those which require full access to every webpage, that's too much of attack surface in my opinion and ads are not that bad on websites I visit.
- titzer 5y ago
  Adblock Plus, uOrigin, and ghostery lite don't require basically any configuration. Just install the browser extension and enable it.
  - red_trumpet 5y ago
    Just a reminder that Adblock Plus has a pretty shady business model.
    - onemoresoop 5y ago
      Yeah, they let some ads pass through. That is quite okay as compared to full on storm of ads. If there was no way to block ads Id probably be happy to downsize my internet usage.
    - diffeomorphism 5y ago
      What is supposed to be shady about it? Their definition of "acceptable" seems straightforward and paying for certification seems like a pretty standard business model. If they were to bend their definition for money, that woukd be shady. Do they?
      - lolinder 5y ago
        The last time I used AdBlock Plus, I was horrified to discover that they considered Taboola (the clickbait network that, at least at the time, used shocking images to draw attention) to be "acceptable". I was browsing the web with AdBlock Plus and found myself assaulted by an image of someone's fungus-infected toenail or something similarly nauseating. I went to report it as a mistake on their forums only to find there was already a thread about Taboola, and they were firm that Taboola was "acceptable". The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. I went to uBlock that day and haven't looked back. Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it.
        diffeomorphism 5y ago
        > The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. So it is just your imagination. Their definition of "acceptable" is here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria > Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it. You did not even read it, but just immediately jumped to "shady"/bribery.... > I wanted no part of it. Me neither, but you spreading misinformation is not okay.
        lolinder 5y ago
        I never said they didn't have a definition. I read it at the time and again yesterday. When I said "whatever definition ... they were using", I was saying that they were not using their own published definition. If they were, Taboola would never have been allowed through. The policy on images is the one that is relevant to my complaint, so let's look at that one: > Static image ads may qualify as acceptable, according to an evaluation of their unobtrusiveness based on their integration on the webpage. The policy was stricter back in 2015 (http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplu...): > Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images It changed to the one with more wiggle room in February 2016, in the middle of a backlash against AdBlock Plus's continued tolerance for Taboola's antics. Here's that thread for context: https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 Under either definition, it's hard to argue that Taboola's images were "acceptable". They were explicitly designed to grab attention, bore no relation to the text content of the ad, and frequently were disgusting specifically because gross images draw the eye. Adblock Plus kept insisting that Taboola was cooperating, but users (including myself) kept reporting over and over again that their garbage was getting through. After years of violations that get dismissed as "mistakes" (documented in part on the thread linked above), it's reasonable to assume that the only reason they weren't dropped like a hot potato was because they were paying to not be dropped.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    Adblock plus disables the blocking if you pay them protection money.
- criddell 5y ago
  The ads themselves are an attack vector.
  - rnd0 5y ago
    They have been for jeez, I think almost 20 years now? That's what pushed me solidly into the adblock (and then ublock) camp; the fact that the advertising industry has never been willing or able to police itself against bad actors and malware.
- simion314 5y ago
  Mozilla could do the right thing and endorse/review critical extensions so we know they are safer, but I don't think they have the guts to do it, or mention the word "adblock". As a power user I also set JS off by default and whitelist specific sites, and also use garbage websites in private mode so their garbage tracking is hopefully purged.
  - detaro 5y ago
    What is the "Recommended - Firefox recommends only Add-Ons that meet our standards for security and performance." badge they put on some extensions if not an endorsement? Or the "Adblocker staff picks" on the front page of AMO?
    - simion314 5y ago
      Are those recommendation based on user ratings only? The issue with extensions is they can get hijacked and get malicious. A Mozilla created extension or endorsed would offer the warranty that there is no intentional malicious code in it. After your comment I checked the extensions page, seems there is something claimed about "security" but is too vague IMO. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-badges?utm_content=promoted-addon-badge&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=addons.mozilla.org https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-badges?utm_conte...
      - detaro 5y ago
        ... no, as the page you link says, the extensions are reviewed by Mozilla employees.
        simion314 5y ago
        >no, as the page you link says, the extensions are reviewed by Mozilla employees. What this review means? Do you have a link? Is it reviewed by a security developer hired by Mozilla or some community person?
        5y ago
- derivagral 5y ago
  Remember that viewing ads at all has also been an attack vector. As ever, make the judgement that best fits your situation.
- tedajax 5y ago
  Ad networks seem like a significantly larger attack surface to me...
- DamnYuppie 5y ago
  I use Firefox with Ublock Origin, Ghostery, and the YouTube Enhancer plugin. I get zero adds on YouTube with this setup!
  - 20after4 5y ago
    uBlock alone seems to do the trick for YouTube.
    - crispyambulance 5y ago
      I think they're talking about in-video ads? I could be totally wrong, but ublock-origin just keeps certain things that match a pattern from appearing in the html. It can't remove the annoying "in-video" ads, right?
      - eyeundersand 5y ago
        uBlock Origin blocks in-video ads too! Not sure if this has been referenced elsewhere in the comments but their 'element picker' mode is also fantastic and extremely useful in making webpages with huge banners and popups less annoying. Honestly, being on the web without uBlock Origin (and Vimium) just feels like a sub-par experience.
- RandallBrown 5y ago
  I block ads on YouTube by paying for YouTube Premium.
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    I tried this, but it didn't work on the vast majority of videos I watch. They always seemed to have some or the other product placement inside. So I stopped paying, and installed a couple of adblockers.
    - gundmc 5y ago
      How do adblockers help with native product placement? Or are you saying you might as well not pay for premium if you'll still have to deal with the product placement anyway?
      - perryizgr8 5y ago
        A combination of ublock origin and sponsorblock will make youtube completely ad free. Even the in video adverts are gone.
        gundmc 5y ago
        Interesting, I hadn't heard of sponsorblock. Thanks!
        driverdan 5y ago
        You can pay for YouTube Premium and still use sponsorblock.
  - vbezhenar 5y ago
    It's not available in my country.
reincarnate0x14 5y ago
I feel zero guilt about ad blocking. There was some period of discussion on the subject back in like 2003 but the ad companies went to war against human civilization and there's been no going back. It corrupts and twists everything it touches into a constant hustle for eyeball-cash and an entire generation has now reached adulthood knowing nothing but that hustle touching every bit of media they ever interact with. Who even knows what they'll do with that. In 2005 or so there was a bunch of trojans going around for IIRC Blizzard games to steal account creds on various sites and my first response to that was "huh, that site has ads?" People give Brave grief over BAT, and maybe with good reason, but it's one the few efforts to try and bring some sort of involvement to the public side of it as to where the money is flowing that seems to have a chance of going anywhere.
- nsgi 5y ago
  I wonder if part of the problem is that the people who develop websites and put the ads on (developers) are largely also the people who use ad blockers so they don't realise how bad the experience is for regular users
  - jmoreno94 5y ago
    Even if they did you think the average person is going to put their neck on the line over ads? How many UX designers just give into client demands, how many devs work extra hours to make up for bad management practices? How many managers are under pressure over sales created deadlines? How many sales people are under pressure over the company's target numbers? There will always be a few people who are willing to put their neck on the line but it'll require a culture shift before any momentum builds up and most feel comfortable protesting these practices at their workplace.
  - rtsil 5y ago
    Developers realize how bad the visual experience is, how the tracking scripts, the megapixel images and the huge videos are ruining their perfect pagespeed insights score, slowing down everything, eating the visitor's mobile plan and are an awful waste of energy. But developers don't control what marketing put in their sweet Google Tag Manager container(s).
chrisseaton 5y ago
> I really can't believe anyone would user a browser without an ad blocker if they knew how things would look while using one. I don't use an advert blocker but I know what they look like. Why? The adverts don't really bother me and I also think they're dubiously moral.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Do you also read all the spam flyers and emails you get?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    No? I'm not sure that's the gotcha you think it is - I also don't read random web pages that I'm not interested in, and I don't sit and 'read' adverts on pages I am reading.
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      I guess I assumed too much, then -- where's the dubious morality come from?
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Because the implicit agreement of a site with adverts is that the content's available to you with the adverts on it. If you don't like that you don't have to read it, but if you remove them automatically then I think it's hard to argue you aren't breaking an implied agreement.
        davidgerard 5y ago
        There's also the implicit agreement they won't malware you, but they already violated that one good and hard.
        bee_rider 5y ago
        Three thoughts about this: * This implicit agreement is too open to exploitation. Many people don't understand the depth of the tracking/ad ecosystem. If the full cost were explained to them, they might not agree to that exchange. I think I do understand it (well, probably it is worse than I expect, but whatever), but if the ad companies get to interpret this implicit relationship in the way that benefits them, then why can't I? I think the agreement should be explicit, and some sites do make it explicit -- they block people like me. Fair game! I'm sure they won't miss me, I can be quite annoying. * I'm not sure I believe in this implicit agreement anyway. From the beginning, the design of the internet has been that information is sent to the browser, and then rendered in line with the client's needs. If I use elinks, lynx, or some graphical browser without javascript is that morally dubious? What if I'd like to minimize the amount of javascript I run, but selectively enable it as necessary, like umatrix? * The underlying goal of the people placing the ads is not just to get something rendered on a screen somewhere, right? Their goal is to capture some attention. As you say, you don't read the ads. I could browse a while and train myself to ignore them too. At which point... the person who placed the ad still doesn't get what they wanted. At least if I block the ad, there's at least some chance that they'll detect that, and maybe the poor fool who paid for the placement can get a refund.
warner25 5y ago
I run Firefox with uBlock Origin, and spend most of my time on pages like HN and other old-school forums that are mostly just text. My wife runs Chrome with all defaults and spends a lot more time in the mainstream web. Whenever she wants to show me something on her laptop, I think to myself, "how can she subject herself to this all day?!" For me, the experience in her browser is like being assaulted. She doesn't want an ad-blocker because they do break things at times and she actually likes seeing some ads and especially getting coupon or discount offers, using things like Rakuten. I know that you can fine-tune the settings of uBlock Origin, but she doesn't want to be bothered with that. I'm the weird one.
- gigel82 5y ago
  Sounds familiar. Installed uBlock on hers and whenever a website doesn't work for any reason I get an earfull about my "damn adblocker"... :)
  - stn8188 5y ago
    Same... Used to have a Pi Hole on the entire network but had to remove it for this reason.
    - bentcorner 5y ago
      I have a Pi Hole as well and it's been pretty quiet in my house. I've had to whitelist a few sites (e.g., our kids' school gave out meeting links using tracking links in email that was blocked) but it's been pretty good. Definitely more upside than downside.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    Been there done that. Advertising is a problem most non technical users aren't aware of (as a problem) and often they're used to it, but if you install an adblocker, they indeed see that as a change, therefore "you and your damn adblocker" will get the blame for each and every problem. In my opinion the only options are to either leave their browser as is or just installing Ublock Origin without telling.
Tenoke 5y ago
It depends on what you do on the internet. I rarely use an AdBlock on my phone, browse a lot from it and I don't find my experience hindered all that much. If AdBlock didn't exist on desktop my biggest gripe would be YouTube and then I'd just pay for it and call it a day.
andai 5y ago
>free You pay, just not with money! (insert evil laugh)
sam0x17 5y ago
There was a report last year that more than 37% of UK traffic in people under 30 had an ad blocker enabled. I think the analytics market is going to have to shift to server-side tracking in the next 5 years if this trend continues globally. I welcome it, though.
- notyourwork 5y ago
  Server side tracking is already happening. It's not new or yet to be developed.
  - sam0x17 5y ago
    Not implying at all that it isn't developed -- back in the early 00s this was the only way we could do tracking largely. But Google Analytics is completely blind when you block it, and that's a huge percentage of the market. For example, simply loading a 1px image (the old way of doing a lot of server-side tracking, and still the state-of-the-art way of doing email tracking) is insufficient when the client is hard blocking the ad server. In that scenario the only way to do it is server-side at the actual web server serving the web page (not some third party ad server), and most large analytics services don't offer anything like that anymore.
    - notyourwork 5y ago
      > But Google Analytics is completely blind when you block it, and that's a huge percentage of the market. Consumers of GA may be blind, I'm guessing (confidently) Google and other big players are far from blind today.
mikehollinger 5y ago
I had this happen to me when the poker planning widget we were using was offline (can't complain about free services). I googled around then found something, gave it a go on my system, and then gave it to my team. When someone started sharing their screen, I was embarrassed by the amount of highly personal ads that I saw (fat loss, vacation things). I saw none of that. I felt terrible for suggesting it. No one else seemed to notice or care, but - it's amazing.
krsrhe 5y ago
robbyking 5y ago
A few years ago I had to use my mom's laptop to order dinner or something, and I couldn't figure out why the page I was on looked so weird. I double checked another site I visit regularly, and that site looked weird, too: huge background images, videos everywhere, weird fonts, etc., etc. At first I thought her machine had a virus, then it dawned on me it was all ads! I installed an ad blocker, and the difference was night and day! The unfiltered pages were basically unreadable.
aqaq2 5y ago
If the ads weren't so bad in Android apps, I would think that maybe Google is trying to destroy the web with ads...
strken 5y ago
Without ads, we'd have different free content obeying different incentives, but it's hard to say whether that would be better or worse. I've been reading a lot of free online fiction lately, where authors make money by selling early access to chapters on Patreon, and both quality and pay are often competitive with traditional book sales.
samstave 5y ago
Uhm.... the perfect example is ublock origin with reddit.com vs. old.reddit.com Reddit.com is eye fucking cancer. Old.reddit.com is consumable.... Interestingly, after a 15-year-long account I was "permanently banned" for TOS violations which cannot be determined... Reddit is dead to me. (Ill be deleting (scrambling) millions of comments... I was top mod of a sub /r/ with 1.5 million users, which is now one of the most active /r/s... If anyone would like to buy my 15+ year old account, make me an offer.
conception 5y ago
Honestly this is how I feel about television vs streaming/Plex/ahoy matey. Going to another home and watching live television is a terrible experience because of ads but people seem fine with it because it’s what they’re used to, they don’t know better and it’s harder to do if they know better… probably all the same reasons people don’t use ad blockers and are fine with them.
d1lanka 5y ago
I use Brave Browser along with NextDNS.io or a PiHole and 99.99% of ads and trackers are non existant for me
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
intrasight 5y ago
One of my biggest concerns about the future of the "web" - like when it's built into our glasses - is that it will no longer be an open/hackable platform, and it will not be possible to create ad-blockers.

vbezhenar 5y ago

I'm using my own simplistic adblock at home (mostly because youtube ads driving me nuts) and I don't use any adblock at work (mostly because I'm too lazy to configure it). I'm not a fan of using browser extensions, especially those which require full access to every webpage, that's too much of attack surface in my opinion and ads are not that bad on websites I visit.

titzer 5y ago
Adblock Plus, uOrigin, and ghostery lite don't require basically any configuration. Just install the browser extension and enable it.
- red_trumpet 5y ago
  Just a reminder that Adblock Plus has a pretty shady business model.
  - onemoresoop 5y ago
    Yeah, they let some ads pass through. That is quite okay as compared to full on storm of ads. If there was no way to block ads Id probably be happy to downsize my internet usage.
  - diffeomorphism 5y ago
    What is supposed to be shady about it? Their definition of "acceptable" seems straightforward and paying for certification seems like a pretty standard business model. If they were to bend their definition for money, that woukd be shady. Do they?
    - lolinder 5y ago
      The last time I used AdBlock Plus, I was horrified to discover that they considered Taboola (the clickbait network that, at least at the time, used shocking images to draw attention) to be "acceptable". I was browsing the web with AdBlock Plus and found myself assaulted by an image of someone's fungus-infected toenail or something similarly nauseating. I went to report it as a mistake on their forums only to find there was already a thread about Taboola, and they were firm that Taboola was "acceptable". The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. I went to uBlock that day and haven't looked back. Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it.
      - diffeomorphism 5y ago
        > The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. So it is just your imagination. Their definition of "acceptable" is here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria > Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it. You did not even read it, but just immediately jumped to "shady"/bribery.... > I wanted no part of it. Me neither, but you spreading misinformation is not okay.
        lolinder 5y ago
        I never said they didn't have a definition. I read it at the time and again yesterday. When I said "whatever definition ... they were using", I was saying that they were not using their own published definition. If they were, Taboola would never have been allowed through. The policy on images is the one that is relevant to my complaint, so let's look at that one: > Static image ads may qualify as acceptable, according to an evaluation of their unobtrusiveness based on their integration on the webpage. The policy was stricter back in 2015 (http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplu...): > Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images It changed to the one with more wiggle room in February 2016, in the middle of a backlash against AdBlock Plus's continued tolerance for Taboola's antics. Here's that thread for context: https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991 Under either definition, it's hard to argue that Taboola's images were "acceptable". They were explicitly designed to grab attention, bore no relation to the text content of the ad, and frequently were disgusting specifically because gross images draw the eye. Adblock Plus kept insisting that Taboola was cooperating, but users (including myself) kept reporting over and over again that their garbage was getting through. After years of violations that get dismissed as "mistakes" (documented in part on the thread linked above), it's reasonable to assume that the only reason they weren't dropped like a hot potato was because they were paying to not be dropped.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  Adblock plus disables the blocking if you pay them protection money.
criddell 5y ago
The ads themselves are an attack vector.
- rnd0 5y ago
  They have been for jeez, I think almost 20 years now? That's what pushed me solidly into the adblock (and then ublock) camp; the fact that the advertising industry has never been willing or able to police itself against bad actors and malware.
simion314 5y ago
Mozilla could do the right thing and endorse/review critical extensions so we know they are safer, but I don't think they have the guts to do it, or mention the word "adblock". As a power user I also set JS off by default and whitelist specific sites, and also use garbage websites in private mode so their garbage tracking is hopefully purged.
- detaro 5y ago
  What is the "Recommended - Firefox recommends only Add-Ons that meet our standards for security and performance." badge they put on some extensions if not an endorsement? Or the "Adblocker staff picks" on the front page of AMO?
  - simion314 5y ago
    Are those recommendation based on user ratings only? The issue with extensions is they can get hijacked and get malicious. A Mozilla created extension or endorsed would offer the warranty that there is no intentional malicious code in it. After your comment I checked the extensions page, seems there is something claimed about "security" but is too vague IMO. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-badges?utm_content=promoted-addon-badge&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=addons.mozilla.org https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-badges?utm_conte...
    - detaro 5y ago
      ... no, as the page you link says, the extensions are reviewed by Mozilla employees.
      - simion314 5y ago
        >no, as the page you link says, the extensions are reviewed by Mozilla employees. What this review means? Do you have a link? Is it reviewed by a security developer hired by Mozilla or some community person?
        5y ago
derivagral 5y ago
Remember that viewing ads at all has also been an attack vector. As ever, make the judgement that best fits your situation.
tedajax 5y ago
Ad networks seem like a significantly larger attack surface to me...
DamnYuppie 5y ago
I use Firefox with Ublock Origin, Ghostery, and the YouTube Enhancer plugin. I get zero adds on YouTube with this setup!
- 20after4 5y ago
  uBlock alone seems to do the trick for YouTube.
  - crispyambulance 5y ago
    I think they're talking about in-video ads? I could be totally wrong, but ublock-origin just keeps certain things that match a pattern from appearing in the html. It can't remove the annoying "in-video" ads, right?
    - eyeundersand 5y ago
      uBlock Origin blocks in-video ads too! Not sure if this has been referenced elsewhere in the comments but their 'element picker' mode is also fantastic and extremely useful in making webpages with huge banners and popups less annoying. Honestly, being on the web without uBlock Origin (and Vimium) just feels like a sub-par experience.
RandallBrown 5y ago
I block ads on YouTube by paying for YouTube Premium.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  I tried this, but it didn't work on the vast majority of videos I watch. They always seemed to have some or the other product placement inside. So I stopped paying, and installed a couple of adblockers.
  - gundmc 5y ago
    How do adblockers help with native product placement? Or are you saying you might as well not pay for premium if you'll still have to deal with the product placement anyway?
    - perryizgr8 5y ago
      A combination of ublock origin and sponsorblock will make youtube completely ad free. Even the in video adverts are gone.
      - gundmc 5y ago
        Interesting, I hadn't heard of sponsorblock. Thanks!
      - driverdan 5y ago
        You can pay for YouTube Premium and still use sponsorblock.
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  It's not available in my country.

reincarnate0x14 5y ago

I feel zero guilt about ad blocking. There was some period of discussion on the subject back in like 2003 but the ad companies went to war against human civilization and there's been no going back. It corrupts and twists everything it touches into a constant hustle for eyeball-cash and an entire generation has now reached adulthood knowing nothing but that hustle touching every bit of media they ever interact with. Who even knows what they'll do with that. In 2005 or so there was a bunch of trojans going around for IIRC Blizzard games to steal account creds on various sites and my first response to that was "huh, that site has ads?" People give Brave grief over BAT, and maybe with good reason, but it's one the few efforts to try and bring some sort of involvement to the public side of it as to where the money is flowing that seems to have a chance of going anywhere.

nsgi 5y ago
I wonder if part of the problem is that the people who develop websites and put the ads on (developers) are largely also the people who use ad blockers so they don't realise how bad the experience is for regular users
- jmoreno94 5y ago
  Even if they did you think the average person is going to put their neck on the line over ads? How many UX designers just give into client demands, how many devs work extra hours to make up for bad management practices? How many managers are under pressure over sales created deadlines? How many sales people are under pressure over the company's target numbers? There will always be a few people who are willing to put their neck on the line but it'll require a culture shift before any momentum builds up and most feel comfortable protesting these practices at their workplace.
- rtsil 5y ago
  Developers realize how bad the visual experience is, how the tracking scripts, the megapixel images and the huge videos are ruining their perfect pagespeed insights score, slowing down everything, eating the visitor's mobile plan and are an awful waste of energy. But developers don't control what marketing put in their sweet Google Tag Manager container(s).

chrisseaton 5y ago

> I really can't believe anyone would user a browser without an ad blocker if they knew how things would look while using one. I don't use an advert blocker but I know what they look like. Why? The adverts don't really bother me and I also think they're dubiously moral.

bee_rider 5y ago
Do you also read all the spam flyers and emails you get?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  No? I'm not sure that's the gotcha you think it is - I also don't read random web pages that I'm not interested in, and I don't sit and 'read' adverts on pages I am reading.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    I guess I assumed too much, then -- where's the dubious morality come from?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Because the implicit agreement of a site with adverts is that the content's available to you with the adverts on it. If you don't like that you don't have to read it, but if you remove them automatically then I think it's hard to argue you aren't breaking an implied agreement.
      - davidgerard 5y ago
        There's also the implicit agreement they won't malware you, but they already violated that one good and hard.
      - bee_rider 5y ago
        Three thoughts about this: * This implicit agreement is too open to exploitation. Many people don't understand the depth of the tracking/ad ecosystem. If the full cost were explained to them, they might not agree to that exchange. I think I do understand it (well, probably it is worse than I expect, but whatever), but if the ad companies get to interpret this implicit relationship in the way that benefits them, then why can't I? I think the agreement should be explicit, and some sites do make it explicit -- they block people like me. Fair game! I'm sure they won't miss me, I can be quite annoying. * I'm not sure I believe in this implicit agreement anyway. From the beginning, the design of the internet has been that information is sent to the browser, and then rendered in line with the client's needs. If I use elinks, lynx, or some graphical browser without javascript is that morally dubious? What if I'd like to minimize the amount of javascript I run, but selectively enable it as necessary, like umatrix? * The underlying goal of the people placing the ads is not just to get something rendered on a screen somewhere, right? Their goal is to capture some attention. As you say, you don't read the ads. I could browse a while and train myself to ignore them too. At which point... the person who placed the ad still doesn't get what they wanted. At least if I block the ad, there's at least some chance that they'll detect that, and maybe the poor fool who paid for the placement can get a refund.

warner25 5y ago

I run Firefox with uBlock Origin, and spend most of my time on pages like HN and other old-school forums that are mostly just text. My wife runs Chrome with all defaults and spends a lot more time in the mainstream web. Whenever she wants to show me something on her laptop, I think to myself, "how can she subject herself to this all day?!" For me, the experience in her browser is like being assaulted. She doesn't want an ad-blocker because they do break things at times and she actually likes seeing some ads and especially getting coupon or discount offers, using things like Rakuten. I know that you can fine-tune the settings of uBlock Origin, but she doesn't want to be bothered with that. I'm the weird one.

gigel82 5y ago
Sounds familiar. Installed uBlock on hers and whenever a website doesn't work for any reason I get an earfull about my "damn adblocker"... :)
- stn8188 5y ago
  Same... Used to have a Pi Hole on the entire network but had to remove it for this reason.
  - bentcorner 5y ago
    I have a Pi Hole as well and it's been pretty quiet in my house. I've had to whitelist a few sites (e.g., our kids' school gave out meeting links using tracking links in email that was blocked) but it's been pretty good. Definitely more upside than downside.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  Been there done that. Advertising is a problem most non technical users aren't aware of (as a problem) and often they're used to it, but if you install an adblocker, they indeed see that as a change, therefore "you and your damn adblocker" will get the blame for each and every problem. In my opinion the only options are to either leave their browser as is or just installing Ublock Origin without telling.

Tenoke 5y ago

It depends on what you do on the internet. I rarely use an AdBlock on my phone, browse a lot from it and I don't find my experience hindered all that much. If AdBlock didn't exist on desktop my biggest gripe would be YouTube and then I'd just pay for it and call it a day.

andai 5y ago

>free You pay, just not with money! (insert evil laugh)

sam0x17 5y ago

There was a report last year that more than 37% of UK traffic in people under 30 had an ad blocker enabled. I think the analytics market is going to have to shift to server-side tracking in the next 5 years if this trend continues globally. I welcome it, though.

notyourwork 5y ago
Server side tracking is already happening. It's not new or yet to be developed.
- sam0x17 5y ago
  Not implying at all that it isn't developed -- back in the early 00s this was the only way we could do tracking largely. But Google Analytics is completely blind when you block it, and that's a huge percentage of the market. For example, simply loading a 1px image (the old way of doing a lot of server-side tracking, and still the state-of-the-art way of doing email tracking) is insufficient when the client is hard blocking the ad server. In that scenario the only way to do it is server-side at the actual web server serving the web page (not some third party ad server), and most large analytics services don't offer anything like that anymore.
  - notyourwork 5y ago
    > But Google Analytics is completely blind when you block it, and that's a huge percentage of the market. Consumers of GA may be blind, I'm guessing (confidently) Google and other big players are far from blind today.

mikehollinger 5y ago

I had this happen to me when the poker planning widget we were using was offline (can't complain about free services). I googled around then found something, gave it a go on my system, and then gave it to my team. When someone started sharing their screen, I was embarrassed by the amount of highly personal ads that I saw (fat loss, vacation things). I saw none of that. I felt terrible for suggesting it. No one else seemed to notice or care, but - it's amazing.

krsrhe 5y ago

robbyking 5y ago

A few years ago I had to use my mom's laptop to order dinner or something, and I couldn't figure out why the page I was on looked so weird. I double checked another site I visit regularly, and that site looked weird, too: huge background images, videos everywhere, weird fonts, etc., etc. At first I thought her machine had a virus, then it dawned on me it was all ads! I installed an ad blocker, and the difference was night and day! The unfiltered pages were basically unreadable.

aqaq2 5y ago

If the ads weren't so bad in Android apps, I would think that maybe Google is trying to destroy the web with ads...

strken 5y ago

Without ads, we'd have different free content obeying different incentives, but it's hard to say whether that would be better or worse. I've been reading a lot of free online fiction lately, where authors make money by selling early access to chapters on Patreon, and both quality and pay are often competitive with traditional book sales.

samstave 5y ago

Uhm.... the perfect example is ublock origin with reddit.com vs. old.reddit.com Reddit.com is eye fucking cancer. Old.reddit.com is consumable.... Interestingly, after a 15-year-long account I was "permanently banned" for TOS violations which cannot be determined... Reddit is dead to me. (Ill be deleting (scrambling) millions of comments... I was top mod of a sub /r/ with 1.5 million users, which is now one of the most active /r/s... If anyone would like to buy my 15+ year old account, make me an offer.

conception 5y ago

Honestly this is how I feel about television vs streaming/Plex/ahoy matey. Going to another home and watching live television is a terrible experience because of ads but people seem fine with it because it’s what they’re used to, they don’t know better and it’s harder to do if they know better… probably all the same reasons people don’t use ad blockers and are fine with them.

d1lanka 5y ago

I use Brave Browser along with NextDNS.io or a PiHole and 99.99% of ads and trackers are non existant for me

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

intrasight 5y ago

One of my biggest concerns about the future of the "web" - like when it's built into our glasses - is that it will no longer be an open/hackable platform, and it will not be possible to create ad-blockers.