5 ms·

I guess I'm someone who does not use ad blockers (and never have). To me, it simply feels wrong. I do pay for Youtube premium. And I do have subscriptions fo

by timmg 5y ago

I guess I'm someone who does not use ad blockers (and never have). To me, it simply feels wrong. I do pay for Youtube premium. And I do have subscriptions for some media sites (NY TImes, Economist.) I don't find ads all that bad. But I will avoid sites that go overboard. I also take care to report spam messages in my email. And I ignore phone calls from anyone I don't know. So I guess I straddle the line between the two people you describe.

tomrod 5y ago
By accepting ads, you open yourself up to a malicious vector for malware. Because I cannot trust ad networks to get it right 100% of the time, both content-wise as well as safety, out they go.
- timmg 5y ago
  > By accepting ads, you open yourself up to a malicious vector for malware. This is definitely the common justification for ad blockers. As I said in another comment: ad blockers themselves are a potential vector for malware.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    > ad blockers themselves are a potential vector for malware In practice, ublock origin and you're good. I am glad to see we agree that adblockers are justified.
nkrisc 5y ago
Any ethical qualms I had disappeared when my browser was hijacked by a malicious ad that made it into a major ad network when I was browsing nytimes. Now adblocking is simply a matter of security.
- timmg 5y ago
  > Any ethical qualms I had disappeared when my browser was hijacked by a malicious ad that made it into a major ad network when I was browsing nytimes. Websites can inject malware irrespective of ads. Not to mention that ad blockers, themselves, are a good vector for exploitation. (Another consideration, obviously, would be to avoid websites that show you ads that you don't like (or fear) rather than circumvent their only path to revenue.) I generally count on Google (and Chrome) to prevent that. At the risk of jinxing myself: I've never had malware installed on my computer view a website.

by timmg 5y ago

tomrod 5y ago

By accepting ads, you open yourself up to a malicious vector for malware. Because I cannot trust ad networks to get it right 100% of the time, both content-wise as well as safety, out they go.

timmg 5y ago
> By accepting ads, you open yourself up to a malicious vector for malware. This is definitely the common justification for ad blockers. As I said in another comment: ad blockers themselves are a potential vector for malware.
- tomrod 5y ago
  > ad blockers themselves are a potential vector for malware In practice, ublock origin and you're good. I am glad to see we agree that adblockers are justified.

nkrisc 5y ago

Any ethical qualms I had disappeared when my browser was hijacked by a malicious ad that made it into a major ad network when I was browsing nytimes. Now adblocking is simply a matter of security.

timmg 5y ago
> Any ethical qualms I had disappeared when my browser was hijacked by a malicious ad that made it into a major ad network when I was browsing nytimes. Websites can inject malware irrespective of ads. Not to mention that ad blockers, themselves, are a good vector for exploitation. (Another consideration, obviously, would be to avoid websites that show you ads that you don't like (or fear) rather than circumvent their only path to revenue.) I generally count on Google (and Chrome) to prevent that. At the risk of jinxing myself: I've never had malware installed on my computer view a website.