5 ms·

Happy user for several years now. I prefer this over other more popular blockers because Privacy Badger doesn't directly go after ads. It just blocks the tracki

Happy user for several years now. I prefer this over other more popular blockers because Privacy Badger doesn't directly go after ads. It just blocks the tracking aspect; which in 99% cases of today's web advertising also prevents the ad from showing up. In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden. The exception is if the site owner keeps the lights on by incorporating non-tracking advertising, it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content. On the other hand tracking users is an active hostile move and blocking it is the right choice. At least that's my reasoning for choosing Privacy Badger.

Sakos 4y ago
I'm totally fine with ads as long as they aren't intrusive (pop-ups are the worst). Sites should be able to finance themselves without requiring a subscription, since it allows access to those with less financial means. I just don't want them to track what I do on the internet and as long as they do, I'll block all of them.
- specialist 4y ago
  Yes and: I'm mostly okay with (non-obtrusive) contextual ads. Behavioral targeting is immoral, cannot be redeemed, and should be illegal.
causi 4y ago
In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden. You don't even have to go that far. They're attempted fraud. They are by and large lies intended to trick you into giving someone money.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Ads in general? Or specifically online ads? Or specifically online ads that use cookie tracking?
  - behnamoh 4y ago
    imo ads - online or offline - are fine, but the internet has enabled advertisers to use so many shady tricks to milk more data (and money) out of consumers. I’m completely desensitized to ads and know people who won’t click on ads at all. I wonder how effective ads are then.
- ISL 4y ago
  Many ads simply generate awareness: "Need a plumber in $TOWN? Call $TOWN Plumbers at 555-1212." Others simply advocate for a cause: "Vote Yes on $TOWN Proposition #4!" Ads like those above do add cognitive burden, but they can provide utility to a community and are demonstrably neither fraud nor lies.
  - Cilvic 4y ago
    I understand you made your point in good faith and I appreciate that you made me think about the difference between GP "lie" and "creating awareness". Nevertheless, I believe that giving the awareness part a free pass, can be a slippery slope. I didn't want to think about plumbing or the Proposition 4 or plastic surgery. So unless I search for either of those two I feel it's an intrusion to force those thoughts on me.
    - nybble41 4y ago
      The "lie" is the unstated implication that doing these things the ads recommend will serve your own interests, and not just the interests of the advertisers. "Creating awareness" would be handing out unsolicited facts with a neutral point of view. Most ads are more in the nature of unsolicited and manipulative advice from someone who does not have your best interest in mind.
      - causi 4y ago
        Exactly. Most advertising is at least as malicious as someone walking up to you and saying "give me five dollars."
paskozdilar 4y ago
> In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden. I agree. > The exception is if the site owner keeps the lights on by incorporating non-tracking advertising, it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content. I disagree - if content cannot survive without advertisement, then we're better off without it anyway. Non-tracking advertising is less bad than advertising, but it's still intrusive and not-called-for, just like all advertising.
- kqr 4y ago
  You mean if the content does not cater to people who are well-off enough to pay for it with money? There are many people who simply don't have the financial means to support all the content they like. Does that content not deserve to exist? Should quality internet content really be a class question?
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    No, I'm just saying if it's important, someone will want to preserve it, and it will survive. If nobody does, then it's not important.
    - frereubu 4y ago
      That's a very specific definition of important. Thought experiment: what about a free website that shows people where their nearest food bank is?
      - cupofpython 4y ago
        they can appeal for grants and funds as a non-profit to keep it running. why does such a website need to make a profit?
        frereubu 4y ago
        I wasn't suggesting that they need to make a profit, just enough to pay for hosting and maintenance time.
Night_Thastus 4y ago
Same here. I use it for anti-tracking, and uBlock Origin for primary ads, and PiHole for anything that slips through those two. Ads are a plague. They waste screen space, they're often virus-laden traps, they look ugly and ruin the look of a good website, they're often scams, etc. I pay for the the internet service that sends the ads to me, the screen the ads show up on, the computer that requests the ads and the electricity that powers the computer. I am not paying for all that just to get ads shoved in my face. If they want donations or a subscription, fine. Understandable. But no ads.
zagrebian 4y ago
> I prefer this over other more popular blockers because Privacy Badger doesn't directly go after ads. It just blocks the tracking aspect This is the exact reason why I use DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials instead of an ad-blocker. Whenever I mention that I don’t block ads out of principle, I get down-voted a lot :-D
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content Nothing is scummier than web site owners thinking they are entitled to our attention, to say nothing of selling it to the highest bidder without our consent. There is zero obligation on our part to pay attention to ads. Zero. There is absolutely no shame in not wanting to be subjected to such noise. They'd very much enjoy it if we paid attention but they aren't entitled to make a single cent off of us without our consent.
brnt 4y ago
I think we really shouldn't feel guilty instructing our user agents to do as we please. They were meant to act on our behalf, that's their purpose!

Sakos 4y ago

I'm totally fine with ads as long as they aren't intrusive (pop-ups are the worst). Sites should be able to finance themselves without requiring a subscription, since it allows access to those with less financial means. I just don't want them to track what I do on the internet and as long as they do, I'll block all of them.

specialist 4y ago
Yes and: I'm mostly okay with (non-obtrusive) contextual ads. Behavioral targeting is immoral, cannot be redeemed, and should be illegal.

causi 4y ago

In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden. You don't even have to go that far. They're attempted fraud. They are by and large lies intended to trick you into giving someone money.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Ads in general? Or specifically online ads? Or specifically online ads that use cookie tracking?
- behnamoh 4y ago
  imo ads - online or offline - are fine, but the internet has enabled advertisers to use so many shady tricks to milk more data (and money) out of consumers. I’m completely desensitized to ads and know people who won’t click on ads at all. I wonder how effective ads are then.
ISL 4y ago
Many ads simply generate awareness: "Need a plumber in $TOWN? Call $TOWN Plumbers at 555-1212." Others simply advocate for a cause: "Vote Yes on $TOWN Proposition #4!" Ads like those above do add cognitive burden, but they can provide utility to a community and are demonstrably neither fraud nor lies.
- Cilvic 4y ago
  I understand you made your point in good faith and I appreciate that you made me think about the difference between GP "lie" and "creating awareness". Nevertheless, I believe that giving the awareness part a free pass, can be a slippery slope. I didn't want to think about plumbing or the Proposition 4 or plastic surgery. So unless I search for either of those two I feel it's an intrusion to force those thoughts on me.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    The "lie" is the unstated implication that doing these things the ads recommend will serve your own interests, and not just the interests of the advertisers. "Creating awareness" would be handing out unsolicited facts with a neutral point of view. Most ads are more in the nature of unsolicited and manipulative advice from someone who does not have your best interest in mind.
    - causi 4y ago
      Exactly. Most advertising is at least as malicious as someone walking up to you and saying "give me five dollars."

paskozdilar 4y ago

> In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden. I agree. > The exception is if the site owner keeps the lights on by incorporating non-tracking advertising, it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content. I disagree - if content cannot survive without advertisement, then we're better off without it anyway. Non-tracking advertising is less bad than advertising, but it's still intrusive and not-called-for, just like all advertising.

kqr 4y ago
You mean if the content does not cater to people who are well-off enough to pay for it with money? There are many people who simply don't have the financial means to support all the content they like. Does that content not deserve to exist? Should quality internet content really be a class question?
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  No, I'm just saying if it's important, someone will want to preserve it, and it will survive. If nobody does, then it's not important.
  - frereubu 4y ago
    That's a very specific definition of important. Thought experiment: what about a free website that shows people where their nearest food bank is?
    - cupofpython 4y ago
      they can appeal for grants and funds as a non-profit to keep it running. why does such a website need to make a profit?
      - frereubu 4y ago
        I wasn't suggesting that they need to make a profit, just enough to pay for hosting and maintenance time.

Night_Thastus 4y ago

Same here. I use it for anti-tracking, and uBlock Origin for primary ads, and PiHole for anything that slips through those two. Ads are a plague. They waste screen space, they're often virus-laden traps, they look ugly and ruin the look of a good website, they're often scams, etc. I pay for the the internet service that sends the ads to me, the screen the ads show up on, the computer that requests the ads and the electricity that powers the computer. I am not paying for all that just to get ads shoved in my face. If they want donations or a subscription, fine. Understandable. But no ads.

zagrebian 4y ago

> I prefer this over other more popular blockers because Privacy Badger doesn't directly go after ads. It just blocks the tracking aspect This is the exact reason why I use DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials instead of an ad-blocker. Whenever I mention that I don’t block ads out of principle, I get down-voted a lot :-D

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content Nothing is scummier than web site owners thinking they are entitled to our attention, to say nothing of selling it to the highest bidder without our consent. There is zero obligation on our part to pay attention to ads. Zero. There is absolutely no shame in not wanting to be subjected to such noise. They'd very much enjoy it if we paid attention but they aren't entitled to make a single cent off of us without our consent.

brnt 4y ago

I think we really shouldn't feel guilty instructing our user agents to do as we please. They were meant to act on our behalf, that's their purpose!