4 ms·

I haven't seen such ads in 5 years or more. I use NoScript to prevent most Flash from running without my permission, and that's the primary way that such ads bl

I haven't seen such ads in 5 years or more. I use NoScript to prevent most Flash from running without my permission, and that's the primary way that such ads blast things without your permission, but the only annoying music/auto-play video I've encountered typically is just a poorly designed web site, not an ad on a site. And 99% of the time, it's a TED talk video that's auto-playing when I restore Firefox...sigh... I agree with the article. If you don't like a site, don't go there. Don't steal their bandwidth and try to justify it.

noonespecial 15y ago
I agree with the article. If you don't like a site, don't go there. Don't steal their bandwidth and try to justify it. It sure would be nice to be able do decide that in advance.
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  Umm....and it's a terrible, terrible tragedy to accidentally see an awful web page once. With something that blocks scripting, you don't need to worry about a site infecting your browser/computer. If the site is covered with ads, then close the window, and it's gone. Then downvote it on HN or Reddit or where ever you found it.
shakestheclown 15y ago
I'm a little confused on how blocking ads is stealing bandwidth, but blocking flash ads and scripts is not. Flash ads may be the most profitable for a given site, and the scripts may well affect revenue for marketing, analytics, affiliates, selling viewer personal information, etc. It would seem to me that if you hold the belief that ad blockers are stealing bandwidth then so are flash/script blockers to a lesser extent. If you don't like a site (and their flash ads and scripts), don't go there.
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  Blocking scripting is (or should be) basic web-surfing hygiene. I don't disable scripts to prevent Flash ads from annoying me. I disable scripts and Flash because of the many zero-day vulnerabilities I've read about in both. There's this great <noscript> tag that sites can use to monetize me. They won't be able to track me as well, no, but I don't think a web site should ever have the RIGHT to track someone. No simple web page should EVER need scripting to work, nor should it EVER rely on Flash (which isn't even available if I'm surfing from an iPad/iPhone!). Anyone who doesn't test a web page with scripting disabled to make sure it renders in a reasonable manner shouldn't be doing web development. And don't get me started on idiots whose pages redirect a browser with scripting disabled to a dead-end page that tells me scripting is disabled (duh!) and then doesn't give me a way to get back to the original page. Blocking ads is stealing bandwidth because you are intentionally are blocking the (typically only) means of income of a site for aesthetic (or philosophical) reasons. You're presenting to the site as if you're a normal user, but then surgically removing the ads from each page. Blocking scripting may have the occasional side effect of limiting income on badly implemented sites, but I take no responsibility for hurting sites that are poorly designed. Any blame there should be on whoever decided to go with a Flash-based ad solution, which won't monetize everywhere no matter what. If a site requires that I install software on my computer to use it, then (as you say) I won't use it. If it requires me to enter an email address to use it (and I don't trust it), then I similarly won't use it. If it requires me to enable scripting and I don't trust it, then I won't use it. But I'm not going to enable scripting globally and risk ending up with an infected computer on the off chance that, on my first visit to a new site, I might prevent them from making a small amount of income because their web developers were incompetent.

noonespecial 15y ago

I agree with the article. If you don't like a site, don't go there. Don't steal their bandwidth and try to justify it. It sure would be nice to be able do decide that in advance.

SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
Umm....and it's a terrible, terrible tragedy to accidentally see an awful web page once. With something that blocks scripting, you don't need to worry about a site infecting your browser/computer. If the site is covered with ads, then close the window, and it's gone. Then downvote it on HN or Reddit or where ever you found it.

shakestheclown 15y ago

I'm a little confused on how blocking ads is stealing bandwidth, but blocking flash ads and scripts is not. Flash ads may be the most profitable for a given site, and the scripts may well affect revenue for marketing, analytics, affiliates, selling viewer personal information, etc. It would seem to me that if you hold the belief that ad blockers are stealing bandwidth then so are flash/script blockers to a lesser extent. If you don't like a site (and their flash ads and scripts), don't go there.

SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
Blocking scripting is (or should be) basic web-surfing hygiene. I don't disable scripts to prevent Flash ads from annoying me. I disable scripts and Flash because of the many zero-day vulnerabilities I've read about in both. There's this great <noscript> tag that sites can use to monetize me. They won't be able to track me as well, no, but I don't think a web site should ever have the RIGHT to track someone. No simple web page should EVER need scripting to work, nor should it EVER rely on Flash (which isn't even available if I'm surfing from an iPad/iPhone!). Anyone who doesn't test a web page with scripting disabled to make sure it renders in a reasonable manner shouldn't be doing web development. And don't get me started on idiots whose pages redirect a browser with scripting disabled to a dead-end page that tells me scripting is disabled (duh!) and then doesn't give me a way to get back to the original page. Blocking ads is stealing bandwidth because you are intentionally are blocking the (typically only) means of income of a site for aesthetic (or philosophical) reasons. You're presenting to the site as if you're a normal user, but then surgically removing the ads from each page. Blocking scripting may have the occasional side effect of limiting income on badly implemented sites, but I take no responsibility for hurting sites that are poorly designed. Any blame there should be on whoever decided to go with a Flash-based ad solution, which won't monetize everywhere no matter what. If a site requires that I install software on my computer to use it, then (as you say) I won't use it. If it requires me to enter an email address to use it (and I don't trust it), then I similarly won't use it. If it requires me to enable scripting and I don't trust it, then I won't use it. But I'm not going to enable scripting globally and risk ending up with an infected computer on the off chance that, on my first visit to a new site, I might prevent them from making a small amount of income because their web developers were incompetent.