11 ms·

Poll: Do you use an adblocker?

107 points by gnosis 15y ago

Do you use an adblocker?

puzzler314 15y ago
I use NoScript -- not sure if that counts as an ad blocker (it blocks all JavaScript) but it definitely gets rid of ads.
_delirium 15y ago
"Sort of". I use Ghostery (http://www.ghostery.com/ http://www.ghostery.com/), but mainly use it to block 'like' buttons and various analytics/tracking services. I also block a few ad networks that are either consistently obnoxious or really slow-loading, but I don't use it mainly as an ad blocker.
Kadrith 15y ago
I block things like third party cookies but don't block adds on sites that I frequent. However if I go to a new site the adds are blocked by default; if I find myself going back to the site I unblock it.
st3fan 15y ago
I use AdBlock and Ghostery. Ghostery is super useful. It throws out so much crap that I am not interested in. On sites like techcrunch, engadget or thenextweb it usually cuts the number of requests in half. Rant: It is sure getting out of hand in a big way: it is not uncommon for tech news sites to send you 1.5 MB of crap surrounding a simple 200 word story. I am getting so tired of that. Specially on mobile. My iPad has a 250 MB data limit, so with 10 pages like that I am already on 50% of my cap. Which is ridiculous. Maybe it is time for some serious server-side proxy filtering. Like moving things like AdBlock and Ghostery to the server side?
- m_myers 15y ago
  1.5 * 10 = 15 MB, not 150 MB. So you can actually fetch 166 such pages unmodified. Roughly how large is a TechCrunch page with Ghostery?
  - st3fan 15y ago
    Yeah I'm still on my first coffee. Good morning and thanks for the math :-) Example: http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/03/siri-experiencing-its-first-extended-outage/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/03/siri-experiencing-its-first... Without: 275 requests, 2.85 MB transferred With: 76 requests, 1.72 MB transferred Here is the shocker: ACTUAL ARTICLE SIZE: 163 words, 971 bytes. That is a 0.034% of what was actually downloaded. I know that browsers cache stuff. But a lot of these are dynamic resources that get loaded anyway. There is also the fact that caching on both the iPad and Android is horrible. So this really adds up on a mobile device.
    - st3fan 15y ago
      So I think what I really want is an add-on or extension (I use both Safari and Firefox) that selectively changes the user agent to Mobile Safari. Most sites are pretty good with providing iPhone compatible content, which is magnitudes smaller than the desktop version. For example the techrunch page from my previous comment comes in at 33 requests and 122 KB when I set Safari to "Mobile Safari iOS 4.3.3 iPhone". If only Safari on the iPad supported extensions :-/
- mirkules 15y ago
  Hey thanks for mentioning Ghostery -- I never heard of it before, and it looks neat. I'm using ABP, NoScript and FlashBlock myself, and I think Ghostery will make a nice addition to my line of defense. (minor nitpick: it would take roughly 83 pages, not 10, to reach 50% of your 250MB limit) [edit on my own math. heh]
- huhtenberg 15y ago
  I wouldn't touch Ghostery with a long pole. Their parent company - Evidon - is suspicious. The FAQ on the site is choke-full of weasel words and wishy-washy statements on how they are not an "ad company" but rather an "ad assurance company". Skimpy on actual details too. They have changed their About summary now, but not long ago it basically said that they are in business of delivering better advertisement experience to the advertisers. Just ask yourself if instead of being tracked by multiple entities, you are OK with being tracked by one that gets your data resold to others. They are not a non-profit, so - as cliche as it sounds - you are their product.
  - aaaron 15y ago
    Ghostery has a secondary purpose. It's also "the eyes in the sky" that the ad industry will use to monitor and enforce self-regulation. In other words, it will collect data to ensure that ad companies are complying and affixing proper opt-out mechanisms to behaviorally-targeted ads.
    - huhtenberg 15y ago
      Riiight.
    - Ghostery 15y ago
      Adam from Ghostery/Evidon here. First:Thanks very much to everyone that uses Ghostery here! This thread has been a great read for us. Aaron is correct.. Ghostery works in the same way NPR works, only with data. Users can opt into data collection in Ghostery's options. Also, even if they do, we go to great lengths to make sure that all of the data are anonymous and only used in aggregate. The extension will never collect anything if you don't volunteer it. The data are used in all sorts of ways to make the internet a better place, and to help us make money. For instance, website owners can use the data to see what 3rd party scripts are running on their sites and eliminate them. This saves load time, prevents data leakage to leeches, and - most importantly - allows them to provide a layer of privacy for their users. The BBB also uses aggregated Ghostery data to monitor self-regulatory efforts - thanks to our awesome panel volunteers we can literally "track the trackers." More info: http://mygho.st/D http://mygho.st/D My contact if you have any questions: adam _ at ghostery _dotcom
- fixanoid 15y ago
  Ughh, Ghostery is available for iOS as well: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ghostery/id472789016 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ghostery/id472789016
- jrabone 15y ago
  Privoxy is pretty good. I run it (usually a single centralised instance) on any LAN I am allowed to. Any network installs for people (e.g. family/friends) I set up a Linux server and Privoxy is in there (with judicious bypassing because it IS too aggressive for some sites out of the box). See, this is what happens when your ads are just that wrong side of obnoxious and you piss off the 1% - they might just have the power to make sure ANOTHER 10% don't see your crappy ad, either. And that 10% thank me for it. Every so often they get to see what a festering cesspool the internet is without a filtering proxy between them and it, and by God they thank me.
denysonique 15y ago
I only block Flash using FlashBlock for Chromium. Running Flash on every site is a high security risk.
noilly 15y ago
By default, yes. Only whitelist sites that I support and aren't abusive with ads/tracking
Craiggybear 15y ago
AdBlock and Ghostery.
Xurinos 15y ago
AdBlock + NoScript. The web has been much more tolerable for a long time, thanks to these, and it is always amazing how much noise is on the page when I navigate with an alternate browser.
- dazbradbury 15y ago
  I use AdBlock, but I stopped using NoScript. NoScript essentially makes the modern web unusable. For 99% of the sites I visit I want them to be able to make my user experience more pleasurable through these technologies. It would be interesting to know how many devs consider NoScript users when designing websites. (I personally think it's too much effort).
  - Xurinos 15y ago
    I agree. And so when I go to a website that I trust, I enable its JavaScript. NoScript makes it easy to enable JavaScript from specific places and permanently ban scripts from other places. I prefer having the whitelist approach so that I can avoid accidents, such as clicking the wrong result from a search. I do have to occasionally play guessing games when I am on certain sites and want to enable media served by multiple other places. With this policy, I have an awesome track record on my systems with regards to the number of "problems" that have installed themselves on my computer (number = zero, and I do not have AV installed, though I like to temporarily install several AVs and sanity check once every couple years or so; their overhead, constant updates, etc, just are not worth my time).
    - dazbradbury 15y ago
      In windows I use Microsoft Security Essentials, otherwise, nothing else. I don't use NoScript, and have never had anything install itself on any of my machines (to my knowledge at least - and as a dev I actively monitor CPU/Memory so hopefully would notice). http://xkcd.com/552/ http://xkcd.com/552/
cydonian_monk 15y ago
No, because these days I do 99% of my web browsing on a tablet (iPad and altered NookColor) or mobile device (iPhone). While I could block some ads at my router at home, but the risk of false positives doesn't outweigh the benefits. And that wouldn't help when I'm not at home.
ryan_s 15y ago
AdBlock. It's the main reason I primarily use Atomic Browser on iOS. Ads on mobile are just ridiculous.
bediger 15y ago
I also use dnsmasq as a DNS aggregator and filter. I also have a number of domains (doubleclick, tynt, adbrite, tribalfusion and some others) set to have an IP address of 127.0.0.1.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
suprgeek 15y ago
I use a multi-drug cocktail against crapware: AdBlock+FlashBlock+NoScript+Ghostery After some training the web experience is Awesome. Browsing for anything other than a few minutes without these is impossible for me anymore.
- kissickas 15y ago
  May I ask why you use both FlashBlock and NoScript? I haven't looked too much into the former but it looks to me to just have a subset of the functionality of NoScript (which I do use).
  - suprgeek 15y ago
    On a few sites NoScript causes the whole web Page to go nuts. So rather than dig into what element is causing this I disable NS and fall back to the protection of FlashBlock (Which is doing something simpler).
patio11 15y ago
Nope, never have. I have 99 problems but an ad ain't one.
- bh42222 15y ago
  I am very surprised to hear this given your expertise. I would have imagined you visiting every website with at least two browser at the same time, at least one of them blocking all ads and then some.
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    I'm puzzled that you'd couple "expertise" and ad blocking. Why do you feel the two go together?
    - bh42222 15y ago
      I am relating patio11's expertise in web advertising to ad blocking browsers. As in, would he be interested in how the web looks to someone using ad blocking.
  - patio11 15y ago
    I am totally mystified as to how that workflow would improve my life. It sounds like a lot of work for no gain. Can you explain to me what you find attractive about it or think I would find attractive about it?
    - jules 15y ago
      He's probably referring to A/B testing your browsing experience.
    - viraptor 15y ago
      I guess it was a joke related to your A/B testing.
      - bh42222 15y ago
riffraff 15y ago
kinda, all browser plugins blocked with click-to-play in chrome, which hides most of the annoying flash banners
LogEx 15y ago
Ghostery, Disconnect, FlashBlock, AdBlock, and in some browser profile: NoScript & RequestPolicy. I whitelist trusted sites. The online ad ecosystem is out of control with surveillance: data collection, tracking, device fingerprinting, aggregation, de-anonymization, etc. (and data volumes). HTTP_DNT=1
- LogEx 15y ago
  Oh yeah... plus hosts file blocking of the most egregious servers and DNS blocking of the most egregious domains.
  - DrCatbox 15y ago
    What are some egregious servers? Can I have a peek at your /etc/hosts I have flashblock, adblock with the antisocial filter. Still I see the damn twitter buttons. Is there a way to remove them and g+? How do I prevent google from tracking me?
    - ComputerGuru 15y ago
      Ghostery.
    - lamnk 15y ago
      I use this on my Iphone: http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ To prevent those annoying widget buttons, use NoScript or Ghostery. Of course NoScript's white list method is more secure but I like Ghostery's blacklist approach more. It's tiresome to have to constantly click on NoScript to allow Javascript running
- ComputerGuru 15y ago
  You don't need Disconnect if you're using Ghostery. I too was using Disconnect first, but Ghostery (at least the most recent version) does its job and then some.
jlarocco 15y ago
I block almost everything. Before I switched to DuckDuckGo I even used Opera's "user css" feature to block the promoted links on Google.
jonathanjaeger 15y ago
I wonder if people who use adblocker are more likely to answer this poll than those who do not use adblocker. I guess we can't control for that, but I feel like it might have some bearing.
byrneseyeview 15y ago
Banner ads pay my salary, so out of professional courtesy, no. It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads. Plus, if I see something egregious on my employer's site, I can let them know. I use Ghostery to see who's buying data from whom.
- pjin 15y ago
  Problem for me is not seeing ads, it's that they take too long to load and block the rest of the page. Perhaps strictly a browser problem, but until a better solution I just use vi /etc/hosts
- maggit 15y ago
  > It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads. So you do block ads, only with your brain ;) Fair enough, but can I ask why this is more courteous than blocking them in the browser? Are ad loads generally causing money to flow? I was under the impression that click-throughs cause revenue, rather than ad loads?
  - randall 15y ago
    It can go either way. CPM ads are for display, and a lot of sites charge for CPM.
  - eli 15y ago
    That's what lots of advertisers are pushing for. It makes in some cases, but in others it's a bit disingenuous. Lexus doesn't really care how many people click through to its landing page; they want to get their logo in front of your eyes as often as possible so that when it's time to buy a car, their brand is fresh in your mind.
  - danmaz74 15y ago
    The difference is that from time to time you see an interesting ad and click on it, if you don't have an ad blocker.
  - markmccraw 15y ago
    Some online ads are just general brand awareness ads, in the way that the big Pepsi sign at a baseball stadium isn't talking about a new product or trying to get you to buy a Pepsi right now.
todd3834 15y ago
I don't block ads because I feel guilty when I do, however, typing this out makes me feel ridiculous.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
pingswept 15y ago
It has occurred to me before that those of us who use adblockers might prefer that they remain unpopular, because it's not clear who would win if the adblocker arms race really heated up. Might be that some of the "no" answerers are actually just concealing their true nature as adblocking zealots.
yesimahuman 15y ago
I used to. I'm not bothered by ads much anymore and I don't frequent sites with a lot of annoying ones. I guess I appreciate advertising more than I used to considering I use it personally, and I like to support the sites I love that rely on it. I did start using Facebook Disconnect though.
jen_h 15y ago
I use a heavily edited /etc/hosts file, based on http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/.
- jjcm 15y ago
  I do something similar, but on my router. That way everyone who is connected to my wifi has ads filtered.
cbs 15y ago
Yep, but without a subscription to a blacklist. I only block things if they turn out to be too annoying. As it turns out, most of the things I've block aren't ads but are annoying images, javascript, and UI clutter.
Nate75Sanders 15y ago
Ads, unless they're really huge/obnoxious/blinking/etc don't bother me as I don't even see them. I don't really see advertising when I'm outside walking around/driving/etc, either. I've had people argue that I probably do actually see them and they're affecting me, but it's certainly not affecting my spending habits, as I don't really buy much of anything.
Sympta 15y ago
I sometimes use FlashBlock so I can start/stop Flash as needed. Otherwise I use a HOSTS file to block ads. Works great for Mac OSX as well as Windows 7.
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
I'm using ghostery to block pretty much everything, but I'm not happy with that solution. Blocking all advertising isn't what I really want to do. Yes ads are annoying, but I consider them payment for the service. What I cannot accept is ad networks, social networks and anlytics tools tracking me all across the internet. Unfortunately tracking, advertising and analytics are too intertwined to be more selective. At least I haven't found a way yet...
- Zirro 15y ago
  Have a look at: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy It breaks a lot of sites at first but once you've used it for a while, allowing connections to CDN's and such, it isn't that bad. It's probably a case of paranoia, but now I feel "exposed" without it.
  - piguy314 15y ago
    Request policy also defeats Cross site request forgery
- ghostwords 15y ago
  The next major version of Ghostery will come with an expanded "bug"/page element browser that will break down Ghostery's database by category. The goal is to offer the most granular and usable selective blocker, and this will be a big step in that direction.
myared 15y ago
I don't use ad blocking software because (1) I'm in marketing and (2) it's nice to know which companies are making moves. I do opt out of Google's targeted advertising, and I definitely use Facebook Disconnect. All of my searches also originate from DDG, even if I throw a !g on the query every now and then.
Kylekramer 15y ago
Used to be the first thing I install, but no more. There was a transition period where I would not install it but had a flashblock; my reasoning being that the flashblocker took away most of the really annoying ones. My new policy is a clean install. So many advantages: I rather like experiencing sites as intended (as well as supporting sites) rather than trying to force my will onto sites. I used to run into so many edge cases where the adblocker/flashblocker would break my experience. And if sites truly offend me with their ads, it is no skin off my nose. I just don't visit anymore.
- fluidcruft 15y ago
  I used to use flashblock. Lately I've just uninstalled flash. There is very, very little value to flash from a productivity point of view.
- mst 15y ago
  Agreed on "experiencing as intended" and "supporting" - also, on tech news sites it's of interest to me to know what adverts such sites' advertisers believe their users want. Plus I've found an extensionless firefox is much less crashy than one with any number installed (and yes, I know chrome exists, but I prefer the way firefox interacts with the high contrast bright-colours-on-black type desktop colour schemes I prefer to use)
- piguy314 15y ago
  I run a locked down browser with lots of privacy and security extensions for my personal use then sandbox a unmodified chrome instance for viewing ads on unfiltered pages for work use.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nlolks 15y ago
Yep ... Good stuff. I also used AdMuncher. Just awesome and fast.
larrik 15y ago
I don't use adblock, but if I'm loading a page and it is sitting there waiting for <some ad server>, I'll go and kill it in my hosts file. I don't mind SEEING ads, but I am certainly not going to wait for them.
chokma 15y ago
Adblock Plus, NoScript, RequestPolicy - the latter also helps against privacy problems with Facebook-like buttons etc.
johanjessen 15y ago
It's funny. Since I removed flash from my main browser (Safari) the internet is much less annoying. Also, on the iPad it's fine to browse around (alas without any ad-blocker)
dutom 15y ago
I block ads, and am seriously considering putting ads on my next website. My only defense against hypocrisy is that there's nothing stopping users blocking ads too. Obviously if enough people did block ads, I'd have to rethink the biz model. I don't feel this is particularly evil - just trying to get by...
bobds 15y ago
First I used AdBlock and FlashBlock. Then I used AdBlock and NoScript. Then I stopped using AdBlock. What a shock that was. NoScript would still catch the nasty stuff and block those talking Flash ads, but it was much less noticeable. I don't use an adblocker now because it makes me feel out of touch with the reality of the regular user. I've been reconsidering lately, due to the proliferation of web crapware like Facebook like and Tweet buttons. Ideally, I'd like something that blocks the incessant tracking of my web usage, uses aggressive caching and placeholders to boost performance but still lets me see the web as the regular users see it.
- Paris_Gun 15y ago
  Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your request, but maybe ghostery is what you want http://www.ghostery.com/download http://www.ghostery.com/download
citricsquid 15y ago
Advert revenue is what pays my bills, I would be a hypocrite to ad block, however even before I made money from adverts I didn't use an adblocker and don't really consider them much of an issue. So no, I don't.
djbender 15y ago
No. ClickToPlugin? yes. http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/ http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/
matwood 15y ago
Ads don't bother me. Flash and other plugins bother me so I use a flash/plugin blocker. Keep the ads text and I'll at least see them show up on the page :)
pnathan 15y ago
Yes, I use ABP and Ghostery. I would run noscript, but too many sites are incapable of rendering in plain html these days.
Glowbox 15y ago
Adblock, Noscript, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy and ShareMeNot. I'm using Firefox.
eli 15y ago
I don't mind most ads. But I do manually block particularly bad ones. I wouldn't use one of those AdBlock subscriptions though. Sure, maybe now you won't be "tracked" by as many ad networks, but you're allowing your web experience to be edited by some unknown party. Most configurations don't even show you what you're missing.
hackNightly 15y ago
Banner ads are the reason that several of our favorite websites can even exist. Therefore, no, I do not block ads. It's almost internet blasphemy.
maggit 15y ago
Opera comes with a "content blocker" that I use. If I see an annoying ad, I block its origin. I count all animated ads as annoying, because they distract me from the content. In blocking only a few sources, this takes care of nearly all ads on the Internet, with the notable exceptions of Google's and Facebook's ads. These I don't mind. I don't interact with them either, but I see no obligation to.
m30wmix 15y ago
as a few of you have pointed out, i'm at the point where i can't really stand to browse without an adblocker of some sort - and so use a combination of adblock + ghostery. for those that may not be aware, if you flash your router with tomato/dd-wrt/etc you can install an adblocker/host script which will allow all mobile (iphone/ipad/android/etc) devices to browse relatively ad-free when connected to wifi.
misterbwong 15y ago
No because I find it annoying to have to turn blocking on/off (or switch browsers) while I'm developing on my company's (ad driven) site. The fewer distractions, the better.
jayeff 15y ago
When I got my current laptop about 1 1/2 years ago I didn't install an ad-blocker (or NoScript or FlashBlock) and really don't care anymore. Ads improved over the last view years. My solution for sites with crazy ad banners/skyscrapers (too colorful, too much movement or - worst of all - play sound) is simply to stop visiting them. Sidenote: If I tend to somehow return over and over again they get an entry in /etc/hosts). And yes, pop-ups are blocked (as it's default in Chrome)
TeMPOraL 15y ago
I don't, because I'm too lazy to install one (I change browsers often). Also, I use ads as a general 'trustworthiness' metric of a website/service. The more ads are there relative to content, the more tricky are those ads, or the more ugly they are - the more I'll consider a website to be scammy/malicious. It seems to have worked quite good for me so far.
cookiecaper 15y ago
I usually don't mind browsing without an adblocker enough to put it back on... until I visit Phoronix. I do find the experience to be better generally and less distracting with an adblocker, however.
Georgiy 15y ago
I block ads cause i don't want to deceive advertisers :) i never buy anything through banners.
froseph 15y ago
Flashblock, but that was primarily motivated my the amount of CPU it sucks up on my e350 based laptop.
Freestyler_3 15y ago
I don't like the ads that pop into my face like someone threw a flier in my face. Ads have always had their respective places on websites, but lately the aggressiveness of advertisement is out of control and those are the ones I block. When a website is supposed to be user friendly but it has a lot of ads in uncomfortable zones then I tell myself that the website does not deserve another user and I stop visiting.
runjake 15y ago
Yes, but I use that option that shows me Google text ads. They're unobtrusive and sometimes they're of interest. I also disable plugins (click 2 flash/java/shockwave/etc).
city41 15y ago
I don't frequent sites that have annoying ads. The sites I do frequent I have no problem "paying" for them by letting ads in.
gruuk 15y ago
I haven't used an adblocker in years; I do use flashblock and nuke anything (to remove ads that appear over content). Just these two are enough to deal with the most annoying ones, the rest of the ads don't bother me too much.
Zirro 15y ago
For those who are as paranoid as me about any sites tracking you, I recommend taking a look at: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy It breaks the Internet a lot at first, but it gets better once you've used it for a while, allowing what makes sense. Nowadays I feel "exposed" without it.
Random_Person 15y ago
I don't visit websites that overly abuse ads. If I happen upon a site that forces advertisement on me, I close the window and move on. I'm generally consuming content that I can find on a variety of places. I'll simply try the next link in Google.
ghurlman 15y ago
I block Flash, and a majority of 3rd party Javascript -- this tends to catch ads, but it's not an adblocker, per se.
weaksauce 15y ago
If you were to have asked this about two weeks ago I would have said no. Sadly, performance and memory usage of javascript/flash has gotten to the point where I must use a script blocker. If the ad only contains a picture and does not load via js I will still see it; if the ad is on a page that I have explicitly allowed then yes as well.
troymc 15y ago
Wow, as I write this, it's 560 points for Yes. and 292 points for No. Lesson so far: If you want to reach the HN community, don't bother with a web advertising campaign.
- GFischer 15y ago
  I don't know about you, but I use a lot of different devices for internet navigation, and I only use Adblock on my main home pc and work pc, so on the rest I see ads.. One ad I see all the time is Chargify (another is the local airline that absolutely plasters me with ads, as it seems it's the one that bought the Uruguayan market on Google adsense)
- Natsu 15y ago
  That's what PR news stories are for. If you do something interesting enough, people will seek out more information on their own. For example, how many people will admit to having read about the place that was giving out free cows as a signing bonus?
mhartl 15y ago
I used an adblocker long enough to be bitten, multiple times, by false positives. Now I just deal.
betterth 15y ago
I block ads on all websites, except those that ask me to stop blocking ads. The first site I stopped blocking them on was Reddit. There are a few more now that detect that you block ads and politely ask you to disable it to conserve their business model. I gladly oblige. But for every well run site politely asking you to view their un-scammy non-crappy ads, there must be 100 full of whatever advertising program offers the most money, linking to all kinds of information stealing, questionable ethically companies. When your business model, advertising, begins to threaten the safety of my system, you better believe I'm blocking it!
Forrest7778 15y ago
I think that it is extremely unfair to block all ads as they are a lifeline for many people. I do however, try to avoid sites that have annoying ads as I expect that my loss in traffic will make a difference, no matter how small it may be. I also watch a lot of Justin.TV and Twitch.TV people and that is really where I base my beliefs. If someone gives too many commercials I simply turn off the stream.
- GFischer 15y ago
  The thing is, as usual, a few ruined it for the many. There are a few extremely obnoxious ads that made me install Adblock. I allow the Google text ads, though :)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
notatoad 15y ago
i feel bad about it, and keep trying to stop, but every time i disable adblock i end up turning it back on after a few days. if ads were less intrusive, i wouldn't mind them but so many websites get wrecked by the ads (verge, i'm looking at you).
chalst 15y ago
I use Dan Pollock's hosts file: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ which does the usual trick of 127.0.0.1-ing all kinds of unwanted URLs. Some people seem to find my Github mirror of the hosts file useful: https://github.com/chalst/pollockhostsfork https://github.com/chalst/pollockhostsfork
etaty 15y ago
Yes. Why? I am tired of ads with sound, hidden in one of my 50 tabs. And Youtube is not usuable with ads before a video.
cpeterso 15y ago
How much do websites get paid for ad views compared to ad clicks? I never click ads, but I am still "supporting" websites if I allow them to serve me ads?
Gustomaximus 15y ago
I'm different in that I really enjoy a well prepared ad. Seeing how it is supposed to work on people is quite interesting. Even spam can be a good read as those guys sometimes really put such quality content together (from a writing POV) made more interesting by what they are trying to sell you.
mindcrime 15y ago
Not really, no. I mean, whatever degree of "pop-up blocker" that Chrome has built-in, but no specific "ad blocker." Honestly, I don't see the point. Banner ads don't affect me one way or the other, and they're even (rarely) beneficial on occasion. As long as the ad isn't creating pop-ups and pop-unders and shit, I don't much care. Edit: Oh, there is one specific type of ad I find highly annoying and could possibly justify blocking... anything that makes noise without asking my permission. I tend to always have headphones on and have the volume up pretty good when I'm web surfing, and any stupid ad that starts talking or playing a jingle is annoying as f!#k. Fortunately they seem to be fairly rare. Enough so that the pain hasn't been enough to push me to install an ad-blocker anyway. But if more of those started to appear, I'd totally look for a way to block them.
mixmastamyk 15y ago
No, but flashblock, noscript, and image.animation_mode = once cut obnoxiousness to near zero without specifically targetting ads.
kfcm 15y ago
I use a cocktail of AdblockPlus, Ghostery, NoScript, CookieMonster, and BetterPrivacy. I've used Flashblock in the past, and may use it again, but there are a couple of flash game sites I frequent and BetterPrivacy takes care of the persistent flash cookie issue. All of these make browsing a lot speedier on my DSL connection. However, I'll admit they can also be a pain in the tuckus when wanting to log in, or a site requires JavaScript to view content. Still, I consider them worth it for "tracking" considerations alone.
mlinksva 15y ago
I generally do, but not at the moment, as I'm contemplating an advertising project and want to see what's out there (appalling as expected).
T-hawk 15y ago
I voted yes although it's not strictly true since I don't use an adblocker per se. I browse mostly in Opera, with plugins and images turned off. I have toolbar buttons to turn them on in one click when needed, but on 90% of sites that works fine and gets me just the text. Turning off Javascript is also one click away on the F12 menu for difficult sites. I also have a custom style sheet in Opera to force all text to black-on-white at a reasonable size and my choice of font. This makes the web pretty manageable, without depending on browser extensions or addons.
finnw 15y ago
No, just FlashBlock and a hosts file that blocks the Facebook "Like" button (but nothing else.)
clog 15y ago
I voted yes, meaning I use a flash blocker which helps not wasting battery on all kinds of flash stuff running in the background including ads.
kingsidharth 15y ago
No option for "Used to but not anymore?" It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.
kingsidharth 15y ago
No option for "Used to but not anymore?" It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.
kingsidharth 15y ago
No option for "Used to but not anymore?" It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.
kingsidharth 15y ago
No option for "Used to but not anymore?" It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.
brcrth 15y ago
So every week there's a pool asking if people block ads?
krelian 15y ago
I knew about adblock from the very beginning but I only broke down and installed it last week. The reason was one particular forum where while I didn't have problems with the ads themselves (I simply don't visit sites that have intrusive ads) they were just loading extremely slow. My eyes have been opened after that. I knew I could speed up my surfing a little bit by using adblock but I didn't know that the difference was so huge. I decided to keep using adblock but with an empty filter to which I will add offending sites instead of just disabling everything.
dangerboysteve 15y ago
I block the shit out of everything. This includes the facebook API crap.
sukuriant 15y ago
On my netbook* in particular. Those ads are expensive to render. * Lenovo x120. It's not technically a netbook as it's more powerful than one, but it's still weak in the grand scheme of personal computers.
kevinchen 15y ago
I use ClickToFlash, which gets rid of the annoying, CPU-hogging ads while supporting most websites.
davimack 15y ago
Adblock never gets turned off and hasn't since I discovered it. When I'm shopping, I'm shopping - the rest of the time, I'm actually doing something and since it's my computer I feel that I can edit the heck out of whatever it is which is served up to me - they're giving it away, I'm letting something censor out the garbage, of which ads are a huge part. I also use NoScript, FlashBlock, RefControl, RequestPolicy plugins for precisely the same reason: I'm not visiting a page to read some garbage hosted somewhere else (i.e., the pretty pictures and styling you've hosted elsewhere, for some reason), nor for you to do fun things with scripts, nor to see anything move (and, incidentally, spy on me). The web has become increasingly about hawking wares and doing so based upon observing behavior. I don't like the idea, even if it _could_ tell me about something which I would like to buy: if I _need_ something, I'll hunt for it. If I don't actually _need_ something, though, I don't want to have the equivalent of a dirty-old-man offering me candy from the back of his van if only I'd step inside for awhile. And I certainly don't want that dirty-old-man following me around, observing me, to find out what my favorite kinds of candy are, so that he can entice me into being a statistic.
jl6 15y ago
No. I just don't go back to websites with annoying ads. I have yet to come across a website with utterly compelling content and also utterly intolerable ads.
vsviridov 15y ago
Since most banner networks pay per click, and I never click on a banner anyway, there's no point for me to see them. So AdBlockPlus all the way...
theorique 15y ago
The first thing I install on a new computer / new browser is adblock. Once the bits leave the server, they're available to rewrite as the user sees fit. And I have no problem with doing so in an automated way, to remove content that I know I will never be needing.
4ad 15y ago
I don't use an ad blocker, but I don't regularly visit any web site with ads. If a website has ads I leave never to return again.
- scott_s 15y ago
  You don't read any newspapers online? Or read any web comics?
  - 4ad 15y ago
    I read comics in a RSS reader, ads don't show up, though I've just checked and the only web comics I read that have ads are dilbert, and in linux mode[1] the only non-dilbert related ads are textual, and at the bottom of the page. I read news, though I don't read any particular newspaper, and news links often lead to pages with ads, but those pages are not sites I visit on a regular basis. It's very possible I visit sites with ads that I did not see. I don't look for them. If ads catch my eye it's a big sign not to visit that site anymore. [1] http://dilbert.com/fast/ http://dilbert.com/fast/
cpeterso 15y ago
Another option is "Beef TACO", a Firefox add-on that generates cookies to opt-out of tracking for known ad networks without blocking the ads themselves.
danudey 15y ago
I set up a new Windows machine the other day, using Chrome as my primary browser. Within five minutes of sitting down to do some browsing, I had loaded a page with a Flash video ad, with sound, that started playing automatically. Sorry internet, but a few obnoxiously bad apples spoil the bunch. Websites I visit frequently I subscribe to (e.g. Ars Technica), but the massive amount of poor, distracting, or annoying ads, the poor layouts that are 60% ads and 40% content, and the pages that take literally 10-20 times longer to load because of all the (slow) external resources? Not worth it.
netnichols 15y ago
No, but I do use a Flash blocker. I find for the moment that's enough to keep me sane.
wnoise 15y ago
I don't specifically block ads, but I only execute white-listed JavaScript which effectively does block ads.
nogui 15y ago
Don't need one because I don't use Javascript.
moderation 15y ago
I'm a fan of Glimmerblocker (http://glimmerblocker.org/ http://glimmerblocker.org/) on OS X - you set it up at the system level and therefore works on all browsers, RSS readers, etc. It doesn't handle SSL and with more sites going that way I may need to start adding some browser specific blocking. Edit - at work on Windows I use SRWare Iron which is an awesome Chrome derivative running Fanboy's Adblock list at http://fanboy.co.nz/adblock/iron.html http://fanboy.co.nz/adblock/iron.html
dminor 15y ago
I don't, but I use Chrome with plugins blocked by default, which has the side effect of limiting the ads I see.
maximusprime 15y ago
Amongst the general online population it's about 1%. Judging from the results here so far, it's pretty clear that a large amount of HNers are in that minority.
RexRollman 15y ago
I don't use an adblocker but I do use NoScript.
w1ntermute 15y ago
Of course. AdBlock + Flashblock + OptimizeGoogle (blocks Google ads) + Ghostery. Say what you want about the ethics of adblocking, but at this point, browsing the web without an adblocker is truly painful for me, as I've been using one for 5+ years.
maximusprime 15y ago
Trying to speak reason to HN on this is a lost cause. Look at the results of the poll so far: About 65% of HN use an adblocker. The general online population, only about 1% use an adblocker. HN is heavily heavily biased away from advertising. HN also mistakenly probably thinks it's because they're "early adopters" or more "technical". The truth is more like HN is in a bubble, anti-mainstream etc. If you did a poll on here to find out how many people watched American Idol, you'd probably find similar results - but that wouldn't mean HNers were 'ahead of the curve', it'd just mean HNers aren't "mainstream". Get out of your bubble HN. Do what your potential users do - view ads. Maybe even buy a TV as well!
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  HN is heavily biased toward hackers and tweakers, in the sense of those who prefer to hack at and tweak their environments. Many, many, many moons ago I ran across a page which reported on user display resolution setting as reported via javascript. At a time when low-end equipment generally supported at least 800x600 and likely 1024x768 display, over 50% of users showed 480x640. Which was the Windows default at the time. Changing your display resolution takes 2-3 clicks: right click on Desktop, display settings, resolution. And "OK". And this was too much for people. The lesson was: people don't change defaults. So, oh you devs: choose really sane defaults. As for me? I've hacked my environment a lot over the several decades I've been using it, and I hack it a little bit more every day. Why? Because I become more productive in it, and it becomes more useful to me.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    I don't think that's the explanation. Reddit is also heavily anti-corporation, anti-advertising, anti-mainstream. It's just the culture on HN and Reddit. I've always been a hacker, tweaker etc. But I can't imagine how anything would work without advertising. And it's not something I find annoying or have trouble filtering out. It's like if you're walking down a street, and you see all the shop signs... If you're not interested, just keep walking.
    - 15y ago
mike-cardwell 15y ago
The three main reasons I block ads: 1.) Speeds up the web dramatically 2.) Increases privacy (Ad networks track users across sites) 3.) Improves security (Ad networks have been known to serve malware) I also dislike looking at them, but if it weren't for the above three problems, I'd probably skip the ad blocker and just ignore them.
- aw3c2 15y ago
  Same for me but in the order: Privacy, Speed, Security. I don't mind seeing them too much either. I have zero sympathies for websites that whine about ad-blockers when they don't care about my privacy.
D_Drake 15y ago
There are only two websites which I endorse enough to whitelist them in my adblockers. It's a case of having a finer control over the behavior of your web browser. Once upon a time, you had only rudimentary control, and had to use your eyes to ignore extraneous information. Adblocking gives us a little more automation. It's my hope that in the near future browsers will be able to parse the "real" content out of web pages in order to present it and only it to the user. Wouldn't that be nice? No more sidebars, no more banners or popups or buttons or other garbage, just paragraphs of text you want to read, pictures you want to see, and videos you want to watch, undiluted.
bifrost 15y ago
Yep, since 1998.
mkramlich 15y ago
need 3rd choice: use Flash blocker; which blocks a lot of ads but not all, as nice side effect
xefer 15y ago
Do you really care if people actually see they ad - or do you really only care that the provider thinks people see the ad? In other words, would it be okay if the ad blocker was set up to download the ad but simply not show it? Where are your ethics now?
DomainNoob 15y ago
Hoping Flattr catches on. It works flawlessly. It's how I want to support great content.
ultrasaurus 15y ago
I did a test on my website for adblocking. I'll write it up soon, but among the general population, about 30% of people seem to use adblock of some kind
hrabago 15y ago
I either tolerate the ads to support the site, or avoid the site altogether because they have too many ads that I get annoyed. Weather.com is the only exception I have to these rules. I use an ad blocker because their animated ads are just too annoying.
stefankendall 15y ago
I've gotten some value out of targeted ads.
dredmorbius 15y ago
AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery, Flashblock. Vaguely related: Autopagination (fixes multi-page sites), and Remove It Permanently. It's my browser, my computer, and my network connection. Damned straight I'm going to exert my preferences over them. Your crappy business model is your problem.
MattLaroche 15y ago
Weather.com has the best weather data, but the worst "professional" site on the internet. So I run AdBlock on Weather.com and allow most other sites to run ads.
ryanmacg 15y ago
I use Flash Block for most sites by default and will only disable it on sites I believe in supporting. I don't hate adverts I just dislike crappy flash ones slowing things down.
smh 15y ago
There was a Flash advert with a man gesturing and waving at me. It was so distracting I literally could not read the article text. I installed adblock and reloaded the page. An example of "tragedy of the commons", perhaps?
gcr 15y ago
Luakit (my web browser of choice) doesn't have an ad blocker extension yet. I find that I subconsciously don't visit websites with too many ads anymore, so it's not much of a problem.

107 points by gnosis 15y ago

Do you use an adblocker?

I use NoScript -- not sure if that counts as an ad blocker (it blocks all JavaScript) but it definitely gets rid of ads.

_delirium 15y ago

"Sort of". I use Ghostery (http://www.ghostery.com/ http://www.ghostery.com/), but mainly use it to block 'like' buttons and various analytics/tracking services. I also block a few ad networks that are either consistently obnoxious or really slow-loading, but I don't use it mainly as an ad blocker.

Kadrith 15y ago

I block things like third party cookies but don't block adds on sites that I frequent. However if I go to a new site the adds are blocked by default; if I find myself going back to the site I unblock it.

st3fan 15y ago

I use AdBlock and Ghostery. Ghostery is super useful. It throws out so much crap that I am not interested in. On sites like techcrunch, engadget or thenextweb it usually cuts the number of requests in half. Rant: It is sure getting out of hand in a big way: it is not uncommon for tech news sites to send you 1.5 MB of crap surrounding a simple 200 word story. I am getting so tired of that. Specially on mobile. My iPad has a 250 MB data limit, so with 10 pages like that I am already on 50% of my cap. Which is ridiculous. Maybe it is time for some serious server-side proxy filtering. Like moving things like AdBlock and Ghostery to the server side?

m_myers 15y ago
1.5 * 10 = 15 MB, not 150 MB. So you can actually fetch 166 such pages unmodified. Roughly how large is a TechCrunch page with Ghostery?
- st3fan 15y ago
  Yeah I'm still on my first coffee. Good morning and thanks for the math :-) Example: http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/03/siri-experiencing-its-first-extended-outage/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/03/siri-experiencing-its-first... Without: 275 requests, 2.85 MB transferred With: 76 requests, 1.72 MB transferred Here is the shocker: ACTUAL ARTICLE SIZE: 163 words, 971 bytes. That is a 0.034% of what was actually downloaded. I know that browsers cache stuff. But a lot of these are dynamic resources that get loaded anyway. There is also the fact that caching on both the iPad and Android is horrible. So this really adds up on a mobile device.
  - st3fan 15y ago
    So I think what I really want is an add-on or extension (I use both Safari and Firefox) that selectively changes the user agent to Mobile Safari. Most sites are pretty good with providing iPhone compatible content, which is magnitudes smaller than the desktop version. For example the techrunch page from my previous comment comes in at 33 requests and 122 KB when I set Safari to "Mobile Safari iOS 4.3.3 iPhone". If only Safari on the iPad supported extensions :-/
mirkules 15y ago
Hey thanks for mentioning Ghostery -- I never heard of it before, and it looks neat. I'm using ABP, NoScript and FlashBlock myself, and I think Ghostery will make a nice addition to my line of defense. (minor nitpick: it would take roughly 83 pages, not 10, to reach 50% of your 250MB limit) [edit on my own math. heh]
huhtenberg 15y ago
I wouldn't touch Ghostery with a long pole. Their parent company - Evidon - is suspicious. The FAQ on the site is choke-full of weasel words and wishy-washy statements on how they are not an "ad company" but rather an "ad assurance company". Skimpy on actual details too. They have changed their About summary now, but not long ago it basically said that they are in business of delivering better advertisement experience to the advertisers. Just ask yourself if instead of being tracked by multiple entities, you are OK with being tracked by one that gets your data resold to others. They are not a non-profit, so - as cliche as it sounds - you are their product.
- aaaron 15y ago
  Ghostery has a secondary purpose. It's also "the eyes in the sky" that the ad industry will use to monitor and enforce self-regulation. In other words, it will collect data to ensure that ad companies are complying and affixing proper opt-out mechanisms to behaviorally-targeted ads.
  - huhtenberg 15y ago
    Riiight.
  - Ghostery 15y ago
    Adam from Ghostery/Evidon here. First:Thanks very much to everyone that uses Ghostery here! This thread has been a great read for us. Aaron is correct.. Ghostery works in the same way NPR works, only with data. Users can opt into data collection in Ghostery's options. Also, even if they do, we go to great lengths to make sure that all of the data are anonymous and only used in aggregate. The extension will never collect anything if you don't volunteer it. The data are used in all sorts of ways to make the internet a better place, and to help us make money. For instance, website owners can use the data to see what 3rd party scripts are running on their sites and eliminate them. This saves load time, prevents data leakage to leeches, and - most importantly - allows them to provide a layer of privacy for their users. The BBB also uses aggregated Ghostery data to monitor self-regulatory efforts - thanks to our awesome panel volunteers we can literally "track the trackers." More info: http://mygho.st/D http://mygho.st/D My contact if you have any questions: adam _ at ghostery _dotcom
fixanoid 15y ago
Ughh, Ghostery is available for iOS as well: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ghostery/id472789016 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ghostery/id472789016
jrabone 15y ago
Privoxy is pretty good. I run it (usually a single centralised instance) on any LAN I am allowed to. Any network installs for people (e.g. family/friends) I set up a Linux server and Privoxy is in there (with judicious bypassing because it IS too aggressive for some sites out of the box). See, this is what happens when your ads are just that wrong side of obnoxious and you piss off the 1% - they might just have the power to make sure ANOTHER 10% don't see your crappy ad, either. And that 10% thank me for it. Every so often they get to see what a festering cesspool the internet is without a filtering proxy between them and it, and by God they thank me.

denysonique 15y ago

I only block Flash using FlashBlock for Chromium. Running Flash on every site is a high security risk.

noilly 15y ago

By default, yes. Only whitelist sites that I support and aren't abusive with ads/tracking

Craiggybear 15y ago

AdBlock and Ghostery.

Xurinos 15y ago

AdBlock + NoScript. The web has been much more tolerable for a long time, thanks to these, and it is always amazing how much noise is on the page when I navigate with an alternate browser.

dazbradbury 15y ago
I use AdBlock, but I stopped using NoScript. NoScript essentially makes the modern web unusable. For 99% of the sites I visit I want them to be able to make my user experience more pleasurable through these technologies. It would be interesting to know how many devs consider NoScript users when designing websites. (I personally think it's too much effort).
- Xurinos 15y ago
  I agree. And so when I go to a website that I trust, I enable its JavaScript. NoScript makes it easy to enable JavaScript from specific places and permanently ban scripts from other places. I prefer having the whitelist approach so that I can avoid accidents, such as clicking the wrong result from a search. I do have to occasionally play guessing games when I am on certain sites and want to enable media served by multiple other places. With this policy, I have an awesome track record on my systems with regards to the number of "problems" that have installed themselves on my computer (number = zero, and I do not have AV installed, though I like to temporarily install several AVs and sanity check once every couple years or so; their overhead, constant updates, etc, just are not worth my time).
  - dazbradbury 15y ago
    In windows I use Microsoft Security Essentials, otherwise, nothing else. I don't use NoScript, and have never had anything install itself on any of my machines (to my knowledge at least - and as a dev I actively monitor CPU/Memory so hopefully would notice). http://xkcd.com/552/ http://xkcd.com/552/

cydonian_monk 15y ago

No, because these days I do 99% of my web browsing on a tablet (iPad and altered NookColor) or mobile device (iPhone). While I could block some ads at my router at home, but the risk of false positives doesn't outweigh the benefits. And that wouldn't help when I'm not at home.

ryan_s 15y ago

AdBlock. It's the main reason I primarily use Atomic Browser on iOS. Ads on mobile are just ridiculous.

bediger 15y ago

I also use dnsmasq as a DNS aggregator and filter. I also have a number of domains (doubleclick, tynt, adbrite, tribalfusion and some others) set to have an IP address of 127.0.0.1.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

suprgeek 15y ago

I use a multi-drug cocktail against crapware: AdBlock+FlashBlock+NoScript+Ghostery After some training the web experience is Awesome. Browsing for anything other than a few minutes without these is impossible for me anymore.

kissickas 15y ago
May I ask why you use both FlashBlock and NoScript? I haven't looked too much into the former but it looks to me to just have a subset of the functionality of NoScript (which I do use).
- suprgeek 15y ago
  On a few sites NoScript causes the whole web Page to go nuts. So rather than dig into what element is causing this I disable NS and fall back to the protection of FlashBlock (Which is doing something simpler).

patio11 15y ago

Nope, never have. I have 99 problems but an ad ain't one.

bh42222 15y ago
I am very surprised to hear this given your expertise. I would have imagined you visiting every website with at least two browser at the same time, at least one of them blocking all ads and then some.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  I'm puzzled that you'd couple "expertise" and ad blocking. Why do you feel the two go together?
  - bh42222 15y ago
    I am relating patio11's expertise in web advertising to ad blocking browsers. As in, would he be interested in how the web looks to someone using ad blocking.
- patio11 15y ago
  I am totally mystified as to how that workflow would improve my life. It sounds like a lot of work for no gain. Can you explain to me what you find attractive about it or think I would find attractive about it?
  - jules 15y ago
    He's probably referring to A/B testing your browsing experience.
  - viraptor 15y ago
    I guess it was a joke related to your A/B testing.
    - bh42222 15y ago

riffraff 15y ago

kinda, all browser plugins blocked with click-to-play in chrome, which hides most of the annoying flash banners

LogEx 15y ago

Ghostery, Disconnect, FlashBlock, AdBlock, and in some browser profile: NoScript & RequestPolicy. I whitelist trusted sites. The online ad ecosystem is out of control with surveillance: data collection, tracking, device fingerprinting, aggregation, de-anonymization, etc. (and data volumes). HTTP_DNT=1

LogEx 15y ago
Oh yeah... plus hosts file blocking of the most egregious servers and DNS blocking of the most egregious domains.
- DrCatbox 15y ago
  What are some egregious servers? Can I have a peek at your /etc/hosts I have flashblock, adblock with the antisocial filter. Still I see the damn twitter buttons. Is there a way to remove them and g+? How do I prevent google from tracking me?
  - ComputerGuru 15y ago
    Ghostery.
  - lamnk 15y ago
    I use this on my Iphone: http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ To prevent those annoying widget buttons, use NoScript or Ghostery. Of course NoScript's white list method is more secure but I like Ghostery's blacklist approach more. It's tiresome to have to constantly click on NoScript to allow Javascript running
ComputerGuru 15y ago
You don't need Disconnect if you're using Ghostery. I too was using Disconnect first, but Ghostery (at least the most recent version) does its job and then some.

jlarocco 15y ago

I block almost everything. Before I switched to DuckDuckGo I even used Opera's "user css" feature to block the promoted links on Google.

jonathanjaeger 15y ago

I wonder if people who use adblocker are more likely to answer this poll than those who do not use adblocker. I guess we can't control for that, but I feel like it might have some bearing.

byrneseyeview 15y ago

Banner ads pay my salary, so out of professional courtesy, no. It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads. Plus, if I see something egregious on my employer's site, I can let them know. I use Ghostery to see who's buying data from whom.

pjin 15y ago
Problem for me is not seeing ads, it's that they take too long to load and block the rest of the page. Perhaps strictly a browser problem, but until a better solution I just use vi /etc/hosts
maggit 15y ago
> It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads. So you do block ads, only with your brain ;) Fair enough, but can I ask why this is more courteous than blocking them in the browser? Are ad loads generally causing money to flow? I was under the impression that click-throughs cause revenue, rather than ad loads?
- randall 15y ago
  It can go either way. CPM ads are for display, and a lot of sites charge for CPM.
- eli 15y ago
  That's what lots of advertisers are pushing for. It makes in some cases, but in others it's a bit disingenuous. Lexus doesn't really care how many people click through to its landing page; they want to get their logo in front of your eyes as often as possible so that when it's time to buy a car, their brand is fresh in your mind.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  The difference is that from time to time you see an interesting ad and click on it, if you don't have an ad blocker.
- markmccraw 15y ago
  Some online ads are just general brand awareness ads, in the way that the big Pepsi sign at a baseball stadium isn't talking about a new product or trying to get you to buy a Pepsi right now.

todd3834 15y ago

I don't block ads because I feel guilty when I do, however, typing this out makes me feel ridiculous.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

pingswept 15y ago

It has occurred to me before that those of us who use adblockers might prefer that they remain unpopular, because it's not clear who would win if the adblocker arms race really heated up. Might be that some of the "no" answerers are actually just concealing their true nature as adblocking zealots.

yesimahuman 15y ago

I used to. I'm not bothered by ads much anymore and I don't frequent sites with a lot of annoying ones. I guess I appreciate advertising more than I used to considering I use it personally, and I like to support the sites I love that rely on it. I did start using Facebook Disconnect though.

jen_h 15y ago

I use a heavily edited /etc/hosts file, based on http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/.

jjcm 15y ago
I do something similar, but on my router. That way everyone who is connected to my wifi has ads filtered.

cbs 15y ago

Yep, but without a subscription to a blacklist. I only block things if they turn out to be too annoying. As it turns out, most of the things I've block aren't ads but are annoying images, javascript, and UI clutter.

Nate75Sanders 15y ago

Ads, unless they're really huge/obnoxious/blinking/etc don't bother me as I don't even see them. I don't really see advertising when I'm outside walking around/driving/etc, either. I've had people argue that I probably do actually see them and they're affecting me, but it's certainly not affecting my spending habits, as I don't really buy much of anything.

Sympta 15y ago

I sometimes use FlashBlock so I can start/stop Flash as needed. Otherwise I use a HOSTS file to block ads. Works great for Mac OSX as well as Windows 7.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

I'm using ghostery to block pretty much everything, but I'm not happy with that solution. Blocking all advertising isn't what I really want to do. Yes ads are annoying, but I consider them payment for the service. What I cannot accept is ad networks, social networks and anlytics tools tracking me all across the internet. Unfortunately tracking, advertising and analytics are too intertwined to be more selective. At least I haven't found a way yet...

Zirro 15y ago
Have a look at: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy It breaks a lot of sites at first but once you've used it for a while, allowing connections to CDN's and such, it isn't that bad. It's probably a case of paranoia, but now I feel "exposed" without it.
- piguy314 15y ago
  Request policy also defeats Cross site request forgery
ghostwords 15y ago
The next major version of Ghostery will come with an expanded "bug"/page element browser that will break down Ghostery's database by category. The goal is to offer the most granular and usable selective blocker, and this will be a big step in that direction.

myared 15y ago

I don't use ad blocking software because (1) I'm in marketing and (2) it's nice to know which companies are making moves. I do opt out of Google's targeted advertising, and I definitely use Facebook Disconnect. All of my searches also originate from DDG, even if I throw a !g on the query every now and then.

Kylekramer 15y ago

Used to be the first thing I install, but no more. There was a transition period where I would not install it but had a flashblock; my reasoning being that the flashblocker took away most of the really annoying ones. My new policy is a clean install. So many advantages: I rather like experiencing sites as intended (as well as supporting sites) rather than trying to force my will onto sites. I used to run into so many edge cases where the adblocker/flashblocker would break my experience. And if sites truly offend me with their ads, it is no skin off my nose. I just don't visit anymore.

fluidcruft 15y ago
I used to use flashblock. Lately I've just uninstalled flash. There is very, very little value to flash from a productivity point of view.
mst 15y ago
Agreed on "experiencing as intended" and "supporting" - also, on tech news sites it's of interest to me to know what adverts such sites' advertisers believe their users want. Plus I've found an extensionless firefox is much less crashy than one with any number installed (and yes, I know chrome exists, but I prefer the way firefox interacts with the high contrast bright-colours-on-black type desktop colour schemes I prefer to use)
piguy314 15y ago
I run a locked down browser with lots of privacy and security extensions for my personal use then sandbox a unmodified chrome instance for viewing ads on unfiltered pages for work use.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

nlolks 15y ago

Yep ... Good stuff. I also used AdMuncher. Just awesome and fast.

larrik 15y ago

I don't use adblock, but if I'm loading a page and it is sitting there waiting for <some ad server>, I'll go and kill it in my hosts file. I don't mind SEEING ads, but I am certainly not going to wait for them.

chokma 15y ago

Adblock Plus, NoScript, RequestPolicy - the latter also helps against privacy problems with Facebook-like buttons etc.

johanjessen 15y ago

It's funny. Since I removed flash from my main browser (Safari) the internet is much less annoying. Also, on the iPad it's fine to browse around (alas without any ad-blocker)

dutom 15y ago

I block ads, and am seriously considering putting ads on my next website. My only defense against hypocrisy is that there's nothing stopping users blocking ads too. Obviously if enough people did block ads, I'd have to rethink the biz model. I don't feel this is particularly evil - just trying to get by...

bobds 15y ago

First I used AdBlock and FlashBlock. Then I used AdBlock and NoScript. Then I stopped using AdBlock. What a shock that was. NoScript would still catch the nasty stuff and block those talking Flash ads, but it was much less noticeable. I don't use an adblocker now because it makes me feel out of touch with the reality of the regular user. I've been reconsidering lately, due to the proliferation of web crapware like Facebook like and Tweet buttons. Ideally, I'd like something that blocks the incessant tracking of my web usage, uses aggressive caching and placeholders to boost performance but still lets me see the web as the regular users see it.

Paris_Gun 15y ago
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your request, but maybe ghostery is what you want http://www.ghostery.com/download http://www.ghostery.com/download

citricsquid 15y ago

Advert revenue is what pays my bills, I would be a hypocrite to ad block, however even before I made money from adverts I didn't use an adblocker and don't really consider them much of an issue. So no, I don't.

djbender 15y ago

No. ClickToPlugin? yes. http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/ http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/

matwood 15y ago

Ads don't bother me. Flash and other plugins bother me so I use a flash/plugin blocker. Keep the ads text and I'll at least see them show up on the page :)

pnathan 15y ago

Yes, I use ABP and Ghostery. I would run noscript, but too many sites are incapable of rendering in plain html these days.

Glowbox 15y ago

Adblock, Noscript, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy and ShareMeNot. I'm using Firefox.

eli 15y ago

I don't mind most ads. But I do manually block particularly bad ones. I wouldn't use one of those AdBlock subscriptions though. Sure, maybe now you won't be "tracked" by as many ad networks, but you're allowing your web experience to be edited by some unknown party. Most configurations don't even show you what you're missing.

hackNightly 15y ago

Banner ads are the reason that several of our favorite websites can even exist. Therefore, no, I do not block ads. It's almost internet blasphemy.

maggit 15y ago

Opera comes with a "content blocker" that I use. If I see an annoying ad, I block its origin. I count all animated ads as annoying, because they distract me from the content. In blocking only a few sources, this takes care of nearly all ads on the Internet, with the notable exceptions of Google's and Facebook's ads. These I don't mind. I don't interact with them either, but I see no obligation to.

m30wmix 15y ago

as a few of you have pointed out, i'm at the point where i can't really stand to browse without an adblocker of some sort - and so use a combination of adblock + ghostery. for those that may not be aware, if you flash your router with tomato/dd-wrt/etc you can install an adblocker/host script which will allow all mobile (iphone/ipad/android/etc) devices to browse relatively ad-free when connected to wifi.

misterbwong 15y ago

No because I find it annoying to have to turn blocking on/off (or switch browsers) while I'm developing on my company's (ad driven) site. The fewer distractions, the better.

jayeff 15y ago

When I got my current laptop about 1 1/2 years ago I didn't install an ad-blocker (or NoScript or FlashBlock) and really don't care anymore. Ads improved over the last view years. My solution for sites with crazy ad banners/skyscrapers (too colorful, too much movement or - worst of all - play sound) is simply to stop visiting them. Sidenote: If I tend to somehow return over and over again they get an entry in /etc/hosts). And yes, pop-ups are blocked (as it's default in Chrome)

TeMPOraL 15y ago

I don't, because I'm too lazy to install one (I change browsers often). Also, I use ads as a general 'trustworthiness' metric of a website/service. The more ads are there relative to content, the more tricky are those ads, or the more ugly they are - the more I'll consider a website to be scammy/malicious. It seems to have worked quite good for me so far.

cookiecaper 15y ago

I usually don't mind browsing without an adblocker enough to put it back on... until I visit Phoronix. I do find the experience to be better generally and less distracting with an adblocker, however.

Georgiy 15y ago

I block ads cause i don't want to deceive advertisers :) i never buy anything through banners.

froseph 15y ago

Flashblock, but that was primarily motivated my the amount of CPU it sucks up on my e350 based laptop.

Freestyler_3 15y ago

I don't like the ads that pop into my face like someone threw a flier in my face. Ads have always had their respective places on websites, but lately the aggressiveness of advertisement is out of control and those are the ones I block. When a website is supposed to be user friendly but it has a lot of ads in uncomfortable zones then I tell myself that the website does not deserve another user and I stop visiting.

runjake 15y ago

Yes, but I use that option that shows me Google text ads. They're unobtrusive and sometimes they're of interest. I also disable plugins (click 2 flash/java/shockwave/etc).

city41 15y ago

I don't frequent sites that have annoying ads. The sites I do frequent I have no problem "paying" for them by letting ads in.

gruuk 15y ago

I haven't used an adblocker in years; I do use flashblock and nuke anything (to remove ads that appear over content). Just these two are enough to deal with the most annoying ones, the rest of the ads don't bother me too much.

Zirro 15y ago

For those who are as paranoid as me about any sites tracking you, I recommend taking a look at: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy It breaks the Internet a lot at first, but it gets better once you've used it for a while, allowing what makes sense. Nowadays I feel "exposed" without it.

Random_Person 15y ago

I don't visit websites that overly abuse ads. If I happen upon a site that forces advertisement on me, I close the window and move on. I'm generally consuming content that I can find on a variety of places. I'll simply try the next link in Google.

ghurlman 15y ago

I block Flash, and a majority of 3rd party Javascript -- this tends to catch ads, but it's not an adblocker, per se.

weaksauce 15y ago

If you were to have asked this about two weeks ago I would have said no. Sadly, performance and memory usage of javascript/flash has gotten to the point where I must use a script blocker. If the ad only contains a picture and does not load via js I will still see it; if the ad is on a page that I have explicitly allowed then yes as well.

troymc 15y ago

Wow, as I write this, it's 560 points for Yes. and 292 points for No. Lesson so far: If you want to reach the HN community, don't bother with a web advertising campaign.

GFischer 15y ago
I don't know about you, but I use a lot of different devices for internet navigation, and I only use Adblock on my main home pc and work pc, so on the rest I see ads.. One ad I see all the time is Chargify (another is the local airline that absolutely plasters me with ads, as it seems it's the one that bought the Uruguayan market on Google adsense)
Natsu 15y ago
That's what PR news stories are for. If you do something interesting enough, people will seek out more information on their own. For example, how many people will admit to having read about the place that was giving out free cows as a signing bonus?

mhartl 15y ago

I used an adblocker long enough to be bitten, multiple times, by false positives. Now I just deal.

betterth 15y ago

I block ads on all websites, except those that ask me to stop blocking ads. The first site I stopped blocking them on was Reddit. There are a few more now that detect that you block ads and politely ask you to disable it to conserve their business model. I gladly oblige. But for every well run site politely asking you to view their un-scammy non-crappy ads, there must be 100 full of whatever advertising program offers the most money, linking to all kinds of information stealing, questionable ethically companies. When your business model, advertising, begins to threaten the safety of my system, you better believe I'm blocking it!

Forrest7778 15y ago

I think that it is extremely unfair to block all ads as they are a lifeline for many people. I do however, try to avoid sites that have annoying ads as I expect that my loss in traffic will make a difference, no matter how small it may be. I also watch a lot of Justin.TV and Twitch.TV people and that is really where I base my beliefs. If someone gives too many commercials I simply turn off the stream.

GFischer 15y ago
The thing is, as usual, a few ruined it for the many. There are a few extremely obnoxious ads that made me install Adblock. I allow the Google text ads, though :)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

notatoad 15y ago

i feel bad about it, and keep trying to stop, but every time i disable adblock i end up turning it back on after a few days. if ads were less intrusive, i wouldn't mind them but so many websites get wrecked by the ads (verge, i'm looking at you).

chalst 15y ago

I use Dan Pollock's hosts file: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ which does the usual trick of 127.0.0.1-ing all kinds of unwanted URLs. Some people seem to find my Github mirror of the hosts file useful: https://github.com/chalst/pollockhostsfork https://github.com/chalst/pollockhostsfork

etaty 15y ago

Yes. Why? I am tired of ads with sound, hidden in one of my 50 tabs. And Youtube is not usuable with ads before a video.

cpeterso 15y ago

How much do websites get paid for ad views compared to ad clicks? I never click ads, but I am still "supporting" websites if I allow them to serve me ads?

Gustomaximus 15y ago

I'm different in that I really enjoy a well prepared ad. Seeing how it is supposed to work on people is quite interesting. Even spam can be a good read as those guys sometimes really put such quality content together (from a writing POV) made more interesting by what they are trying to sell you.

mindcrime 15y ago

Not really, no. I mean, whatever degree of "pop-up blocker" that Chrome has built-in, but no specific "ad blocker." Honestly, I don't see the point. Banner ads don't affect me one way or the other, and they're even (rarely) beneficial on occasion. As long as the ad isn't creating pop-ups and pop-unders and shit, I don't much care. Edit: Oh, there is one specific type of ad I find highly annoying and could possibly justify blocking... anything that makes noise without asking my permission. I tend to always have headphones on and have the volume up pretty good when I'm web surfing, and any stupid ad that starts talking or playing a jingle is annoying as f!#k. Fortunately they seem to be fairly rare. Enough so that the pain hasn't been enough to push me to install an ad-blocker anyway. But if more of those started to appear, I'd totally look for a way to block them.

mixmastamyk 15y ago

No, but flashblock, noscript, and image.animation_mode = once cut obnoxiousness to near zero without specifically targetting ads.

kfcm 15y ago

I use a cocktail of AdblockPlus, Ghostery, NoScript, CookieMonster, and BetterPrivacy. I've used Flashblock in the past, and may use it again, but there are a couple of flash game sites I frequent and BetterPrivacy takes care of the persistent flash cookie issue. All of these make browsing a lot speedier on my DSL connection. However, I'll admit they can also be a pain in the tuckus when wanting to log in, or a site requires JavaScript to view content. Still, I consider them worth it for "tracking" considerations alone.

mlinksva 15y ago

I generally do, but not at the moment, as I'm contemplating an advertising project and want to see what's out there (appalling as expected).

T-hawk 15y ago

I voted yes although it's not strictly true since I don't use an adblocker per se. I browse mostly in Opera, with plugins and images turned off. I have toolbar buttons to turn them on in one click when needed, but on 90% of sites that works fine and gets me just the text. Turning off Javascript is also one click away on the F12 menu for difficult sites. I also have a custom style sheet in Opera to force all text to black-on-white at a reasonable size and my choice of font. This makes the web pretty manageable, without depending on browser extensions or addons.

finnw 15y ago

No, just FlashBlock and a hosts file that blocks the Facebook "Like" button (but nothing else.)

clog 15y ago

I voted yes, meaning I use a flash blocker which helps not wasting battery on all kinds of flash stuff running in the background including ads.

kingsidharth 15y ago

No option for "Used to but not anymore?" It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.

kingsidharth 15y ago

No option for "Used to but not anymore?" It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.

kingsidharth 15y ago

No option for "Used to but not anymore?" It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.

kingsidharth 15y ago

No option for "Used to but not anymore?" It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.

brcrth 15y ago

So every week there's a pool asking if people block ads?

krelian 15y ago

I knew about adblock from the very beginning but I only broke down and installed it last week. The reason was one particular forum where while I didn't have problems with the ads themselves (I simply don't visit sites that have intrusive ads) they were just loading extremely slow. My eyes have been opened after that. I knew I could speed up my surfing a little bit by using adblock but I didn't know that the difference was so huge. I decided to keep using adblock but with an empty filter to which I will add offending sites instead of just disabling everything.

dangerboysteve 15y ago

I block the shit out of everything. This includes the facebook API crap.

sukuriant 15y ago

On my netbook* in particular. Those ads are expensive to render. * Lenovo x120. It's not technically a netbook as it's more powerful than one, but it's still weak in the grand scheme of personal computers.

kevinchen 15y ago

I use ClickToFlash, which gets rid of the annoying, CPU-hogging ads while supporting most websites.

davimack 15y ago

Adblock never gets turned off and hasn't since I discovered it. When I'm shopping, I'm shopping - the rest of the time, I'm actually doing something and since it's my computer I feel that I can edit the heck out of whatever it is which is served up to me - they're giving it away, I'm letting something censor out the garbage, of which ads are a huge part. I also use NoScript, FlashBlock, RefControl, RequestPolicy plugins for precisely the same reason: I'm not visiting a page to read some garbage hosted somewhere else (i.e., the pretty pictures and styling you've hosted elsewhere, for some reason), nor for you to do fun things with scripts, nor to see anything move (and, incidentally, spy on me). The web has become increasingly about hawking wares and doing so based upon observing behavior. I don't like the idea, even if it _could_ tell me about something which I would like to buy: if I _need_ something, I'll hunt for it. If I don't actually _need_ something, though, I don't want to have the equivalent of a dirty-old-man offering me candy from the back of his van if only I'd step inside for awhile. And I certainly don't want that dirty-old-man following me around, observing me, to find out what my favorite kinds of candy are, so that he can entice me into being a statistic.

jl6 15y ago

No. I just don't go back to websites with annoying ads. I have yet to come across a website with utterly compelling content and also utterly intolerable ads.

vsviridov 15y ago

Since most banner networks pay per click, and I never click on a banner anyway, there's no point for me to see them. So AdBlockPlus all the way...

theorique 15y ago

The first thing I install on a new computer / new browser is adblock. Once the bits leave the server, they're available to rewrite as the user sees fit. And I have no problem with doing so in an automated way, to remove content that I know I will never be needing.

4ad 15y ago

I don't use an ad blocker, but I don't regularly visit any web site with ads. If a website has ads I leave never to return again.

scott_s 15y ago
You don't read any newspapers online? Or read any web comics?
- 4ad 15y ago
  I read comics in a RSS reader, ads don't show up, though I've just checked and the only web comics I read that have ads are dilbert, and in linux mode[1] the only non-dilbert related ads are textual, and at the bottom of the page. I read news, though I don't read any particular newspaper, and news links often lead to pages with ads, but those pages are not sites I visit on a regular basis. It's very possible I visit sites with ads that I did not see. I don't look for them. If ads catch my eye it's a big sign not to visit that site anymore. [1] http://dilbert.com/fast/ http://dilbert.com/fast/

cpeterso 15y ago

Another option is "Beef TACO", a Firefox add-on that generates cookies to opt-out of tracking for known ad networks without blocking the ads themselves.

danudey 15y ago

I set up a new Windows machine the other day, using Chrome as my primary browser. Within five minutes of sitting down to do some browsing, I had loaded a page with a Flash video ad, with sound, that started playing automatically. Sorry internet, but a few obnoxiously bad apples spoil the bunch. Websites I visit frequently I subscribe to (e.g. Ars Technica), but the massive amount of poor, distracting, or annoying ads, the poor layouts that are 60% ads and 40% content, and the pages that take literally 10-20 times longer to load because of all the (slow) external resources? Not worth it.

netnichols 15y ago

No, but I do use a Flash blocker. I find for the moment that's enough to keep me sane.

wnoise 15y ago

I don't specifically block ads, but I only execute white-listed JavaScript which effectively does block ads.

nogui 15y ago

Don't need one because I don't use Javascript.

moderation 15y ago

I'm a fan of Glimmerblocker (http://glimmerblocker.org/ http://glimmerblocker.org/) on OS X - you set it up at the system level and therefore works on all browsers, RSS readers, etc. It doesn't handle SSL and with more sites going that way I may need to start adding some browser specific blocking. Edit - at work on Windows I use SRWare Iron which is an awesome Chrome derivative running Fanboy's Adblock list at http://fanboy.co.nz/adblock/iron.html http://fanboy.co.nz/adblock/iron.html

dminor 15y ago

I don't, but I use Chrome with plugins blocked by default, which has the side effect of limiting the ads I see.

maximusprime 15y ago

Amongst the general online population it's about 1%. Judging from the results here so far, it's pretty clear that a large amount of HNers are in that minority.

RexRollman 15y ago

I don't use an adblocker but I do use NoScript.

w1ntermute 15y ago

Of course. AdBlock + Flashblock + OptimizeGoogle (blocks Google ads) + Ghostery. Say what you want about the ethics of adblocking, but at this point, browsing the web without an adblocker is truly painful for me, as I've been using one for 5+ years.

maximusprime 15y ago

Trying to speak reason to HN on this is a lost cause. Look at the results of the poll so far: About 65% of HN use an adblocker. The general online population, only about 1% use an adblocker. HN is heavily heavily biased away from advertising. HN also mistakenly probably thinks it's because they're "early adopters" or more "technical". The truth is more like HN is in a bubble, anti-mainstream etc. If you did a poll on here to find out how many people watched American Idol, you'd probably find similar results - but that wouldn't mean HNers were 'ahead of the curve', it'd just mean HNers aren't "mainstream". Get out of your bubble HN. Do what your potential users do - view ads. Maybe even buy a TV as well!

dredmorbius 15y ago
HN is heavily biased toward hackers and tweakers, in the sense of those who prefer to hack at and tweak their environments. Many, many, many moons ago I ran across a page which reported on user display resolution setting as reported via javascript. At a time when low-end equipment generally supported at least 800x600 and likely 1024x768 display, over 50% of users showed 480x640. Which was the Windows default at the time. Changing your display resolution takes 2-3 clicks: right click on Desktop, display settings, resolution. And "OK". And this was too much for people. The lesson was: people don't change defaults. So, oh you devs: choose really sane defaults. As for me? I've hacked my environment a lot over the several decades I've been using it, and I hack it a little bit more every day. Why? Because I become more productive in it, and it becomes more useful to me.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  I don't think that's the explanation. Reddit is also heavily anti-corporation, anti-advertising, anti-mainstream. It's just the culture on HN and Reddit. I've always been a hacker, tweaker etc. But I can't imagine how anything would work without advertising. And it's not something I find annoying or have trouble filtering out. It's like if you're walking down a street, and you see all the shop signs... If you're not interested, just keep walking.
  - 15y ago

mike-cardwell 15y ago

The three main reasons I block ads: 1.) Speeds up the web dramatically 2.) Increases privacy (Ad networks track users across sites) 3.) Improves security (Ad networks have been known to serve malware) I also dislike looking at them, but if it weren't for the above three problems, I'd probably skip the ad blocker and just ignore them.

aw3c2 15y ago
Same for me but in the order: Privacy, Speed, Security. I don't mind seeing them too much either. I have zero sympathies for websites that whine about ad-blockers when they don't care about my privacy.

D_Drake 15y ago

There are only two websites which I endorse enough to whitelist them in my adblockers. It's a case of having a finer control over the behavior of your web browser. Once upon a time, you had only rudimentary control, and had to use your eyes to ignore extraneous information. Adblocking gives us a little more automation. It's my hope that in the near future browsers will be able to parse the "real" content out of web pages in order to present it and only it to the user. Wouldn't that be nice? No more sidebars, no more banners or popups or buttons or other garbage, just paragraphs of text you want to read, pictures you want to see, and videos you want to watch, undiluted.

bifrost 15y ago

Yep, since 1998.

mkramlich 15y ago

need 3rd choice: use Flash blocker; which blocks a lot of ads but not all, as nice side effect

xefer 15y ago

Do you really care if people actually see they ad - or do you really only care that the provider thinks people see the ad? In other words, would it be okay if the ad blocker was set up to download the ad but simply not show it? Where are your ethics now?

DomainNoob 15y ago

Hoping Flattr catches on. It works flawlessly. It's how I want to support great content.

ultrasaurus 15y ago

I did a test on my website for adblocking. I'll write it up soon, but among the general population, about 30% of people seem to use adblock of some kind

hrabago 15y ago

I either tolerate the ads to support the site, or avoid the site altogether because they have too many ads that I get annoyed. Weather.com is the only exception I have to these rules. I use an ad blocker because their animated ads are just too annoying.

stefankendall 15y ago

I've gotten some value out of targeted ads.

dredmorbius 15y ago

AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery, Flashblock. Vaguely related: Autopagination (fixes multi-page sites), and Remove It Permanently. It's my browser, my computer, and my network connection. Damned straight I'm going to exert my preferences over them. Your crappy business model is your problem.

MattLaroche 15y ago

Weather.com has the best weather data, but the worst "professional" site on the internet. So I run AdBlock on Weather.com and allow most other sites to run ads.

ryanmacg 15y ago

I use Flash Block for most sites by default and will only disable it on sites I believe in supporting. I don't hate adverts I just dislike crappy flash ones slowing things down.

smh 15y ago

There was a Flash advert with a man gesturing and waving at me. It was so distracting I literally could not read the article text. I installed adblock and reloaded the page. An example of "tragedy of the commons", perhaps?

gcr 15y ago

Luakit (my web browser of choice) doesn't have an ad blocker extension yet. I find that I subconsciously don't visit websites with too many ads anymore, so it's not much of a problem.