4 ms·

My Browser My Rights. I don't allow ads because no matter how good you are, someone will figure out how to get malware into ads. Once a system is compromised, b

My Browser My Rights. I don't allow ads because no matter how good you are, someone will figure out how to get malware into ads. Once a system is compromised, best to burn it and start over. And now there are UEFI viruses that can reinstall malware even after the OS is wiped. And then there is the recent Gigabyte Motherboard discovery they were loading EXEs silently without approval. So no, I will not lower my protection.

Xenoamorphous 3y ago
Their site, their rights (to block you)? You're going to cost them bandwidth and give nothing in exchange, so it's only fair. Nothing forces you to visit the site.
- kergonath 3y ago
  It’s a straw man. Nobody is saying they don’t have the right to stop serving content to people who block ads.
darig 3y ago
[dead]
mikro2nd 3y ago
"I don't allow ads" because ads are malware for the human brain. An ad is explicitly designed to hack our minds/emotions, and I, for one, won't go there (as far as I am able).
- flir 3y ago
  Same applies to an awful lot of youtube's actual content. (If you enjoyed this comment, please like and subscribe. It really helps me create more great content like this.)
- vanilla_nut 3y ago
  Exactly. Snow Crash explores the idea of a "mind virus", which seemed a little silly when I originally read the book. But nowadays, it's clear that most ad campaigns are exactly that: hacks of the brain. Just think about the ad strategies of, say, Coca-cola and Pepsi. They don't tell you about a new product. They don't inform you about any benefits of their product, or advantages relative to the competition. They purely exist to keep the brand names in your head, and associate the brand names with images of people having fun. And the saddest part is, it works! We desperately need regulation to prevent companies from hacking consumer's brains into zombies who grab products on the shelf based on how many times they've heard the name spewed out of their television in the last 24 hours. On the flip side, I would be happy to allow purely informative, contextual, non-tracking ads in my browser. Objective statements about new products I'm actually interested in? Sure! Privacy invading, mind manipulating mental malware? No thanks.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Exactly. Recently, this has been reminding me of all the hand wringing about "prompt injection vulnerabilities" - like e.g. when you have an LLM summarizing articles for you, or going over your inbox, and a malicious actor sneaks in a well-crafted bit of text that makes that LLM return you false information, or forward all your e-mails to attacker's address, etc. Well guess what, ads are exactly such prompt injection attacks, but on humans.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  Exactly. They are designed to do exactly that. I remember ads for companies that no longer exist. I remember ad campaigns that the companies abandoned decades ago. That was designed to be in my brain. To be the 'first choice' on products when equivalents exist. Some of this stuff was so effective it literally changed the way people buy things and why they buy them (mmmm bacon).
sbergot 3y ago
I mean it works both ways no? Their server their right? If they don't think they can benefit from you viewing the content they serve, they can choose not to serve it?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Yes, which is the reason I don't really care that much. If youtube dies tomorrow, something else will pop in its place. That is how internet is supposed to work. Route damage and whatnot. We all just got really happy and complacent with the current batch of benevolent overlords. Edit: Let me them turn on the screws, I says.
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Someone has to pay for the bandwidth and the servers. You can only convince investors so many times to burn their money for years so that everybody has access to video hosting. Maybe governments should step in.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      Or.. and I know how people are averse to paying their own money, people don't rely so much on other people's infrastructure? Yeah, it will require people to learn some things, but it would make web a little less unbearable again. But I dream. edit: I just thought about a little more. How would that work with UDM. Would they be able to detect that? edit 2: to the downvoters, tell me how I am wrong. Argue your point. Don't simply assume status quo is the desired state.
      - renewiltord 3y ago
        I lived through that and had self-hosted video. It's both expensive and painful: YT just delivers video very well, with auto captioning, and comments. I remember when you'd view a random site and hope video would play. If it's YouTube I expect it to work. Huge UX improvement.
- 3y ago
cwmma 3y ago
I mean that's totally within your rights, but it's also within their rights to be like, ok no ads, no free service.
eli 3y ago
I don't think anyone is disputing that? Google isn't saying, for example, that you're violating CFAA or DMCA by blocking ads. They're just saying they're going to block you. That's their right.
Octabrain 3y ago
For me is not even a question of security but a question of sanity. It feels like torture. You are watching something with your brain in that context and suddendly, a commercial about something I am not remotely interested is thrown to my face. I am simply not that kind of consumer. That's not the way I learn about products I'll buy later. In fact, I've never ever bought something I saw in a youtube commercial. IMHO, the current model of advertisement is broken.

Xenoamorphous 3y ago

Their site, their rights (to block you)? You're going to cost them bandwidth and give nothing in exchange, so it's only fair. Nothing forces you to visit the site.

kergonath 3y ago
It’s a straw man. Nobody is saying they don’t have the right to stop serving content to people who block ads.

darig 3y ago

[dead]

mikro2nd 3y ago

"I don't allow ads" because ads are malware for the human brain. An ad is explicitly designed to hack our minds/emotions, and I, for one, won't go there (as far as I am able).

flir 3y ago
Same applies to an awful lot of youtube's actual content. (If you enjoyed this comment, please like and subscribe. It really helps me create more great content like this.)
vanilla_nut 3y ago
Exactly. Snow Crash explores the idea of a "mind virus", which seemed a little silly when I originally read the book. But nowadays, it's clear that most ad campaigns are exactly that: hacks of the brain. Just think about the ad strategies of, say, Coca-cola and Pepsi. They don't tell you about a new product. They don't inform you about any benefits of their product, or advantages relative to the competition. They purely exist to keep the brand names in your head, and associate the brand names with images of people having fun. And the saddest part is, it works! We desperately need regulation to prevent companies from hacking consumer's brains into zombies who grab products on the shelf based on how many times they've heard the name spewed out of their television in the last 24 hours. On the flip side, I would be happy to allow purely informative, contextual, non-tracking ads in my browser. Objective statements about new products I'm actually interested in? Sure! Privacy invading, mind manipulating mental malware? No thanks.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
Exactly. Recently, this has been reminding me of all the hand wringing about "prompt injection vulnerabilities" - like e.g. when you have an LLM summarizing articles for you, or going over your inbox, and a malicious actor sneaks in a well-crafted bit of text that makes that LLM return you false information, or forward all your e-mails to attacker's address, etc. Well guess what, ads are exactly such prompt injection attacks, but on humans.
sumtechguy 3y ago
Exactly. They are designed to do exactly that. I remember ads for companies that no longer exist. I remember ad campaigns that the companies abandoned decades ago. That was designed to be in my brain. To be the 'first choice' on products when equivalents exist. Some of this stuff was so effective it literally changed the way people buy things and why they buy them (mmmm bacon).

sbergot 3y ago

I mean it works both ways no? Their server their right? If they don't think they can benefit from you viewing the content they serve, they can choose not to serve it?

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Yes, which is the reason I don't really care that much. If youtube dies tomorrow, something else will pop in its place. That is how internet is supposed to work. Route damage and whatnot. We all just got really happy and complacent with the current batch of benevolent overlords. Edit: Let me them turn on the screws, I says.
- adrianN 3y ago
  Someone has to pay for the bandwidth and the servers. You can only convince investors so many times to burn their money for years so that everybody has access to video hosting. Maybe governments should step in.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    Or.. and I know how people are averse to paying their own money, people don't rely so much on other people's infrastructure? Yeah, it will require people to learn some things, but it would make web a little less unbearable again. But I dream. edit: I just thought about a little more. How would that work with UDM. Would they be able to detect that? edit 2: to the downvoters, tell me how I am wrong. Argue your point. Don't simply assume status quo is the desired state.
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      I lived through that and had self-hosted video. It's both expensive and painful: YT just delivers video very well, with auto captioning, and comments. I remember when you'd view a random site and hope video would play. If it's YouTube I expect it to work. Huge UX improvement.
3y ago

cwmma 3y ago

I mean that's totally within your rights, but it's also within their rights to be like, ok no ads, no free service.

eli 3y ago

I don't think anyone is disputing that? Google isn't saying, for example, that you're violating CFAA or DMCA by blocking ads. They're just saying they're going to block you. That's their right.

Octabrain 3y ago

For me is not even a question of security but a question of sanity. It feels like torture. You are watching something with your brain in that context and suddendly, a commercial about something I am not remotely interested is thrown to my face. I am simply not that kind of consumer. That's not the way I learn about products I'll buy later. In fact, I've never ever bought something I saw in a youtube commercial. IMHO, the current model of advertisement is broken.