5 ms·

It took me a long time to come around to using ad blockers. For a long time, my feeling was, "if you don't like ads don't use the web. You owe it to those web

It took me a long time to come around to using ad blockers. For a long time, my feeling was, "if you don't like ads don't use the web. You owe it to those websites to look at their ads". But then the ads just go so resource intense that I came around and finally installed an ad blocker. This however still feels one step too far. The ad blocker protects me from the resource utilization of ads. But if you're already blocking the ads, then the tracking shouldn't work anyway. How do you justify using their resources unnecessarily? Doesn't something like this make you no better than the advertiser?

creata 3y ago
> But if you're already blocking the ads, then the tracking shouldn't work anyway. But doesn't that fail if the blocking is anything short of perfect?
raincole 3y ago
People do this more for ideaology reason. For some people (not me) ads are inherently bad, so it's okay to abuse advertiser. Just like for some people, copyright are inherently bad, so piracy is not just a way to save several bucks, but a moral duty.
- jedberg 3y ago
  People also commit terrorist acts and justify it as "ideological".
  - raincole 3y ago
    I didn't say I agree on these ideologies. I actually support the website owner's legal right to not serve users with ad blockers who don't pay in any other way.
  - sambapa 3y ago
    Still better than people who commit terrorist acts only for money.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Are you just pointing out that sometimes justifications are wrong? Yeah, we know.
  - CapsAdmin 3y ago
    I think using the cultural stigma of a "terrorist act" to make an analogy like that isn't very productive. It's as effective as saying "People also do bad things for ideological reasons", simply stating as fact that violating copyright is bad ignoring any of the nuance that was provided.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Clicking on ads consumes actual real world resources of the ad network (which is passed on to the advertiser). This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale.
      - brokenmachine 3y ago
        Attaching unwanted ads and tracking to desired content also consumes actual real world resources for people who don't want ads. Seems to go both ways.
      - memefrog 3y ago
        >Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Of course it does. It violates their rights. > This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale. "Stochastic terrorism" is a nonsense concept anyway.
        jedberg 3y ago
        Your intellectual inconsistency is amusing. You believe in intellectual property but not stochastic terrorisim, even though both are just created concepts to explain things that people believe exist.
        memefrog 3y ago
        That is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you believe that everything with a name exists? If I say the words "the great replacement" does that mean that it actually exists? If I say "COVID-19 lab leak" does that confirm the truth of that theory too? I tried saying "my enormous wealth" a few times, but I'm still not enormously wealthy. Do you have any tips for how I can learn to make things true just by referring to them? To be more serious: "stochastic terrorism" is nonsensical because it attributes to a person some act that is not his responsibility. It doesn't matter how large your audience is or what you suspect they might do with the information: saying "this hospital performs masectomies on teenage girls" will never be a terrorist act, even if some audience member allegedly called in a bomb threat later. In no way, shape, or form is that act attributable to him. If you say something, and someone reacts by doing something, that is not your fault, and never will be.
  - mrd3v0 3y ago
    A lot of nefarious, brutal and unethical behaviour that is completely normalised in today's world will be considered terrorist or otherwise in the future. It is still ideological no matter how horrible we think it is.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      Any examples?
InvertedRhodium 3y ago
No one is forcing the advertiser to offer their resources for your use, so why would anyone feel the need to justify it?
tbrownaw 3y ago
Yes, the purpose is to inflict harm. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malice https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malice
- memefrog 3y ago
  How are you harmed by being sent HTTP GET requests
rainbowzootsuit 3y ago
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -H. L. Mencken
stodor89 3y ago
If it's okay for the corporate leviathan to automate the serving of ads, then it should be okay for me to automate viewing them, lol.
- jedberg 3y ago
  "If it's ok for WalMart to abuse workers, it's ok for me to steal from them". You could also just choose to not shop at WalMart. If it bothers you so much, run an adblocker. That should be more than enough to get your point across.
  - stodor89 3y ago
    Google isn't Walmart, and automating ad-clicking isn't looting. At least that seems to be the world we live in, no?
bardan 3y ago
I don't use AdNauseam but I have been thinking about it more lately, not out of malice but because I wonder if it's simply a more efficient way of preventing trackers from learning about me than by standard blocking. I am concerned no amount of blocking is going to cut it, and there will always be little leaks of my data. If I stop trying to hide from them and instead jam their systems with as much noise as possible, maybe they will have less useful information about me than if I continue to hide while dropping inevitable, accidental breadcrumbs.
reacharavindh 3y ago
Have you ever considered the corollary? Speaking TO the ad networks.. "If you dont like strangers clicking on ads, may be consider not presenting the ads to them?" I'm perfectly fine with a blog author carrying a banner on their domain advertising for a service that paid for thier blog post. What I'm NOT fine with is a blog post carrying an ad served by a tracking company that wants to know who I am, what my interests are, and how to get me to buy more things I dont need. If a blog presents such ad, they deserve to be fired upon.... by tools like Ad nauseum IMO. It is only fair.

creata 3y ago

> But if you're already blocking the ads, then the tracking shouldn't work anyway. But doesn't that fail if the blocking is anything short of perfect?

raincole 3y ago

People do this more for ideaology reason. For some people (not me) ads are inherently bad, so it's okay to abuse advertiser. Just like for some people, copyright are inherently bad, so piracy is not just a way to save several bucks, but a moral duty.

jedberg 3y ago
People also commit terrorist acts and justify it as "ideological".
- raincole 3y ago
  I didn't say I agree on these ideologies. I actually support the website owner's legal right to not serve users with ad blockers who don't pay in any other way.
- sambapa 3y ago
  Still better than people who commit terrorist acts only for money.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Are you just pointing out that sometimes justifications are wrong? Yeah, we know.
- CapsAdmin 3y ago
  I think using the cultural stigma of a "terrorist act" to make an analogy like that isn't very productive. It's as effective as saying "People also do bad things for ideological reasons", simply stating as fact that violating copyright is bad ignoring any of the nuance that was provided.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Clicking on ads consumes actual real world resources of the ad network (which is passed on to the advertiser). This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale.
    - brokenmachine 3y ago
      Attaching unwanted ads and tracking to desired content also consumes actual real world resources for people who don't want ads. Seems to go both ways.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      >Violating copyright doesn't actively harm the copyright holder. Of course it does. It violates their rights. > This is basically stochastic terrorisim on a small scale. "Stochastic terrorism" is a nonsense concept anyway.
      - jedberg 3y ago
        Your intellectual inconsistency is amusing. You believe in intellectual property but not stochastic terrorisim, even though both are just created concepts to explain things that people believe exist.
        memefrog 3y ago
        That is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you believe that everything with a name exists? If I say the words "the great replacement" does that mean that it actually exists? If I say "COVID-19 lab leak" does that confirm the truth of that theory too? I tried saying "my enormous wealth" a few times, but I'm still not enormously wealthy. Do you have any tips for how I can learn to make things true just by referring to them? To be more serious: "stochastic terrorism" is nonsensical because it attributes to a person some act that is not his responsibility. It doesn't matter how large your audience is or what you suspect they might do with the information: saying "this hospital performs masectomies on teenage girls" will never be a terrorist act, even if some audience member allegedly called in a bomb threat later. In no way, shape, or form is that act attributable to him. If you say something, and someone reacts by doing something, that is not your fault, and never will be.
- mrd3v0 3y ago
  A lot of nefarious, brutal and unethical behaviour that is completely normalised in today's world will be considered terrorist or otherwise in the future. It is still ideological no matter how horrible we think it is.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    Any examples?

InvertedRhodium 3y ago

No one is forcing the advertiser to offer their resources for your use, so why would anyone feel the need to justify it?

tbrownaw 3y ago

Yes, the purpose is to inflict harm. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malice https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malice

memefrog 3y ago
How are you harmed by being sent HTTP GET requests

rainbowzootsuit 3y ago

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -H. L. Mencken

stodor89 3y ago

If it's okay for the corporate leviathan to automate the serving of ads, then it should be okay for me to automate viewing them, lol.

jedberg 3y ago
"If it's ok for WalMart to abuse workers, it's ok for me to steal from them". You could also just choose to not shop at WalMart. If it bothers you so much, run an adblocker. That should be more than enough to get your point across.
- stodor89 3y ago
  Google isn't Walmart, and automating ad-clicking isn't looting. At least that seems to be the world we live in, no?

bardan 3y ago

I don't use AdNauseam but I have been thinking about it more lately, not out of malice but because I wonder if it's simply a more efficient way of preventing trackers from learning about me than by standard blocking. I am concerned no amount of blocking is going to cut it, and there will always be little leaks of my data. If I stop trying to hide from them and instead jam their systems with as much noise as possible, maybe they will have less useful information about me than if I continue to hide while dropping inevitable, accidental breadcrumbs.

reacharavindh 3y ago

Have you ever considered the corollary? Speaking TO the ad networks.. "If you dont like strangers clicking on ads, may be consider not presenting the ads to them?" I'm perfectly fine with a blog author carrying a banner on their domain advertising for a service that paid for thier blog post. What I'm NOT fine with is a blog post carrying an ad served by a tracking company that wants to know who I am, what my interests are, and how to get me to buy more things I dont need. If a blog presents such ad, they deserve to be fired upon.... by tools like Ad nauseum IMO. It is only fair.