6 ms·

It's not just the newer generations. I have multiple friends who are literally afraid of using ad blockers and sideloading apps on their Macs in fear of some im

It's not just the newer generations. I have multiple friends who are literally afraid of using ad blockers and sideloading apps on their Macs in fear of some imaginary boogeyman out to get them. And VPNs are exclusively the domain of criminals, apparently. There are a dominating amount of people who have turned into the caricature of the perfect CONSUMER. It is so frustrating.

lazide 2y ago
It might make more sense/be more palatable if you think of it as manifestations of particular inter-societal evolutionary strategies. And that people actually have less control over their actions than anyone is willing to acknowledge or believe.
- fuckbunker 2y ago
  [dead]
ruthmarx 2y ago
It's like the humans turned into cattle in the seventh season of Supernatural, except they are doing it to themselves.
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  Normies were an adaptation for social cohesion of followers of chieftain, it wasn't supposed to scale beyond, say, thousand people, MSM just parasitize on this instinct.
stogot 2y ago
To be fair, adblockers have an inordinate amount of access. We all trust uBlock’s creator but I’ve never met him. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat
- chris_wot 2y ago
  If adblockers have a huge amount of access, then consider how much access ads themselves have. uBlock Origin is open source.
  - riffraff 2y ago
    They have less access? When I visit my national healthcare website extensions can look at my traffic, but there are no ads. I'm not saying ad blockers are bad, but it's not like we didn't have extensions being subverted in the past.
    - oliwarner 2y ago
      You're taking about access you're afraid an extension might be exploited to expose versus ad networks and social media plugins that are known to expose. I'll take the potential bogeyman over the real one, thanks.
      - twisterius 2y ago
        [dead]
      - stogot 2y ago
        Since you missed it: theyre talking about extensions having access to portals where no ads exist
        oliwarner 2y ago
        I didn't miss it. That exposure is only a problem if the ad blocker extension misbehaves. It's a theoretical problem.
        Lvl999Noob 2y ago
        I am pretty sure most extensions (or at least ublock) can be set to stay off on specific websites? The extension can have an extra list of known safe sites that don't have ads where the extension stays off by default (should still be turn on-able because the list might be outdated).
Iulioh 2y ago
I, for example , i'm scared of using YouTube alternative clients like re(vanced) et simila, i'm personality scared to have my youtube/gmail account banned.
- gljiva 2y ago
  In case you watch on an Android phone: Newpipe doesn't even use your account, so the possibility of getting banned for it is much smaller. You can make playlists in it and track your history (locally), so I don't think it's inferior to the official app. On the contrary. Also, these new Android phones have the option to modify which app opens youtube links by default, so it's easy to just list Newpipe instead of the official app. The only downside are downtimes a few times per year when YT changes something and Newpipe devs are making a fix, which never took more than a few days.
- immibis 2y ago
  If you make a new account, they'll only ban that one. I've been permanently banned from Reddit for really dumb reasons more times than I can count. The first time, I was sad. Now, I know it's a war between users and admins, and an individual account isn't worth very much.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    Reddit bans are one thing, but your Gmail/Google Drive account getting banned? Not worth it, not over fucking Youtube ads. Remember, you don't have any recourse against Google bans.
    - beretguy 2y ago
      So don't use google products then.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Why do you assume you can only have one Google account?
    - account42 2y ago
onetokeoverthe 2y ago
make a tv movie called the craigslist killer and get every news program and social media troll room to hype it. change began with smartphone release and accelerated. the old internet with only the top half of the iq chart participating was better.
paganel 2y ago
It can go the other way, too. I’m a computer programmer and I don’t use an ad-blocker, one of the reasons being that the presence of add is a very good indicator of websites that I should avoid. That strategy makes me actuality consume less content on the web, which I find as a big plus, and that’s because the great majority of today’s websites are filled with ads. Related, the same goes for TV, where I don’t try to avoid them by purchasing an even more exclusive access to TV content (such as streaming), I just choose not to watch it because mainstream TV has become infested by ads. So the idea is not to play the game, just to ignore it.
- account42 2y ago
  That's not a very useful approach unless you go full Ted Kaczynski and disconnect entirely. For those of us living in a society, not seing ads when vising websites you effectively have to visit to do that is the preferable option. Nothing about an ad blocker stops you from limiting your exposure to ad-supported media but it makes it more bearable in the cases where avoiding it would be even worse.
- vunderba 2y ago
  While I understand the motivation, decent ad blockers such as uBlock Origin do a lot more than just block visible conventional advertisements. So by not running an ad block, unfortunately there might be a great deal of private data about your browser habits that are being exfiltrated without your knowledge.
safety1st 2y ago
"With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users." - Richard M. Stallman, 2011, writing in Der Spiegel He was right. He was always right. About all of it. People didn't listen, or perhaps were never introduced to his ideas. Software grew faster than the idea of free software (on some level this was inevitable, since the latter is by definition a subset of the former). And so, the noose tightened a little more every year. The remedy has never changed: you must explain to people why freedom is important, and what the terrible consequences are of non-freedom. Refer them to the free software ecosystem, Linux and the FSF. Many will not listen. But whether they listen is to some extent irrelevant. Life is more fulfilling when it is lived ethically. By doing your part to advocate for freedom and against its enemies, you are at least making your own welfare better, and hopefully someone else's too.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  You must have missed the other news this week. Linux has joined the dark side too. Banning people based on nationality is certainly against freedom and any kind of ethics worthy of being called that.
  - jvdvegt 2y ago
    I missed it, apparently. Link?
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      They banned people employed by sanctioned organisations from being maintainers. This one worked for a company making hardware for the Russian military. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225
      - safety1st 2y ago
        This is obviously unfortunate but I think the issue is a lot bigger than Linux. It should serve as a reminder that there are no liberals in war. The civil liberties you take for granted, in a major war, they will be gone. They will die in one day and it will take decades to get them back if ever. Remember that in WW2 America was throwing Japanese citizens into internment camps and the other side was doing far worse. Things that are unfathomable today but in a war with sufficiently high stakes they will happen again and more.
rustcleaner 2y ago
Those friends are why I own AAPL. Limit buy order for one more share of AAPL added to my IB before posting!
- beretguy 2y ago
  The reason I use iPhone is because it's not a Google product. Coincidentally, iPhone is the only realistic alternative.
  - account42 2y ago
    Do you really think it mattered whether the people in Jonestown drank Kool Aid or Flavour Aid? What matters is the poison and both Apple and Google ship plenty of it.
    - beretguy 2y ago
      What options do I have? Not be a member of society?
fl0id 2y ago
bwahaha what. sad.
vehemenz 2y ago
Mac apps have never bern restricted to the App Store, so I’m not sure the idea of “sideloading” makes sense to apply there. I still know what you mean though.
- estebarb 2y ago
  By default they are restricted since several years ago. Let's remember we are a minority, most people leave defaults as they come.
  - samatman 2y ago
    They really aren't. Anything signed will load, whether you download it from the App Store or not. Yes, there are some extra steps involved in loading unsigned programs, and the process is designed to make it sound a bit scary. I think that's the right tradeoff, reasonable people may differ. But we're talking about the App Store vs. not-the-App-Store, and again, there is nothing which could reasonably be described as a restriction involved in installing the same binary from either of those sources. The only difference is the details of where it comes from and how to install it, and clicking on a dmg or pkg is still a fully-supported workflow with no warnings or other interference.
consf 2y ago
[dead]

lazide 2y ago

It might make more sense/be more palatable if you think of it as manifestations of particular inter-societal evolutionary strategies. And that people actually have less control over their actions than anyone is willing to acknowledge or believe.

fuckbunker 2y ago
[dead]

ruthmarx 2y ago

It's like the humans turned into cattle in the seventh season of Supernatural, except they are doing it to themselves.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago
Normies were an adaptation for social cohesion of followers of chieftain, it wasn't supposed to scale beyond, say, thousand people, MSM just parasitize on this instinct.

stogot 2y ago

To be fair, adblockers have an inordinate amount of access. We all trust uBlock’s creator but I’ve never met him. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat

chris_wot 2y ago
If adblockers have a huge amount of access, then consider how much access ads themselves have. uBlock Origin is open source.
- riffraff 2y ago
  They have less access? When I visit my national healthcare website extensions can look at my traffic, but there are no ads. I'm not saying ad blockers are bad, but it's not like we didn't have extensions being subverted in the past.
  - oliwarner 2y ago
    You're taking about access you're afraid an extension might be exploited to expose versus ad networks and social media plugins that are known to expose. I'll take the potential bogeyman over the real one, thanks.
    - twisterius 2y ago
      [dead]
    - stogot 2y ago
      Since you missed it: theyre talking about extensions having access to portals where no ads exist
      - oliwarner 2y ago
        I didn't miss it. That exposure is only a problem if the ad blocker extension misbehaves. It's a theoretical problem.
      - Lvl999Noob 2y ago
        I am pretty sure most extensions (or at least ublock) can be set to stay off on specific websites? The extension can have an extra list of known safe sites that don't have ads where the extension stays off by default (should still be turn on-able because the list might be outdated).

Iulioh 2y ago

I, for example , i'm scared of using YouTube alternative clients like re(vanced) et simila, i'm personality scared to have my youtube/gmail account banned.

gljiva 2y ago
In case you watch on an Android phone: Newpipe doesn't even use your account, so the possibility of getting banned for it is much smaller. You can make playlists in it and track your history (locally), so I don't think it's inferior to the official app. On the contrary. Also, these new Android phones have the option to modify which app opens youtube links by default, so it's easy to just list Newpipe instead of the official app. The only downside are downtimes a few times per year when YT changes something and Newpipe devs are making a fix, which never took more than a few days.
immibis 2y ago
If you make a new account, they'll only ban that one. I've been permanently banned from Reddit for really dumb reasons more times than I can count. The first time, I was sad. Now, I know it's a war between users and admins, and an individual account isn't worth very much.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  Reddit bans are one thing, but your Gmail/Google Drive account getting banned? Not worth it, not over fucking Youtube ads. Remember, you don't have any recourse against Google bans.
  - beretguy 2y ago
    So don't use google products then.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Why do you assume you can only have one Google account?
  - account42 2y ago

onetokeoverthe 2y ago

make a tv movie called the craigslist killer and get every news program and social media troll room to hype it. change began with smartphone release and accelerated. the old internet with only the top half of the iq chart participating was better.

paganel 2y ago

It can go the other way, too. I’m a computer programmer and I don’t use an ad-blocker, one of the reasons being that the presence of add is a very good indicator of websites that I should avoid. That strategy makes me actuality consume less content on the web, which I find as a big plus, and that’s because the great majority of today’s websites are filled with ads. Related, the same goes for TV, where I don’t try to avoid them by purchasing an even more exclusive access to TV content (such as streaming), I just choose not to watch it because mainstream TV has become infested by ads. So the idea is not to play the game, just to ignore it.

account42 2y ago
That's not a very useful approach unless you go full Ted Kaczynski and disconnect entirely. For those of us living in a society, not seing ads when vising websites you effectively have to visit to do that is the preferable option. Nothing about an ad blocker stops you from limiting your exposure to ad-supported media but it makes it more bearable in the cases where avoiding it would be even worse.
vunderba 2y ago
While I understand the motivation, decent ad blockers such as uBlock Origin do a lot more than just block visible conventional advertisements. So by not running an ad block, unfortunately there might be a great deal of private data about your browser habits that are being exfiltrated without your knowledge.

safety1st 2y ago

"With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users." - Richard M. Stallman, 2011, writing in Der Spiegel He was right. He was always right. About all of it. People didn't listen, or perhaps were never introduced to his ideas. Software grew faster than the idea of free software (on some level this was inevitable, since the latter is by definition a subset of the former). And so, the noose tightened a little more every year. The remedy has never changed: you must explain to people why freedom is important, and what the terrible consequences are of non-freedom. Refer them to the free software ecosystem, Linux and the FSF. Many will not listen. But whether they listen is to some extent irrelevant. Life is more fulfilling when it is lived ethically. By doing your part to advocate for freedom and against its enemies, you are at least making your own welfare better, and hopefully someone else's too.

riehwvfbk 2y ago
You must have missed the other news this week. Linux has joined the dark side too. Banning people based on nationality is certainly against freedom and any kind of ethics worthy of being called that.
- jvdvegt 2y ago
  I missed it, apparently. Link?
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    They banned people employed by sanctioned organisations from being maintainers. This one worked for a company making hardware for the Russian military. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225
    - safety1st 2y ago
      This is obviously unfortunate but I think the issue is a lot bigger than Linux. It should serve as a reminder that there are no liberals in war. The civil liberties you take for granted, in a major war, they will be gone. They will die in one day and it will take decades to get them back if ever. Remember that in WW2 America was throwing Japanese citizens into internment camps and the other side was doing far worse. Things that are unfathomable today but in a war with sufficiently high stakes they will happen again and more.

rustcleaner 2y ago

Those friends are why I own AAPL. Limit buy order for one more share of AAPL added to my IB before posting!

beretguy 2y ago
The reason I use iPhone is because it's not a Google product. Coincidentally, iPhone is the only realistic alternative.
- account42 2y ago
  Do you really think it mattered whether the people in Jonestown drank Kool Aid or Flavour Aid? What matters is the poison and both Apple and Google ship plenty of it.
  - beretguy 2y ago
    What options do I have? Not be a member of society?

fl0id 2y ago

bwahaha what. sad.

vehemenz 2y ago

Mac apps have never bern restricted to the App Store, so I’m not sure the idea of “sideloading” makes sense to apply there. I still know what you mean though.

estebarb 2y ago
By default they are restricted since several years ago. Let's remember we are a minority, most people leave defaults as they come.
- samatman 2y ago
  They really aren't. Anything signed will load, whether you download it from the App Store or not. Yes, there are some extra steps involved in loading unsigned programs, and the process is designed to make it sound a bit scary. I think that's the right tradeoff, reasonable people may differ. But we're talking about the App Store vs. not-the-App-Store, and again, there is nothing which could reasonably be described as a restriction involved in installing the same binary from either of those sources. The only difference is the details of where it comes from and how to install it, and clicking on a dmg or pkg is still a fully-supported workflow with no warnings or other interference.

consf 2y ago

[dead]