4 ms·

content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources, and no longer works in Chrome, which is the primary browser.

by tonymet 2y ago

coldpie 2y ago
So use Firefox.
- tonymet 2y ago
  tell that to the billion internet users who suffer from cookie banners. I'm talking about the network effect.
  - wtetzner 2y ago
    I'd think anyone capable of installing an adblocker in Chrome would be able to install Firefox + an adblocker. Obviously it would be better if adblocking wasn't required in the first place.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    I do tell them that. I can't help everyone, but I can help some.
ravenstine 2y ago
Those resources are well spent.
- tonymet 2y ago
  my point is that it's not "fixed". The issue plagues 99.9% of internet users.
elashri 2y ago
> content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources That's not true. On average any overhead in browsing performance introduced by ad blocking is compensated by the elimination of tracking and ads elements of the pages. It saves bandwidth and are better for UX. We can argue about business models but claiming it requires tremendous resources is not true. And content-based ad blocking still works in chrome but in much more limited capability compared to superior browser like Firefox.
wil421 2y ago
Switched to edge at work and Safari at home/mobile hasn't been a huge issue. Firefox is my secondary. Although I no longer do much web debugging, the switch from edge to chrome wasn't too painful.
barryrandall 2y ago
But it's not the only browser. The popularity of a particular form of foolishness does not diminish its foolishness.
consteval 2y ago
> content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources I don't have the evidence with me, but from what I've seen content-based blocking actually saves resources, both load times and memory. It's because Ads are not actually free or even cheap, you have to make a third-party request, load some content and JavaScript. So, if you spend a little to find and block those requests, you end up saving resources on average.

content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources, and no longer works in Chrome, which is the primary browser.

coldpie 2y ago

So use Firefox.

tonymet 2y ago
tell that to the billion internet users who suffer from cookie banners. I'm talking about the network effect.
- wtetzner 2y ago
  I'd think anyone capable of installing an adblocker in Chrome would be able to install Firefox + an adblocker. Obviously it would be better if adblocking wasn't required in the first place.
- coldpie 2y ago
  I do tell them that. I can't help everyone, but I can help some.

ravenstine 2y ago

Those resources are well spent.

tonymet 2y ago
my point is that it's not "fixed". The issue plagues 99.9% of internet users.

elashri 2y ago

> content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources That's not true. On average any overhead in browsing performance introduced by ad blocking is compensated by the elimination of tracking and ads elements of the pages. It saves bandwidth and are better for UX. We can argue about business models but claiming it requires tremendous resources is not true. And content-based ad blocking still works in chrome but in much more limited capability compared to superior browser like Firefox.

wil421 2y ago

Switched to edge at work and Safari at home/mobile hasn't been a huge issue. Firefox is my secondary. Although I no longer do much web debugging, the switch from edge to chrome wasn't too painful.

barryrandall 2y ago

But it's not the only browser. The popularity of a particular form of foolishness does not diminish its foolishness.

consteval 2y ago

> content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources I don't have the evidence with me, but from what I've seen content-based blocking actually saves resources, both load times and memory. It's because Ads are not actually free or even cheap, you have to make a third-party request, load some content and JavaScript. So, if you spend a little to find and block those requests, you end up saving resources on average.