3 ms·

> Dark traffic is unlike anything we have seen before. It’s demonetising publisher content at scale without user consent. Bull**: 1. Regardless which type of a

by stop50 1y ago

> Dark traffic is unlike anything we have seen before. It’s demonetising publisher content at scale without user consent. Bull**: 1. Regardless which type of adblocker (dns, browser, modified apps, ...) it always is with users consent, since its not the default. 2. If ads hadn't got this annoying, privacy abusing and dangerous(fake hotlines, malware, scam, ...) this wouldn't be something that is even required for an good security baseline. My employer requires that we use adblockers.

cvoss 1y ago
I'm all for adblockers, but I'm not sure I follow your complaint. From the article: > The study discovered that the majority of users did not choose to block ads, with ad-blocking technology often activated by a third-party like their employer at a network level, their educational institution, security software they installed, or public Wi-Fi networks. So, it's mostly not done by user opt-in. I'm further puzzled to find that you self-identified as a user with an adblocker not by your own choosing: > My employer requires that we use adblockers.
- jniles 1y ago
  In an employment context, do we consider the user to be the employer or the person using the computer? I would think it would be the device owner, which generally would be the employer. If so, then I would think the previous statement about adblocking being opt-in would still hold. It is just that advertisers are trying to indivually track and monetize employees on company devices and time. On my work machines I am generally not allowed to run software that my employer does not approve, why should ads be treated differently?
Yeul 1y ago
The thing is ad blockers have been around since somebody put the first pop up on their website. We are talking mid 90s ancient history here. And once someone has installed an ad blocker they are converted for life. I wonder if this is why smartphone apps are taking over? Much easier to inject ads that cannot be easily blocked.
- Larrikin 1y ago
  Tailscale+AdGuard are the new pop up blockers and browsers with extensions for the masses. Cracking apps on Android that remove the ads and other garbage from popular apps are the new leet proggies.

by stop50 1y ago

cvoss 1y ago

I'm all for adblockers, but I'm not sure I follow your complaint. From the article: > The study discovered that the majority of users did not choose to block ads, with ad-blocking technology often activated by a third-party like their employer at a network level, their educational institution, security software they installed, or public Wi-Fi networks. So, it's mostly not done by user opt-in. I'm further puzzled to find that you self-identified as a user with an adblocker not by your own choosing: > My employer requires that we use adblockers.

jniles 1y ago
In an employment context, do we consider the user to be the employer or the person using the computer? I would think it would be the device owner, which generally would be the employer. If so, then I would think the previous statement about adblocking being opt-in would still hold. It is just that advertisers are trying to indivually track and monetize employees on company devices and time. On my work machines I am generally not allowed to run software that my employer does not approve, why should ads be treated differently?

Yeul 1y ago

The thing is ad blockers have been around since somebody put the first pop up on their website. We are talking mid 90s ancient history here. And once someone has installed an ad blocker they are converted for life. I wonder if this is why smartphone apps are taking over? Much easier to inject ads that cannot be easily blocked.

Larrikin 1y ago
Tailscale+AdGuard are the new pop up blockers and browsers with extensions for the masses. Cracking apps on Android that remove the ads and other garbage from popular apps are the new leet proggies.