12 ms·

Alongside a password manager and keeping things up to date, using an ad blocker is truly a foundational security practice these days. The big advertising player

• redwood 11mo ago
  Is there a top recommended ad blocker that has strong security Bona fides you recommend for android?
  • c0brac0bra 11mo ago
    Brave Browser
  • coldpie 11mo ago
    Use Firefox and install the uBlock Origin extension in Firefox. I also suggest turning on the Annoyances and Cookie Banner filters in the uBO settings. They get rid of many popups. Blocking in-app ads is a whole other ballgame. I don't have any suggestions for that.
  • macNchz 11mo ago
    I don’t use Android, but I understand uBlock Origin works with Firefox on it, which is kind of the gold standard on desktop, given the other browsers now restrict extensions in ways that make ad blockers less effective.
    • DavidPeiffer 11mo ago
      Yes, this works very well. The element zapper interface is a little challenging or I intuitive, but just using a default block list is so much better than using the internet without any ad blocking.
  • kelvinjps10 11mo ago
    Besides Firefox and unlock, I recommend rethink and the block lists, it will block ads in other apps.
  • Larrikin 11mo ago
    You can actively poison your ad profile by using AdNauseum, which clicks on all the ads and then throws away the response. The actual ads are still hidden using UBO under the hood. You can also use AdGuard+Tailscale to get DNS blocking of all ads on all devices. Tailscale will let you block in app ads, even on your phone even when on the cell network. I combine both to block as much as possible.
  • Noaidi 11mo ago
    Get Mullvad VPN. It has ad and many other DNS blockers built into the app.
  • asadotzler 11mo ago
    uBlock Origin with Firefox. Nothing blocks as well, or from as trustworthy a provider.
• fouronnes3 11mo ago
  I don't see how the yearly tech support I do with my parents at Christmas will not one day converge to an outright ban of the internet. I am now demoing the level of sofistication of AI powered scams, telling them that it is now entirely possible they will get a VIDEO CALL from me that's not actually me asking for God knows what in a very convincing way using my face and voice. I am scared and this close to setting up a secret passphrase in case they need to tell me appart from a clone.
  • cj 11mo ago
    My guess is the already-existing trend towards walled gardens will simply continue. When a public space is dangerous, people retreat into "safe" enclosed spaces. - "Never download anything unless it's from the Apple App Store" - "Never buy anything unless you're on amazon.com" - "Dont use the internet outside of ChatGPT"
    • deaux 11mo ago
      A little ironic when Amazon is filled to the brim with scams.
      • nxpnsv 11mo ago
        Yeah, I'm def having more success using the Never buy anything from Amazon rule...
        • da02 11mo ago
          What have been your alternative(s) to Amazon?
          • SoftTalker 11mo ago
            Local stores, or manufactures' own retail sites, for me. Been burned too many times by Amazon for them to ever regain my trust.
          • 11mo ago
• malfist 11mo ago
  This isn't a situation we accept out of other industries. You water provider doesn't get to pipe you sewage every now and again because its too expensive to moderate. We shouldn't accept it for big tech either. And we certainly shouldn't make it the responsibility of the end use to protect themselves
  • strogonoff 11mo ago
    If everybody on social media was an actual paying customer of social platforms, like we pay mobile providers (I originally wrote “water providers”, which was in fact a somewhat unfit analogy), we could demand better service and switch away to a competitor who offers it. Unfortunately, we are robbed of our ability to pay with our wallets.
    • HPsquared 11mo ago
      You don't generally get to choose who pipes the water to your house.
      • dahart 11mo ago
        Would it help if you could? Hasn’t the bottled water industry demonstrated lower standards and more scams and marketing FUD than the EPA?
        • malfist 11mo ago
          Water in the pipes is higher standards precisely because we don't accept that the water utility can pump sewage to us 10% of the time.
          • strogonoff 11mo ago
            The problem with this analogy as I see it is that water supply is heavily regulated and uncompetitive due to exactly the fact of it being impossible to switch. For this to work for the likes of Meta, it would mean elevating Meta’s services to some sort of country-wide public utility, which I’m sure would create probably an even stronger moat than network effects, hindering any competiton. However, is there such a constraint in case of social media? There are mechanisms and open standards that could allow interoperability between providers who implement them. It seems that it should be possible to leave it up to market forces and competition, but for that we have to have competition and be able to vote with our wallets.
• bluGill 11mo ago
  I don't understand why the big advertisers don't scream about this. Facebook gets money from whoever, but the scams dilute the effectiveness of real companies that are not trying to scam you.
  • vintermann 11mo ago
    Do they? The difference may not be so clear cut always. A policy which got rid of scammy ads might get rid of a lot of "real companies" ads too.
    • bluGill 11mo ago
      We can debate what is a scam on the margins, but some things are clear scams.
  • carlosjobim 11mo ago
    Real companies don't give a damn about what they are actually doing. Facebook tells them that their ad which nobody clicked on got them 40 000 new customers. The worker who put the ad on Facebook gets a pat on the back from his boss. The boss gets a raise and maybe a promotion. Leadership gets shown numbers of how great advertising on Meta is and doesn't take 5 minutes to check them. If sales are low it is those god damned customers, better hike prices and reduce product quality to show the bastards!
    • bluGill 11mo ago
      Yet in the days of newspapers companies collected data to see how well their ads worked. There are a lot of statisticians working in this area - or there were 20 years ago.
      • mrguyorama 11mo ago
        The scam in online advertising is far more sinister; Google uses their panopticon to show your ad to a user who is just about to buy your product and then claim a conversion. So the stats look like Google is getting you thousands of conversions, when they only actually got a hundred people to look at your product who weren't already interested. This kind of bullshit was not possible in legacy advertisement. A billboard cannot change itself to always be showing an ad that can be claimed as a conversion to every single user. The newspaper ads could not change to ensure that you saw an ad that matched what you were about to purchase. >There are a lot of statisticians working in this area - or there were 20 years ago Weren't those people the exact ones who came up with "Half of ad spend is wasted but we don't know which half"? Targeted and online tracking based advertising has fundamental information asymmetry problems that fuck over everyone but Google and Meta.
• Workaccount2 11mo ago
  The answer isn't ad blocking, the answer is paying directly and in full (so no need to subsidize cost with ads) for the service. I cannot wrap my head around how generally intelligent people are completely blind to this. I guess 20 years of ad-block-is-the-norm has left people totally confused about internet monetization. I've never encoutered a problem that has such a clear answer, and that so many intelligent people get totally spun around the axle on. We need to start paying for ad-free services. Wake up.
  • vintermann 11mo ago
    Facebook has made it very clear that they don't want you to do this: you can pay for ad-free (I believe it's because they're legally obliged to offer that as a result of some things they'be done and deals they've made), but the cost is easily 100 times what they can make directly on ads for me. The only conclusion can be that they place an immensely high indirect value on serving me ads.
    • patentatt 11mo ago
      Same with streaming services, ad-free services seem to be unusually higher priced than the ad-supported tiers. Netflix for example charges $10 for ad-free over the ad support tier ($18 vs. $8). I’ve seen estimates that ad revenue per subscriber is less than that, maybe $4-$8. And there’s a cost to that revenue as well, so their profit is even lower. Why go through all that trouble? Maybe the economics works out somehow, in that users willing to pay to get rid of ads are so price insensitive they may as well squeeze them for more money? Or the lower subscription cost opens up enough new subscribers to make it worthwhile to tolerate a much lower margin. I am very suspicious though and wonder if there is a more insidious or otherwise opaque motivation behind it. Is there some kind of ‘soft power’ benefit to being in the ad business?
    • mr_toad 11mo ago
      They’re probably assuming that anyone who would pay for Facebook has a large disposable income, which means that they’re a juicy add target, and they are worth much more than the average Facebook user.
• vintermann 11mo ago
  Facebook is one of the few pages my ad-blocker can't handle. In part I think this is because they do it differently by country, but mostly it's because Facebook makes a ton of effort to make it hard to recognize what's an ad from the page code.
  • asadotzler 11mo ago
    Get uBlock Origin, it works, even on Facebook.
    • vintermann 11mo ago
      Nope, it's what I have. It works in your country, but not in mine. They're serving up different versions of the site, with different adblock-blocking tricks.
• ferguess_k 11mo ago
  Just curious what password manager I should use? I'm considering using a password manager instead of the Google ones and gradually switch all passwords to generated ones instead the one I usually use. Searched through HN for the last 6 months but found just too many posts about PM.
  • 542458 11mo ago
    I believe Bitwarden, 1Password, or the stock Apple one are the typically recommended ones. Bitwarden is free (and can be self-hosted), 1Password is paid and has a slightly nicer UX, and the Apple one is good but requires you to be in their ecosystem. I personally use Bitwarden and have had no issues.
    • ferguess_k 11mo ago
      Thanks, I heard about the 1Password leak, but just checked online and looks their it's just their Okta system, not client info?
  • jeffbee 11mo ago
    The Google one is quite good if you use Chrome anyway.
    • ferguess_k 11mo ago
      Thanks, I use Firefox but I did save all of my past passwords in Google password already. So I guess I could keep it. I might switch anyway though as I'm switching to Brave.
      • frm88 11mo ago
        I use KeePass XC. Open source, free, local storage with versions for both Linux and Windows and mobile (even carry your DB on an USB stick, works like a charm).
  • terminalshort 11mo ago
    IMO MFA (or a passkey) is much more important. Most online accounts I have I couldn't give a rats ass if someone got in. (Not that they would because there would be no monetary value to them). Best to focus on those that are important and set MFA on them. If they don't offer MFA, find someone else who does. MFA + crappy password is better than strong PW w/o MFA, because even a PW manager can be leaked. This isn't to say you shouldn't care about secure PWs, but IMO it's the less important factor here.
• simpaticoder 11mo ago
  *>They could massively reduce the volume of scams advertised on their networks I'm not entirely sure that's true. It's equivalent to asking a platform to moderate all "harmful content" off the site. "Scam" is fundamentally subjective, just as "harm" is. The real solution is to reform the justice system such that a citizen feeling they've been defrauded has a quick and easy process to get satisfaction for themselves and other similarly harmed people. We need a streamlined, totally online court that excels at gathering and interpreting data, and a decision in days not years. The ad networks are themselves the natural allies of such a reform, but such a change can and should start small as a pilot program at the state level. If successful, it removes the considerable legal-cost moat protecting scammers, and so it no longer makes sense to even attempt such a business, and the world becomes a slightly better place.
  • zoeysmithe 11mo ago
    Scams are absolutely not subjective and capitalism fails at every level without regulation like this. Your comment is very libertarian housecat coded. Also 'just go to court' is such a naive take. As someone who has been in litigation before I can tell you those $350/hr billings add up quick. How many consumers can afford a 5 or even 6 digit legal bill for being scammed for a few hundred or thousands dollars on a FB ad? Of those who can, how many would see this pricetag as worth it? Sorry but small claims court isn't going to do discovery for you for some company hidden behind who knows how many storefronts and foreign proxies. You're going to have to do real litigation. Its absurd to expect every working class person to sue all scammers constantly. Instead ad providers should be policing their own ad networks and the working class should be using the government to implement proper regulations to protect ourselves.
    • simpaticoder 11mo ago
      People's first instinct is to attack the thing they don't like directly. The second instinct should be to consider the system in which those things arise, and what the incentives are for everyone involved. If you have a roomful of loud children, you could apply draconian rules on silence; or, if you notice there is no sound-deadening and so the children are unwittingly participating in a positive feedback loop to be heard above the din, you can add material. My goal is not a libertarian one, its a minimalism one. Streamlining the court system has many other benefits besides this one; the excessive cost and time required to use the court is used systematically by malefactors at every level of society. From patent trolls to absurd rates of criminal prosecutions that are never heard by a jury, it's an enormous problem in our society. Regulation always seems simple, but there are inevitable unintended consequences. Sadly, those who see regulation as the only or best tool to shape behavior are quick to suggest yet more regulation to fix those unintended consequences, either unaware of the positive feedback loop or certain there exists some set of regulation that will finally, perfectly fix the system. I find this way of thinking naive; it is almost always better to make adjustments to the system to shape behavior that way. And in this case, the obvious way to do that is to fix the courts, and make justice affordable again.
• Semaphor 11mo ago
  Honestly, not just ad networks. It’s also publishers. We tried 2 major non-google ad networks. The amount of scams and borderline scams were crazy. And apparently asking for some quality control is complicated. Even with google and ad-exchange, we had to raise the minimum costs by quite a bit to keep most of the scams out. This lowers revenue so most publishers have the same interest in fighting those scams as the networks. The only reason to fight against the scams is because one cares a little about ones viewers (well, and I guess maybe a bit of brand safety). Which seems to not be the case for the vast majority.
• zahlman 11mo ago
  Just to be clear, the engagement is the problem, yes? We're reasonably secure against zero-click malware from ads by now I would hope?
  • ozim 11mo ago
    I think you don’t see ads that are served in there. Those are outright scams like fake investments and not just crypto but outright “buy big company X shares to get rich, photo of celebrity” with celebrities not even knowing they are used for those scam ads - meta doesn’t do shit about it. Zero click malware would be most likely too sophisticated. You click the ad contact people who will tell you where to wire money that’s the level we are talking about here.
    • zahlman 11mo ago
      Right. My point is that it still requires on social-engineering someone who reasonably ought to be primed to ignore all ads in the first place.
  • macNchz 11mo ago
    Zero click browser exploits still do pop up—it's also hard to say how common they are, because they're hard to detect, and likely to be used very judiciously by the people who discover them to avoid showing their hand. Ad networks have certainly been a direct vector for malware in the past. Within the past few years there were quite many malicious ads floating around that would trigger a redirect on load on iOS Safari, sending the user to a scam page (phishing, "you've won!", or instant redirect to the App Store), no engagement necessary. Some recent browser zero days/malicious ads situations, not necessarily "an ad loaded in my browser -> pwned", but reasonably applicable: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-ads-exploited-internet-explorer-zero-day-to-drop-malware/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-ads... https://www.welivesecurity.com/en/eset-research/romcom-exploits-firefox-and-windows-zero-days-in-the-wild/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/en/eset-research/romcom-explo... https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/chrome-zero-day-flaw-exploited/ https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/chrome-zero-day-f...
• duxup 11mo ago
  I have my view history turned off on Youtube. It appears that means I get a lot of low quality ads. Questionable health products, really questionable health products, "5G blocking beanies that prevent brain fuzzing", gross out advertisements about poop, and so on. It really lowers my perception of Youtube as a product as just any old site with content, but also scams / creepy stuff. Youtube don't care I suspect, it's money for them, and it re-enforces my desire to not give them money... so yeah they take money form who they can.
• AJ007 11mo ago
  The night before this story was published I was pondering what percentage of Youtube ads I was watching were scams -- not 100%, but it was higher than 50%. Which raises questions about semi-legitimate looking items might actually be soft scams or some kind of funny billing stuff going on. What percent of the global economy is scams? Sure, the investment manager charging 1% a year to put all of your retirement savings in ETFs that also charge 1-1.5% a year funneling money in to companies being raided by executives and employees isn't a scam scam, but it is a massive mis-allocation of resources and probably more damaging than some dumb item purchased from a Meta ad that never showed up. Same for recently legalized (in the US) sports betting. The startling thing is AI is being applied at scale to make this crap more pervasive. 10% scams? Meta would like advertisers to use their generative AI tools to create image and video ads of non-existent products. Best thing we can do is delete all phone apps and only access online media from behind firewalls that block all ads and tracking. Windows is dead. Apple is transitioning to an adtech company. Linux is the only option.
  • buellerbueller 11mo ago
    I am not following the meta, so could you please explain >Windows is dead.
  • charcircuit 11mo ago
    >but it was higher than 50% I don't relate with this at all. I get ads for normal insurance companies, uber eats, air bnb, and gacha games to name a few. None of them are scams, so I can't understand understand why so many people on hacker news complain about scams. Do you live in a region with barely any ad inventory?
    • AlexandrB 11mo ago
      > air bnb > gacha games How are these not scams?
      • charcircuit 11mo ago
        Being overpriced or having a bad value is not the same thing as a scam.
• vadoff 11mo ago
  What if you were required to put down a % of ad spend as a security deposit. Then if you were ever caught running a scam, you’d lose the deposit. It would make running scams unprofitable, or at the very least cut into profit a lot / disincentivize it.
  • pigeons 11mo ago
    Wouldn't that still not address the two problems mentioned, moderation costs and loss of scam ad revenue?
    • vadoff 11mo ago
      Loss of scam revenue, yes. But I'm not sure any of the networks actually want that (since they're spending money to moderate it out). As far as moderation costs go, it would be drastically cheaper than it is now since there would be far less scammers on the network.
• liquid_thyme 11mo ago
  Apple and Microsoft need to wake up and bake it into the OS. Hopefully that will take meta and google down a notch.
• tgsovlerkhgsel 11mo ago
  I don't understand how more countries don't hold the publisher responsible, especially after they are notified. I'm sure that in a classic newspaper, the publisher would be held responsible for obvious scam ads. But by intentionally automating and outsourcing everything, suddenly that responsibility goes away? Hold the publisher responsible, let them deal with the ad platform. Suddenly, it becomes very attractive to have an ad platform that doesn't allow scams. If the publisher and the ad platform are the same, even better.
• ChicagoDave 11mo ago
  Ad blockers don’t block Facebook ads because they appear as legitimate posts.
  • asadotzler 11mo ago
    You can use uBlock Origin's element blocker to kill cards that deliver ads (or any other standardized blocks)
• aussieguy1234 11mo ago
  I switched back to Firefox after Chrome watered down uBlock Origin's capabilities
• chipsrafferty 11mo ago
  With so many sites refusing to serve you without an ad blocker, is there any solution?
  • tgsovlerkhgsel 11mo ago
    I've very rarely encountered this with Firefox + uBlock Origin. The few sites that do are easily ignored.