Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adblock Plus now sells ads

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 388 posts

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#71

Post by Fifer82 »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #54
jwise0 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the royal "we", perhaps :-) I started blocking ads because they dramatically slowed down my browsing experience. But I keep blocking ads because, fundamentally, I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me. The old Sean Tejaratchi quote - popularized by Banksy - applies here, I think - http://www.readingfrenzy.com/ledger/2012/03/taking_the_piss

>> "I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me." And you have no right to the content you're viewing but blocking ads on. If you really consider ads 'poison' surely boycotting sites that use ads is the solution or offering an alternative solution this is actually viable.

It is not up to us to solve that problem.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#73

Post by tedmiston »

tomp wrote: post #57
etatoby wrote: post #40

I, for one, agree with them. We started blocking ads because they had become 1. obnoxious, interfering with the fruition of the actual content; 2. dangerous, being a vector for malware and disrespecting our privacy; and 3. costly, for those with a slow or metered connection. Most people accept ads, if they are acceptable. They are the first company to actually push through with a plan to restore this market to sanity…

I disagree with them. To me, ads are unacceptable. They steal your attention and polute your mind with subtle signaling and behavioural patterns. I applaud iniciatives like São Paolo's outdoors ad ban [1], and wish it were implemented in many more cities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa

Sure, it would be ideal to live in a world without advertising. But if advertising is the cost we pay to monetize content like news, well, I'd rather accept that than other content models like paywalls.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#74

Post by misingnoglic »

gbin wrote: post #67

It is borderline malware at that point. I don't like ads but I still want to contribute to the sites so I just pay with contributor: https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ Disclosure: I work for Google but those opinions are my own.

Wow - it always amazes me when I see that Google has a fully fledged product that I've never heard of.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#75

Post by AdmiralAsshat »

Aardwolf wrote: post #26
kobayashi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've both dropped the mu have are now just uBlock/uBlock Origin

This is so confusing, why do ad blockers do that? For adblock, there is "adblock" and "adblock plus" For uBlock, there is "uBlock" and "uBlock Origin" Are there similarities between both those cases?

Forks happen. Things don't always go as planned. The original author of uBlock handed over the project to someone else, who promptly contributed nothing to the project other than to slap a "Donate" button on the page. The original author then reasserted control over the project by making uBlock Origin.

So to recap, uBlock is a stagnant branch of the project that has not been updated in some time and has seemingly been abandoned by the maintainer to instead work on a paid adblocker for iOS. uBlock Origin is actively being developed, and helmed by the original author. Use uBlock Origin. In a perfect world you wouldn't need to, but, it is what it is.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#76

Post by tedmiston »

gbin wrote: post #67

It is borderline malware at that point. I don't like ads but I still want to contribute to the sites so I just pay with contributor: https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ Disclosure: I work for Google but those opinions are my own.

First time seeing Contributor. This is interesting but… can you really use it everywhere, or do creators have to opt-in? I don't see pointed how Google sends money to authors.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#77

Post by balabaster »

jwise0 wrote: post #49
etatoby wrote: post #40

I, for one, agree with them. We started blocking ads because they had become 1. obnoxious, interfering with the fruition of the actual content; 2. dangerous, being a vector for malware and disrespecting our privacy; and 3. costly, for those with a slow or metered connection. Most people accept ads, if they are acceptable. They are the first company to actually push through with a plan to restore this market to sanity…

Well, the royal "we", perhaps :-) I started blocking ads because they dramatically slowed down my browsing experience. But I keep blocking ads because, fundamentally, I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me. The old Sean Tejaratchi quote - popularized by Banksy - applies here, I think - http://www.readingfrenzy.com/ledger/2012/03/taking_the_piss

I'm pretty much in agreement with this. I don't want to be advertised to unless I'm specifically looking for something and the ad is relevant to exactly that for exactly the time I'm looking for it. At all other times, I don't want companies constantly telling me what they can offer me. If I wanted that, I'd go to the mall.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#78

Post by Yuioup »

This is extortion, plain and simple. Essentially they're forcing advertisers to funnel all ad content through them.

Good thing for uBlock Origin because otherwise they should be indicted to anti-competitive behavior.

No, I don't like ads and I run uBlock Origin. I don't work for an advertising company and couldn't care less about ads.

But what Adblock Plus is doing here is illegal.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#79

Post by chris_7 »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #54
jwise0 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the royal "we", perhaps :-) I started blocking ads because they dramatically slowed down my browsing experience. But I keep blocking ads because, fundamentally, I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me. The old Sean Tejaratchi quote - popularized by Banksy - applies here, I think - http://www.readingfrenzy.com/ledger/2012/03/taking_the_piss

>> "I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me." And you have no right to the content you're viewing but blocking ads on. If you really consider ads 'poison' surely boycotting sites that use ads is the solution or offering an alternative solution this is actually viable.

Stop responding with 200 OK then. Remote servers don't get to configure my user-agent, they can only control their response.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#80

Post by davedx »

tedmiston wrote: post #73
tomp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with them. To me, ads are unacceptable. They steal your attention and polute your mind with subtle signaling and behavioural patterns. I applaud iniciatives like São Paolo's outdoors ad ban [1], and wish it were implemented in many more cities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa

Sure, it would be ideal to live in a world without advertising. But if advertising is the cost we pay to monetize content like news, well, I'd rather accept that than other content models like paywalls.

What about opt in subscriptions? I am seriously considering a Guardian sub, but I keep my ad blocker on for their site too IIRC
Post reply on HN