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

Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

scribblrs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–178 of 178 posts

Re: Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

#171

Post by p0nce »

zeveb wrote: post #84
p0nce wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Millenials" is always used in combination with derogatory terms like "entitled, lazy, hopeless". Sometimes I wonder if boomers have _any_ idea of the frantic pace of today's workplace and how little power you can hope for, regardless of how much you work.

> Sometimes I wonder if boomers have _any_ idea of the frantic pace of today's workplace and how little power you can hope for, regardless of how much you work. Millennials have as much or more power than the boomers did when they started working. The difference is that they expect more, because they spent their childhoods getting participation trophies and being waited on hand and foot by adults concerned for their…

Argumentum at "real world". It's not even worth answering.

Re: Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

#172

Post by grive »

ryandvm wrote: post #168
grive wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's assuming losing the content creators serving ads would be a loss for internet users. Given that there exist people that hold this opinion, their own view about using an ad blocker is not at all in the same context than in the prisoners dilemma. Thus the dilemma is biased, to an extent directly proportional to the number of people holding this opinion. If it is biased, the standard game theory analysis does not…

> More prosaically, I do not care in the slightest if people living in selling ads disappeared completely from internet. They are a cancer, ads are a cancer to the utopia that internet was for a short time. Excellent response, but on this particular point, I'd suggest you are being intellectually dishonest - or at least overly simplifying things. You use an ad blocker precisely because there is content you want to se…

Fair point, though there might an argument about content "curators" (clickbait websites for example), leeching off the production of amateurs who don't care about monetization.

Continuing on this line of thought:

I might be interested in some amateur production, genuine efforts borne from passion and dedication. I think actually that any effort to become a professional on this segment will make the creator distort their creative process. That's the cancer I'm talking about. It's not simply from the end-user point of view, but about the approaches that are made possible for people to reach out.

I don't want to condone this monetization scheme. I think advertisement is a bubble waiting to collapse (with rigged analytics and big players monopolizing revenues).

Using an ad-blocker prevent me from ever generating revenue streams toward this industry. I already pay for using the pipes on the Internet. My only concern is communities being able to strive, be it on obscure BBS, IRC channels, subreddits or specialized fora. Others, I wish they would disappear.

Re: Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

#173

Post by 01Michael10 »

user5994461 wrote: post #144
01Michael10 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only valid advice for an advanced user and even than is still debatable...

It's actually counter intuitive but in practice, anti virus are useless for non advanced users because they don't understand it. A normal people get a message "Virus win32.badthingy detected: -delete- -quarantine- -ignore-". He clicks on the little "x" in the corner of the window. -- true story

Your actual argument is the stupidest of the stupidest users can't read a prompt so AV is useless for any user? LOL

Re: Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

#174

Post by 01Michael10 »

khedoros wrote: post #159
01Michael10 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. AV solutions do in fact offer a lot of protection. 2. You will reduce you attack surface a lot more by not installing Flash, Java, and using an ad-blocker than not using AV.

Do they, though? Everything I've read over the past 5 years has claimed an 80-90% miss rate. On the other hand, often the first sign I see of an infection is that the virus scanner is disabled, so I suppose it acts as a kind of canary, in that sense.

I can't really argue with you if just going to make up stats... I have been helping non-tech savvy family, friends, and co-workers for over 25 years. The ones who didn't have AV installed or let the one that came with the PC expire had a almost 100% infection rate. Once I installed a good AV product infection issues with most of them was not an issue again. Yes, nothing stops stupidity 100%.

Re: Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

#175

Post by 01Michael10 »

loeg wrote: post #164
01Michael10 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. AV solutions do in fact offer a lot of protection. 2. You will reduce you attack surface a lot more by not installing Flash, Java, and using an ad-blocker than not using AV.

I don't agree with you on (1), so I think we need data. (2) is creating an entirely different argument from blue sky. You're putting words in my mouth. I support installing ad-blockers to reduce attack surface. Removing Flash and Java is more nuanced. Most non-advanced users expect Flash sites to work and many non-advanced users need Java sites to work (e.g. enterprise internal crap). I think click-to-play is a decen…

Well in my experience as I mentioned in another comment is regular users with no AV solution will get infected almost 100% of the time in a short period of time. The same users with a good AV product I usually don't have to deal with them again. I have no idea how anyone couldn't agree AV solutions have a use.

I didn't put any words into your mouth but was just pointing out better things to do to reduce your attack surface than not installing AV. Java is dead and I can't recall any site needed to use in years that requires it. Flash doesn't need to be installed standalone at all anymore and shouldn't be. When a site requires Flash I fire up Chrome which has Flash built-in and is of course way more secure.

AV does have limited use for advanced users... I have gone back and forth between having a 3rd-party AV solution installed over the years. I have a high end PC and the product I use has little impact resource wise so why thinking is why not?

Re: Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

#176

Post by Aldo_MX »

eistrati wrote: post #72
Aldo_MX wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather read the article first, and leave a tip if the article was noteworthy.

Fair point, but it's not a restaurant and educating readers this etiquette would be really tough. How about pay for reading and refund if you think it's not worth your money? Would you do that?

I'm not sure that educating readers would be that difficult if you cater to a well-cultured audience, personally I like the approach of Smashing Magazine when you use an ad blocker:

http://i.imgur.com/YpuvdlX.png

If I ran a blog I would include the same element, some wording like "you know, creating quality content requires more effort than spewing clickbait, mind leaving us a tip to let us know that you appreciate our efforts?" and a flattr button.

Although your idea sounds like a good starting point for a website which caters to a massive audience (basically, every news website).

Re: Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

#177

Post by krrrh »

amyjess wrote: post #106
philipkglass wrote: post #55

I browse most of the time without extensions other than a cookie editor, since I've encountered a number of weird bugs in my company's own product that turned out not to be bugs but weird interactions with browser extensions I was running. I also read a lot of news articles both on big sites like the WSJ and whatever regional news outlets turn up in my news searches. That is to say that ad networks should (presumably…

Whenever I browse without an adblocker, I get constant ads for my employer. I work for a mid-size telecom that exclusively does B2B. There's no way an ad network would be serving up that many ads for that company unless their ad network knew I'm connected to it. It's also bizarre, because I'm the last person who needs to be advertised to about the company.

It's probably just standard remarketing to people who have visited the website or a specific page on the site recently. Something you probably do a lot as a employee. It's actually a good thing privacy-wise that it's not easy to be more fine-grained in filtering audiences on adwords, though the marketing department could probably remove employees from the audience if they had visited an employee login page or something that would show you weren't just a random potential customer.

Re: Two Out of Three Young Millennials Now Use an Ad Blocker

#178

Post by khedoros »

01Michael10 wrote: post #174
khedoros wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they, though? Everything I've read over the past 5 years has claimed an 80-90% miss rate. On the other hand, often the first sign I see of an infection is that the virus scanner is disabled, so I suppose it acts as a kind of canary, in that sense.

I can't really argue with you if just going to make up stats... I have been helping non-tech savvy family, friends, and co-workers for over 25 years. The ones who didn't have AV installed or let the one that came with the PC expire had a almost 100% infection rate. Once I installed a good AV product infection issues with most of them was not an issue again. Yes, nothing stops stupidity 100%.

25 years ago, I'd be right with you. 15 years ago, too. Since then? I think your anecdata are outdated. Things just aren't going to be caught by signature-based scanning anymore. In terms of automated detection, the bad guys won. "Good" AV detection, if there is such a thing these days, are the tiny vendors that infections aren't designed specifically to fight against. All the big names get disabled, or otherwise rendered non-functional.
Post reply on HN