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

Adblocking: How about Nah?

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 549 posts

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#381

Post by deftturtle »

tossAfterUsing wrote: post #154
deanc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. I’d go as far as forbidding embedded JS altogether which removes the attack vector for malware within advertising networks. The networks have proved time and time again they are not able to prevent distribution of malware, and this is the primary reason I use an adblocker. Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the adver…

> as far as forbidding embedded JS altogether I do this on my iOS device. It's a bit of a pain to not have JS enabled in safari, but I can always share a page from Safari --> Duckduckgo's browser which i have installed for just such occasions. Settings > Safari > Advanced > Javascript off

I also do this. Safari is my stateless browser, no cookies, no scripts, no location access, etc. And then Firefox or Brave are what I use for anything requiring Javascript. Though brave’s UI is much cleaner than FF.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#382

Post by AlexCoventry »

acdha wrote: post #182
tossAfterUsing wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as far as forbidding embedded JS altogether I do this on my iOS device. It's a bit of a pain to not have JS enabled in safari, but I can always share a page from Safari --> Duckduckgo's browser which i have installed for just such occasions. Settings > Safari > Advanced > Javascript off

Possibly the best feature of the Brave browser is having that be one tap away, remembered per-site. I really wish Firefox would copy it since I’m not optimistic about Brave’s longevity.

That sounds a lot like noscript's functionality.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#383

Post by lkrubner »

If I buy the paper version of the New York Times the ads are on every page but I don’t mind them. They are not watching me. Nor would I mind ads on a page, if they are rendered as plain HTML. Just no Javascript

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#384

Post by mlguy456 »

yoz-y wrote: post #311
JoshTriplett wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do advertisers know the requests are coming from real users and not bots? Leaving aside that this isn't the problem of end users: Link to a site, use an ID for that campaign (analogous to an affiliate ID), and don't pay unless a purchase takes place. Bots can't fake that.

Except many ads are not directly linkable to purchases. Coca Cola won't track you to a local grocery store and an ad for a musical won't track you when you buy the ticket a week later.

It depends. Your credit card company knows what you bought and when, while the ad network knows the phone number linked to the PC where the ad was shown. Join the two tables and we can track you to the grocery store.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#385

Post by lastpingstandin »

slang800 wrote: post #369
jedberg wrote: post #96

For many many years I resisted installing an ad-blocker. As someone who worked at a website that made the bulk of it's revenue from ads, it felt hypocritical, and also, I wanted to make sure that the experience of our website was bearable without ad blocking, by forcing myself to experience it every day. I gave up about two years ago. The web just go so bad I had to install ad-block. My computer would spin like a jet…

> If advertisers want to advertise to me, that's fine. I understand they need to make money. I feel sad just reading that. Advertisers are paid to deliver targeted psychological manipulation to you, and yet you feel ashamed for making their work less profitable. It's like observing some kind of digital stockholm syndrome.

> targeted psychological manipulation to you

This seems exceedingly hyperbolic. With advertising, we can enjoy many services free of charge.

Using google as an example, google maps, search, android, etc all provide tremendous value to their users while being ostensibly free. Without revenue, they simply wouldn't be able to exist.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#386

Post by tatersolid »

tylerl wrote: post #62
IceWreck wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that spam call filter probably requires proprietary software, which has access to your call logs and theres every chance that the spam filter app company can steal your data. > Though I am thinking of turning it off and putting up a "Hello? Hello? Sorry I can't hear you could you repeat that. Uhha, go on..." recorded message about 5 minutes long, just to waste their resources. That would actually be a promising a…

Android phones do it automatically, assuming your carrier hasn't monkeyed with the phone app. I think Google keeps a spam probability score for callers' phone numbers based on how many people have marked a call as spam.

Spam call numbers are randomly generated. Blacklisting can’t work without collateral damage.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#387

Post by a3n »

> setting Do Not Track in your browser does virtually nothing to protect your privacy.

It sends another signal, that this person is an aware contrarian, and may be receptive to this or that source or style of engagement.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#388

Post by mlguy456 »

I can't use most of the sites at work because of ads and I can't install an adblocker because it would have access to corp data. When I search for something related to work, I know that most of the sites would display inappropriate junk on half screen with my colleagues probably watching behind. The solution I use us to search on stackoverflow only, but it too displays some garbage, and I have to scroll the page so the ads won't be in view. It's a hilarious situation.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#389

Post by a3n »

wybiral wrote: post #67

I don't actually want to block ads. If you want to put a small text or image blurb anywhere on the page... Good for you. I'll gladly accept those on a webpage so that the content creator can make a bit of cash. But these companies are intentionally blurring the lines between advertisement and digital surveillance. You don't need to collect everything about my operating system, browser, monitors, GPU, every click I ma…

Exactly this is why I block, and I also would not object to your "less intrusive" ad. I would still block, but I wouldn't mind at all seeing such a static, self-served ad.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#390

Post by Iv »

lastpingstandin wrote: post #385
slang800 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If advertisers want to advertise to me, that's fine. I understand they need to make money. I feel sad just reading that. Advertisers are paid to deliver targeted psychological manipulation to you, and yet you feel ashamed for making their work less profitable. It's like observing some kind of digital stockholm syndrome.

> targeted psychological manipulation to you This seems exceedingly hyperbolic. With advertising, we can enjoy many services free of charge. Using google as an example, google maps, search, android, etc all provide tremendous value to their users while being ostensibly free. Without revenue, they simply wouldn't be able to exist.

Having witnessed what advertising and marketing strategies do to psychologically vulnerable people, I now feel I am financing these services on their back.

I know someone who is in debt (and in denial) because she can't resist buying something that is "on sale". Her house filled with things she does not need but that were a bargain.

No, "targeted psychological manipulation" is not an hyperbole, you just are not the target. You, when you see "YOU HAVE WON A PRIZE!" blinking you think "Yeah, right, who falls for these anyway?" The answer is, a few people whose life is pretty miserable.

I'd rather have the internet financed in a sane way through microtransactions than the thing we have now.

Post reply on HN