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

481–490 of 549 posts

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#481

Post by dredmorbius »

derefr wrote: post #139
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…

> small Heh, do you really think that static ads would be a small portion of the page? Look at small local newspapers for what a business driven by revenue from non-targetable ads looks like. The ads take up more than half the page!

The "news hole" was for a long time about 40% of a typical daily paper (ads being 60%).

https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/media/unfetter/press06.htm

https://jimmycsays.com/2017/01/13/is-the-daily-newspaper-thi...

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#482

Post by Kaiyou »

manigandham wrote: post #273
mikeash wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that document delivery is still the main function, but the platform wants to be a fully capable app platform. Yes, it’s great that the web is capable of stuff like Google Docs. But all those capabilities are actually liabilities when it’s a news site.

It is a fully capable platform. How it's used isn't a fault of the platform though. It seems user-agents and adblockers are applying the proper protections, just like how antivirus works on your desktop.

But nobody whines about antivirus and begs you (and the government) to disable it, so they can sell you.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#483

Post by dredmorbius »

schma wrote: post #405
gnicholas wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One issue I’ve run into with blocking JS at the browser level is that it also ends up blocking extensions that use JS from working. I would block JS on websites much more if my extensions that use JS could still run. I don’t suppose there’s a config setting in Chrome that discriminates between the website’s JS and the JS from my extensions?

You can use NoScript to control which domains you want content loaded from and what type.

It's often necessary to allow same-host scripts for extensions or bookmarklets to work. Those some-host scrips are often a considerable part of the problem.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#484

Post by JD557 »

stiray wrote: post #423
jacobobryant wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really care if ads stop being profitable. If ads stopped being a good source of revenue, the tech industry would adapt, and my guess is that the end result would be much more favorable to society. I'm working on an early-stage startup right now, and I'm certainly not going to use ads as part of my revenue model. Google might not be too happy about an outcome like that, but I'm not overly concerned about Googl…

I still remember the web when I got my first modem. What the ads changed is the amount of various clickbaits, useless sites, sites "for fun", garbage of the internet. All this would be gone without ad revenue, there wouldnt be any sustainable bussiness model for them. Regarding usability of ads, in 20 years I never bought anything shown. When I need something I search for relevant product solving my need and I buy it…

> My personal expierience with one of the news sites (cant remember which it was) after GDPR was somehow refreshing. If you didnt agree, they disabled all javascript and throw you into same website but with only text and images relevant to the article. I loved it.

That was probably NPR.

Text version: https://text.npr.org/

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#485

Post by lazyjones »

tomaskafka wrote: post #469
lazyjones wrote: post #449

How about we just don't let the advertising industry develop or fund our browsers and web standards? Users need to be able to control what kind of content their device will load and display, so it's probably time to develop technology that supports it (and scrap the current web, which is now basically billboard ads for the internet).

Don't let them. Use Firefox or Safari instead of Chrome or Edge.

I use Safari, Firefox/Mozilla is wholly dependent on money from the ad industry (Google). But Safari also goes in the direction the ad industry desires through its adoption of new standardized features. There is really no way out using the current "web", we need a simple, open alternative that isn't controlled by the ad industry and adopts only features in the best interest of the users first and content creators second.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#486

Post by distances »

kweks wrote: post #468
minitech wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gigantic waste of energy. Why drain my battery to not see ads when I can just use an adblocker? Ignoring these, why reward longer content, content I happen to keep in the background, or content I happen to leave in the foreground while away over more valuable content? Donating directly is a much nicer solution for me, and there’s so much room for improvement there too in the areas of privacy, fees, and convenience. (…

Because aside from insidious advertisements, it's the only compensation mechanism that provides revenue to publishers without demanding a behavioral change from users. Obviously, there need to be intelligent structures in place - and these can be enforced by the browser (as they already are today) - CPU limits for inactive tabs, CPU limits based off the computer's power-mode. The ability to disable mining at the cost…

I'm not sure why you think people avoiding ads would accept mining. I find mining environmentally unethical even when you're using your own resources; it's mindboggling to me that distributing this to general population is even an idea worth discussing.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#487

Post by manigandham »

Kaiyou wrote: post #482
manigandham wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a fully capable platform. How it's used isn't a fault of the platform though. It seems user-agents and adblockers are applying the proper protections, just like how antivirus works on your desktop.

But nobody whines about antivirus and begs you (and the government) to disable it, so they can sell you.

Well the difference is ads and malware are not the same thing, but they use the same vectors. The comparison would be more like removing DRM protections vs using antivirus.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#488

Post by distances »

egdod wrote: post #18
jszymborski wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a sane world, DNT would be opt-out and enforced by legislation.

There's legislation to stop robocalls. How many have you gotten in the last 24 hours? I've had 3, and it's been a pretty typical day.

I have never received one. Nor have I gotten any SMS spam.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#489

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

tomaskafka wrote: post #452
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good idea, but I wish there was a less harsh method. I have been using my iPad a lot recently and the thing that bugs me is that it’s almost impossible to listen to Spotify uninterrupted as you use Safari because of auto-playing videos (not just advertisements). It’s completely obnoxious and there is no way to stop it. Safari takes control of sound even if the video does not have audio toggled on and pauses your Spot…

On iOS I swear by Dnscloak - local-only vpn that routes only DNS requests through pihole-enabled dns server of your choice: https://apps.apple.com/cz/app/dnscloak-secure-dns-client/id1...

I’ve been thinking about doing something like that, but would that stop auto-playing videos on news sites? Or are there specific filters for that?

Either way, do you find that the Adblock detection / nags are less reliable when you do it DNS based instead of the client?

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#490

Post by pstch »

komali2 wrote: post #157
SapporoChris wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked briefly in a marketing department as programmer. Learned the following there. The benefit of advertising is to inform the consumer of products they may not be aware of. "Messa thinks Messa might have Mesothelioma!" Most of the time advertising is a waste of time, and there certainly are better ways of learning about products. However, the function of informing consumers of products they may not be aware of i…

To a minimalist advertising could almost be construed as a form of psychic attack on ones value system. Imagine firing off hundreds of ads at a vegan about how eating meat is good. That's essentially what all the "buy this shit" ads are doing to someone who explicitly buys as little as they can to get by.

This doesn't only apply to minimalists. I don't consider myself a minimalist, but I do consider advertising as a psychic attack. This is how many justify disabling billboards and ad blocking : they are merely defending themselves.
Post reply on HN