Live data from Hacker News

Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

imlefthanded.com

681–690 of 844 posts

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#681
post #130

I've started to think about it differently. I no longer use any ad blockers. I actually want to experience the web (and its decline) the way it is, to take it all in, feel the pain and strengthen my patience in the process. Also, when I visit a website that is truly obnoxious with its ads, I simply leave immediately and never go there. You build your own filter of bad actors, behaviors, and concrete sites. You don't…

I no longer use any ad blockers. I'm OK with most ads. I understand why they exist. What I would like is something like an ad blocker that only blocks the tracking and surveillance.

Privacy Badger only blocks tracking and surveillance.

https://privacybadger.org/

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#682

I have never used an add blocker. If the page is too intrusive with toxic adds, I just close the page. Also, if I go to any page that launches a pop-up to subscribe or some other stupid crap, I again just close the page, never to return. I wish more people would do this.

> I wish more people would do this.

Different people view different webpages due to different interests. And different people also have different thresholds for what would be "toxic adds". I know a lot of articles posted here would fail that threshold for me.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#683
post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on mobile (where adblocking isn't possible without modded APKs) What's a modded APK? Firefox and other browsers like Vivaldi have awesome adblocking nowadays. There are alternative frontends like invidious. Newpipe is an oss app, perfect on Android. Vanced is very popular too but I never tried it. But with nextdns I don't need any of those. Only newpipe because, besides the ads, having to keep the display on to lis…

Vanced is a modded APK. It takes the YouTube APK and modifies it to block ads and sponsorship via Sponsorblock and lets you run it in the background with the screen off. NextDNS doesn't block ads on YouTube because they're served from the same domain as YouTube videos.

Oh I didn't know Vanced worked that way.

And you are right. Ads are blocked by newpipe, nextdns in this case is worthless.

Sorry for the misinformation everyone.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#684
post #603
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But will "Manifest V3" tip things back to unbearable? We'll see. Switch to Firefox now before Firefox market share dips to the level where publishers can justify not supporting it and you're stuck with only crippled adblocking forever?

If a browser doesn't render the web properly, that's the browser's fault, not the web's.

Not really, no. It's the publisher's fault if they targeted the browser in the first place. If they didn't, and it didn't render properly, then it's nobody's fault, just something that happens.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#685

I stopped watching network TV in the 1990s when it reached about 25% ads (i.e. 7.5 minutes of ads in a 30 minute window. May have been only 7 minutes, memory is fuzzy now). The web was a relief. You could actually consume content and tune out the (then primitive, usually just a banner at the top) ads. The web, specifically un-adblocked Youtube, is now at about the same point as where I quit TV. Just not worth the agg…

The youtube app on a phone has reached that level, and pihole doesn't help, so I only watch youtube on a browser with adblock now

So, you know, pay for it a little bit? It's there, it makes the ads go away, and it's cheap.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's stealing it? I asked for an article through the customary channels and they served it to me. Inside that article, they offered a whole set of embedded resources for me to choose to load, and I opted out of a lot of them. None of that remotely resembles theft.

You have obviously convinced yourself it is OK to steal because you think it is OK to steal, because you think it is OK to steal. Good for you. What you never see are the jobs you might affect through your actions. You have actually convinced yourself that you are entitled to use someone else's work product without paying for it in any way. All I can say is that I hope one day someone does the same to you. Maybe then…

I think we fundamentally disagree on what "stealing" means.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's stealing it? I asked for an article through the customary channels and they served it to me. Inside that article, they offered a whole set of embedded resources for me to choose to load, and I opted out of a lot of them. None of that remotely resembles theft.

You have obviously convinced yourself it is OK to steal because you think it is OK to steal, because you think it is OK to steal. Good for you. What you never see are the jobs you might affect through your actions. You have actually convinced yourself that you are entitled to use someone else's work product without paying for it in any way. All I can say is that I hope one day someone does the same to you. Maybe then…

Calling ad blocking "theft" is an absurd take. It is not theft to only consume part of the content that is provided to you. There is no law that requires the viewer to consume all of the content provided in a format, in any country that I'm aware of. It would also be immoral to compel the viewer to spend their time and attention on dross.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In exchange for being exposed to advertising at a restaurant, you get free pizza. Are you required to sign a contract for this exchange to happen? In that case, you would be breaching a contract, which is not the same as theft. If there's no contract, then I am free to go into a restaurant, plug in my earphones, keep my eyes glued to my laptop/phone and focus on whatever I want & ignore whatever else might be going…

You can twist and turn your way around arguments and convince yourself that you are not a thief. That's fine. Good for you. Enjoy. Behind all of this there are businesses, which consist of people with jobs who have families and responsibilities. Just because you don't see the effects of your actions it does not mean there are no effects. You are stealing something that costs money to create and support and you have c…

No need to twist and turn anything. No contract, no obligations whatsoever. It's literally as simple as that.

The content provider is free to stop providing the content at any time

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#689

I wanted to show a video on YouTube to a friend. He passed me his cellphone. I searched and found the video and then something very strange happened: a completely unrelated something started playing. I said "Sorry I don't know what is this. This has nothing to do with what I wanted to show you." He then explained me that was just an advertisement and the video would play soon. People are used to abuse. My internet is…

Just curious, if you owned YouTube with an overhead of tens of millions of dollars per year, how would you monetize it without ads/commercials, just to even keep up with operational costs?

If I owned YouTube with the goal of maximizing profits, and I did not have any self imposed ethical constrains, I would focus on controlling the market of hosting videos. The technology needed to operate a video hosting is widely available and been so for the last few decades, so the only way to prevent competition and keep a market dominance would be to make sure that competitors can't compete. Keep users on the platform or else the users will end up on any number of competing platforms, splintering off the user base into more and more fragments.

With a strong market dominance one can then focus on profits with minimum risk. One way to raise profits would be to impose taxes, like with streamers get donations through "youtube bits". They could go further and demand taxes when any company do things that has monetary value, like say when a company want to make a video about their products. They could do like Facebook and many dating sites and offer a service of "promoting" users above other users. One can couple access to the site to hardware products like mobile phones, or split off features to "exclusive" access users. One can down rate the speed/quality of freeloaders, pushing users to upgrade their accounts to premium accounts.

The ways to monetize a market dominant position is to many to count. The hard problem is the iron grip needed on keeping users on the platform.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#690
post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying, but I think that's actually counter-productive. To present things like uBlock as malware blockers suggests that "any ad which is not malware is fine". I think it's perfectly justifiable to guard against non-malware ads _as well as_ malware (ads or otherwise).

I guess what constitutes "malware" is based on what the ad is doing - if it's benign, it's an ad and I'm fine with that. If it's hostile/tracking scripts masquerading as an ad, then obviously that's a problem. I call it "malware blocking" because of multiple past experiences like I mentioned above, and the way to avoid them is with these "ad blockers" (though I guess a more generic term, like "content blocker", is pe…

Even the most "benign" unsolicited ad is still basically malware for your brain.
Post reply on HN