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

The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

standard.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 445 posts

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#421

Post by dngray »

archduck wrote: post #420
Larrikin wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Ad Nauseum instead of plain UBlock so that the data sent is just garbage. You would think something simple like clicking all the ads wouldn't work, but it works well enough that Google banned it from the Chrome store

I totally forgot about Ad Nauseam! I used to use it instead of uBlock Origin (which, if I remember correctly, is what Ad Nauseam actually uses for its adblocking). Google banning it from their extensions marketplace only strengthened my loathing for Google and my resolve to use it. I don’t remember why I eventually stopped - probably the inconvenience. Now that I’m a Firefox user, I should pick that back up and give…

> Ad Nauseam

Don't do this, you're not making your browser any more private than just blocking using uBlock Origin.

Any kind of "obfuscation" extensions that change browsing behavior significantly modify the fingerprint. There are a lot of uBO and other adblocking users but very few Ad Nauseam users or users of other weird extensions.

I also wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a way to filter out those "clicks" anyway from the ad provider's side.

They are risky and mostly written by people who think they sound cool without thinking of the side effects.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#422

Post by dngray »

pmoriarty wrote: post #399
docmars wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try using the extension "I don't care about cookies" It's excellent. I have needed to disable it occasionally to make basic site functionality work on some sites that I absolutely need to use, though I'm forgetting which ones.

I've used Cookie AutoDelete. It was good. Is "I don't care about cookies better"? If so, how?

> Cookie AutoDelete

Don't bother with this extension as it can't delete other storage locations where there is persistant storage. Also Firefox has TCP, Total Cookie Protection so you don't need them anyway.

https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/02/23/total-cookie-pr...

Better to just sanitize on close https://www.privacyguides.org/desktop-browsers/#sanitize-on-... and maybe keep history.

If you want to keep persistent logins then whitelist those specific cookies to those specific sites or use a password manager.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#423

Post by dngray »

pmoriarty wrote: post #327
doodlesdev wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uBlock Origin URL filter lists don't work the same as ClearURLs. Privacy Badger is an extension by the EFF. It blocks cookies, that's it. The other one I don't know, but you should stop being condescending when teaching people about things you don't know about. Using uBlock Origin only might be a good option for some cases, but it's not a silver bullet. For reference, ClearURLs can bypass redirects, has etags protect…

What's etags protection?

It's not really important https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-pro...

The extra functionality provided by ClearURLs is not not needed with Ublock Origin's removeparam feature.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#424

Post by Xenoamorphous »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #345
VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Find another way to monetize your website if you want my money. I’m not enduring ads, they are insidious garbage.

I agree. If you want the benefits of hypertext and http as a medium then the downside is user agents can modify what you send and render as they see fit.

This has nothing to do with the technical aspect of it.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#426

Post by denkmoon »

josephcsible wrote: post #194
denkmoon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why DoH is a trojan horse. You can't control it as a network administrator, all it takes is a piece of software to simply remove the controls for users to configure their own DoH and bam, end user has little to no control over how their applications perform name resolution. Little pro-tip for anyone who tries to run their own private DoH infrastructure too, Firefox doesn't like RFC1918 addresses for t…

> You can't control it as a network administrator You can't control it as a malicious censor who's trying to control what Web sites other people's computers can access just because they're on your Wi-Fi. You can absolutely control it on computers that are actually yours.

For now. I would point out that the browser with the largest market share by a considerable margin is created and developed by a company that makes most of its money by selling ads, and that choosing your own DNS server with the capability of blocking those ads is a direct threat to that revenue model.

They will tell you it is to defeat censorship though and to improve network resilience, because they are deeply committed to having the image of being a champion of internet freedom.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#427

Post by mcv »

emacdona wrote: post #366
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically, if I visit a website and don't like the experience, I either never go back (Kagi lets me exclude it from search results) or find a plugin to make it tolerable. If you like a site to go back to it repeatedly don't you think it would be fair to "pay the fee" of seeing the ads, thus supporting that site, however annoying they are?

> If you like a site to go back to it repeatedly don't you think it would be fair to "pay the fee" of seeing the ads, thus supporting that site... I struggle with this. Of course I want the producers of content that I like to make money. And it seems obvious to me that if I'm one of the people consuming (and liking) that content... some of that money I want them to make should come from me. But the pipeline that the…

I know of only one website that does ads right: the Penny Arcade web comic. I admit I haven't gone there in years, but when I did, their ads were always products they approved of (usually computer games), in the style of the web comic, in a way that fits the site, and made by them, so no malware. This makes it less intrusive, but also a powerful stamp of approval, that I suspect makes it far more effective as an ad. This is better for legitimate advertisers and visitors, although it does mean extra work for the site, of course.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#428

Post by mcv »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #369
VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Find another way to monetize your website if you want my money. I’m not enduring ads, they are insidious garbage.

Like what, a paywall? So only people with disposable income like the HN crowd has access to information?

Patreon for voluntary donations seems to be working quite well. Also affiliate links and custom ads that are actually approved by the site creator.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#429

Post by nix23 »

worldsavior wrote: post #359
nix23 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How so? You're just retrieving the data and displaying it. Yeah displaying data...that cant be dangerous ;) >There are many ISP's that use NAT to save IP addresses, hence an IP is not really an identifier. Do you really think your argumentation is good?

> Yeah displaying data...that cant be dangerous ;) It's not dangerous because it's coming from a good source, such as google ads. > Do you really think your argumentation is good? Yes, because that's what happens. I don't really think an IP is a good identifier because it's shared by others. Using cookies is a much better option.

Happy for you that:

1. You trust every ad comes from "google"

2. You think ~everyone/most have ISP-NAT (hint nearly ~no one has it and IPv6 is a thing too (hint 2. those are 38% worldwide))

But you care about uniqueness because of ad-blockers who are used by ~40% of all users, but a IP is "not" unique, nor the browser, OS, resolution and GPU and the combination of all those factors, but NONO the Adblocker is the problem.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#430

Post by josephcsible »

denkmoon wrote: post #426
josephcsible wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't control it as a network administrator You can't control it as a malicious censor who's trying to control what Web sites other people's computers can access just because they're on your Wi-Fi. You can absolutely control it on computers that are actually yours.

For now. I would point out that the browser with the largest market share by a considerable margin is created and developed by a company that makes most of its money by selling ads, and that choosing your own DNS server with the capability of blocking those ads is a direct threat to that revenue model. They will tell you it is to defeat censorship though and to improve network resilience, because they are deeply comm…

They don't need DoH to stop you from being able to block ads at the network level. For a while, a lot of sites have been proxying their ads through their own domains to do that.

And besides, every browser that supports DoH also lets you pick what server to use, and adblocking DoH servers exist.

Post reply on HN