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

431–440 of 445 posts

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

#431

Post by 71a54xd »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #201
71a54xd wrote: post #182

Sure, but ad-blockers are also basically adware that scans through the entirety of all websites you visit. Very similar snooping to custom keyboards etc...

> but ad-blockers are also basically adware that scans through the entirety of all websites you visit. Very similar snooping to custom keyboards etc... Er, not as a group they aren't. Like, I'm sure there are bad adblockers, but if you stick with uBlock Origin you'll be fine.

Why wouldn't uBlock Origin be targeted? Nobody is capable of auditing the entire codebase, paying off open source contributors flat out isn't hard and it's cheap.

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

#433

Post by s3p »

dngray wrote: post #421
archduck wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" anyw…

Still, you're asking everyone to believe your hunch over the developer's with nothing to back it up.

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

#434

Post by kornhole »

dredmorbius wrote: post #164
kornhole wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only if you have Google Play Services installed.

That's ... near a necessity for most apps. Though I seem to recall GPS shim that's available and which I really should swap in on my BOOX tablet.

I have been running Graphene for years and find that few proprietary apps really need GAPS. I get a warning that it is required when they try to serve an ad, but I just dismiss it and enjoy the ad free experience. Graphene has great shims and even a sandboxed Google Play Services for those who want a lot of notifications. I don't use it myself, but my partner does.

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

#435

Post by kerkeslager »

Eisenstein wrote: post #413
kerkeslager wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but do they also not collect any analytics for their ads? Will that last through a financial crisis if advertisers offer them more money? Will it last if they gain market dominance? If their money comes from advertisers and not users, they serve advertisers and not users. Supporting them as a temporary solution just means if they succeed we have all the same problems when the same incentives come into play.

> Sure, but do they also not collect any analytics for their ads? Configurable. > Will that last through a financial crisis if advertisers offer them more money? Will Brazil win the 2090 world cup? I'm not sure I get your point... > Supporting them as a temporary solution just means if they succeed we have all the same problems when the same incentives come into play. Internet services are run by ads. Unless we can t…

> Configurable.

Remember when you responded to a post about blocking ads by default?

> Internet services are run by ads. Unless we can transfer to a model which is publicly funded or subscription based (even free software needs to pay for servers and employees -- the money has to come from somewhere) then the best we can hope for is an ad-funded service which allows you enough control to turn everything off if you want to.

Now we get to the point: you support ads, so you aren't actually committed to getting rid of them.

The internet existed before internet advertising, and the kinds of websites people built for intrinsic reasons rather than for money were far superior. If Facebook et al disappeared completely the world would be a better place.

There is not a shortage of content, there is a shortage of filterability created by low-effort garbage funded by ads. If people aren't willing to pay for something, it's because it's not that great.

Patreon shows that some people are willing to just make donations for free content. And incidentally, Patreon-supported content tends to be higher-quality because they're serving donors, not advertisers.

We don't need ads. Ads are a blight on humanity which provides negative value.

> Do you have a better solution and are you willing to start working on it?

You mean the > Otherwise, you are making 'perfect' the enemy of 'good'.

Brave is not "good". It's literally no different in any way from a browser which supports adblocking extensions.

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

#436

Post by worldsavior »

nix23 wrote: post #429
worldsavior wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 prob…

The success rate of the algorithm is important. The average person doesn't want to see someone's else ads just because they're in the same network. No one wants to see their kid Minecraft ads.

IP are also constantly changing, at least once a month. For sure, they can't rely on one identifier, which is the IP address, because after it changes, all of the data is gone.

Also, you say things I didn't say. I said THE IP is not a really good identifier, but you also say I meant also other identifiers.

The IP can't survive on its own. The algorithm needs more than just one thing. It needs multiple things while if one is not applicable then we get another one.

An ad blocker already eliminates you to 40% of the internet users, which is a lot.

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

#437

Post by Eisenstein »

kerkeslager wrote: post #435
Eisenstein wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but do they also not collect any analytics for their ads? Configurable. > Will that last through a financial crisis if advertisers offer them more money? Will Brazil win the 2090 world cup? I'm not sure I get your point... > Supporting them as a temporary solution just means if they succeed we have all the same problems when the same incentives come into play. Internet services are run by ads. Unless we can t…

> Configurable. Remember when you responded to a post about blocking ads by default ? > Internet services are run by ads. Unless we can transfer to a model which is publicly funded or subscription based (even free software needs to pay for servers and employees -- the money has to come from somewhere) then the best we can hope for is an ad-funded service which allows you enough control to turn everything off if you w…

> Remember when you responded to a post about blocking ads by default?

It does block ads by default. You then asked about analytics.

> Now we get to the point: you support ads, so you aren't actually committed to getting rid of them.

I definitely do not support ads. I block them.

> The internet existed before internet advertising, and the kinds of websites people built for intrinsic reasons rather than for money were far superior. If Facebook et al disappeared completely the world would be a better place.

Yes it did. It was funded by the government, universities, the military, and people through personal servers (you can probably also count BBSs as well). These things had functions orders of magnitudes smaller than are available today (want to see a satellite picture of your house then get walking directions from there to Alaska?).

> If people aren't willing to pay for something, it's because it's not that great.

Someone pays for everything. Do you have a solution? I would happily pay more taxes to publicly fund services like search engines and browsers -- but that isn't politically viable right now.

> We don't need ads. Ads are a blight on humanity which provides negative value.

I agree. That's why I block them.

> You mean the No, I mean how to fund massive projects and infrastructure without public funding.

> It's literally no different in any way from a browser which supports adblocking extensions.

I never said it was. I said it blocks ads by default.

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

#438

Post by Larrikin »

dngray wrote: post #421
archduck wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" anyw…

Your consistent advice in your post history is don't ever use any extensions besides uBlock Origin because of fingerprinting and "privacy"

But what if I want actually use the web instead of just blocking ads. Sponsorblock, TamperMonkey, 1Password, CamelCamelCamel, etc are all useful extensions as well that make browsing the web specifically for me better.

There are so many fingerprinting techniques that it seems pointless to have a detrimental experience generally instead of using a sandboxed computer for specific dangerous activities.

I'll continue to use Ad Nauseum, despite your recommendations against it, because I'd rather have a known worthless profile than a worthless browser.

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

Theres no evidence supporting this, but Google blocking it from the Chrome store is strong evidence that filtering out those clicks is actually difficult

Edit: Also its a moot point as extensions can't be used for fingerprinting if you just don't use Chrome https://github.com/z0ccc/extension-fingerprints#extension-fi... . I assume any activity I do in Chrome is sent back to Google (or Microsoft or Brave) regardless of plugins installed.

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

#439

Post by docmars »

bacchusracine wrote: post #398
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.

ICYMI: That extension was bought up by Avast. https://www.androidpolice.com/i-dont-care-about-cookies-acqu...

Well poop!

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

#440

Post by docmars »

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?

I'm not sure if Cookie AutoDelete hides or auto-accepts cookie popups, but that was the main motivation for using "I don't care about cookies" -- I don't want to see all these ridiculous cookie notices on every site I visit.
Post reply on HN