I work in adtech so I have to disable it occasionally
Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
121–130 of 159 posts
Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#122[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#123Imagine a world where the advertising billboard you walk past reaches into your head and takes a photo of your shopping list. While it's there it takes note of any deep concerns you may not know you have. And your sleep habits, where you live, random visual memories it may find useful anytime in the future, has a guess at how much you'd like to spend using personal records, what pets you have or would like, family, a…
Yes, yes, keep going.
Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#124I don't, but my browsing tends to be somewhat limited, and I tend to ignore the ads. I'm aware, vaguely, that the NY Times, is dumping ads for movies and clothes into its page, but I couldn't tell you which movies and clothes I saw yesterday.
Now, if I do see ads for women's clothing in a deeply technical post, and notice that the clothes include some I bought as a present for my wife, then I'm amused.
Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it unethical to use accessibility tools that cannot see visual ads? Is it unethical to use a computer that isn’t associated with you? (And thus have no ad profile?) If I get a untargeted ad, am I stealing?
> Is it unethical to use accessibility tools that cannot see visual ads? Arguably, in a black and white sense I think so. In a practical sense no. You wouldn't expect someone who's blind to get a free meal at a restaurant just because they are blind. From a practical point of view implementing ads for the visually impaired probably costs more than the ads gain, and therefore a company would rather not, but if a compa…
I just don’t agree and that’s ok.
It’s funny that many people paid for newspapers specifically to get ads. Ads were native content and sought out.
If you offer content for free, I don’t understand why I have an ethical obligation to look at or read that content, ads included. Personally, I think many of the low quality ad platforms aren’t ads at all - they are information gathering platforms
Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#126Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#127I would prefer not to, as I'd like to support the websites I browse. However, the privacy issues that come from invasive tracking that ad networks do is something I can't support.
Same. I'd have no issue with non-tracking ads.
Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you outline how you're doing system-wide as blocking? That's news to me!
## If you are rooted: Install AdAway and use the root method; this will modify the system hosts file and redirect the requests to domains that are used to serve ads to 127.0.0.1. Some apps refuse to function if they can't fetch ads, so AdAway has a webserver that listens on 127.0.0.1 that serves a blank webpage to those apps. Follow the directions in AdAway to install the CA certificate in your device. ## If you aren…
I just changed the DNS on my unrooted Android to AdGuard's, went into the YouTube and I still saw the ads. What am I missing?
Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
## If you are rooted: Install AdAway and use the root method; this will modify the system hosts file and redirect the requests to domains that are used to serve ads to 127.0.0.1. Some apps refuse to function if they can't fetch ads, so AdAway has a webserver that listens on 127.0.0.1 that serves a blank webpage to those apps. Follow the directions in AdAway to install the CA certificate in your device. ## If you aren…
I just changed the DNS on my unrooted Android to AdGuard's, went into the YouTube and I still saw the ads. What am I missing?
[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Does anybody not use an adblocker?
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it unethical to use accessibility tools that cannot see visual ads? Arguably, in a black and white sense I think so. In a practical sense no. You wouldn't expect someone who's blind to get a free meal at a restaurant just because they are blind. From a practical point of view implementing ads for the visually impaired probably costs more than the ads gain, and therefore a company would rather not, but if a compa…
I just don’t agree and that’s ok. It’s funny that many people paid for newspapers specifically to get ads. Ads were native content and sought out. If you offer content for free, I don’t understand why I have an ethical obligation to look at or read that content, ads included. Personally, I think many of the low quality ad platforms aren’t ads at all - they are information gathering platforms
Life isn't about what you take, it's about what you give.
If everyone takes without giving, there is nothing left to take. If everyone gives without taking, there is enough to take when you need it.
This is fundamental to how societies operate. This was core christian ethos before it was corrupted by the GOP. This is why the west has higher trust societies, and much of the rest of the world does not.
Reciprocity is an extremely important consideration. Kantian ethics is the foundation of the west. If you take your actions and thoughts and project them onto everyone else, the websites you enjoy wouldn't exist.
If you understand that, you just don't want to feel uncomfortable and are in denial. If you do not understand that you are choosing ignorance.
You don't have to agree, but we are both effectively parasites.
What's worse is the conflict of interest.
On the topic of news papers, if content is not paid for it is that the content itself that becomes an engine of money making. Content becomes ads. If nobody pays for high quality investigative journalism you don't get high quality investigative journalism.
If you don't donate to your politicians, someone else will.
If you don't pay for your news papers, someone else will.
If you don't pay for your social media, someone else will.
You can argue these companies are taking more than they give, and they are, but your position of personal responsibility is worth considering. The sum of everyone's thoughts on their personal responsibility creates culture, and this "next quarters profits" culture that we live in is an extension of the very ideas you have expressed.
When you choose to act in a self interested way, you justify someone else acting in a self interested way. So you justify the selfish acts against you through your actions.
If you think it's ok to not experience ads, you justify people using ads to collect and sell your data.
Using an adblocker is what you can do, just like selling your data is what the company can do. It's "might makes right" in form, which is the opposite of reciprocity. Might makes right is great for the winner, but I don't think we are winning.