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

No adblocker detected

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 388 posts

Re: No adblocker detected

#101

Post by chithanh »

bitpush wrote: post #33
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why DNS ad blockers (Ad Guard, Pi-Hole, other) aren't frequently used across corporates. Especially given the regular-ish training on cybersecurity and related.

Because ads are not how malware is distributed? You have higher chance of getting a malware from `pnpm add` than seeing an ad on the web.

To add to the other reply, there were even targeted malware campaigns through ad networks. Because nowadays, you can choose who sees your ads so precisely (by IP block or geolocation) that you can target individual organizations.

Re: No adblocker detected

#102

Post by sexeriy237 »

charcircuit wrote: post #55
randunel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The websites you speak of don't get to decide what my hardware and my software does when running in my hands. Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.

That's why the parent said it was a social contact based on the honor system. Just because you can technically block ads, it doesn't meant it's the right thing to do.

no ads = no malware

Re: No adblocker detected

#103

Post by creatonez »

userbinator wrote: post #15

I found it amusing that my proxy detected the "/ads/" in the URL and killed the connection automatically. Of course highlighting this fact that the presence of an adblocker is detectable, unfortunately only results in escalating the cat-and-mouse game further. I have also considered popularising a script that replaces the whole page's content with "JavaScript detected, please disable it to view this content and impro…

> I have also considered popularising a script that replaces the whole page's content with "JavaScript detected, please disable it to view this content and improve your security".

This is exactly what most dark net markets do.

Re: No adblocker detected

#104

Post by pmontra »

throwawaygmbno wrote: post #51
toastercat wrote: post #41

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeload…

This is a fine social contract for the independent blogger just sharing their thoughts on the Internet and maybe hoping to get a few dollars for their server cost. Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people. There is no social contract with them. They just sell your data. If you know what they are doing, know how to block it, and refuse to, you are complicit in m…

> Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people.

IMHO this is a very wrong take. Mega corporations are people. Demonstration: nobody goes to work at Google for a while. Everything stops, technical stuff and non technical stuff. No people, no corporations, small ones and large ones.

Re: No adblocker detected

#105

Post by DocTomoe »

It's bad enough we got extra work for those who use adblockers. Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach.

It's also deeply paternalistic: Even if it is meant well - and I assume that's the case here - it implies the site operator knows better than the user what is good for them.

Finally, this will also lower the guards of less technical users for installing random plug-ins on website demand.

From a subjective gut feeling: Please do not do this. Let people decide what they need, and what they don't need.

Re: No adblocker detected

#106

Post by DocTomoe »

dheera wrote: post #31
Tarq0n wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn't care whether it's a cookie or an equivalent.

The "law" only applies if you live in the EU anyway.

See, this is where you are wrong. The law applies if you target people living in the EU (such as using one of the languages spoken within the EU. English applies thanks to Malta and Ireland. So does not explicitly removing tracking from EU IPs).

Whether it is technically enforceable in your particular case may be the question. But historically, it has been enforced outside the EU.

As you live in the Bay Area - the CCPA and the CPRA, which are similar in many ways and seem to require an opt-out mechanism (e.g. if you operate a commercial website with >100k devices accessing it during a year).

Talk to a lawyer, don't take advice from strangers on the internet.

Re: No adblocker detected

#107

Post by BrenBarn »

ryandrake wrote: post #69
charcircuit wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why the parent said it was a social contact based on the honor system. Just because you can technically block ads, it doesn't meant it's the right thing to do.

It's not any kind of contract. A contract (even an unwritten "social" one) implies at the very least some kind of agreement, some meeting of the minds. There is no meeting of the minds on the web: Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content," then the server says, "Here's what I'd like you to show," and finally the browser decides what out of that stream of bytes gets shown. There's no agreement by the user i…

If there is no meeting of minds, why are you going to websites? You go to websites to see information that was in someone else's mind and load it into your mind.

Re: No adblocker detected

#108

Post by jbstack »

pea wrote: post #84
ksynwa wrote: post #36

I am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade. Once in a while I have to browse on a device that does not have an ad blocker or most of the times does not even let you install one. Seeing a website that is SEoptimised and heavily ad supported feels like walking into a crack den. That this is the normal experience for the vast majority of users is sad.

I wonder if you could spend a few million on promoting adblockers to justify a short position on Google or Meta.

You'd have to be very careful not to run afoul of insider trading and/or market manipulation laws. Whether you would or not would depend on all the details and the jurisdiction.

Re: No adblocker detected

#109

Post by teiferer »

ruined wrote: post #67
ksynwa wrote: post #36

I am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade. Once in a while I have to browse on a device that does not have an ad blocker or most of the times does not even let you install one. Seeing a website that is SEoptimised and heavily ad supported feels like walking into a crack den. That this is the normal experience for the vast majority of users is sad.

funny thought: i would speculate that the demographic intersection of web users and crack users has a higher utilization of adblock than all web users

... as well as all crack users.

Re: No adblocker detected

#110

Post by selcuka »

chithanh wrote: post #98
happymellon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox and UBlock Origin has never broken for me and works effectively.

You were just lucky, because YouTube uses A/B testing and does not roll out anti-adblock-measures to everyone simultaneously. This gives UBO some time to react.

I haven't seen any ads for years either.

I use uBlock Origin, plus I've configured my Firefox to open YouTube always in a dedicated container, that logs me out of any Google-related stuff as I never upvote or comment anyway. Browsing YouTube anonymously might have helped.

Post reply on HN