uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#821

Post by bitpush » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:06 PM UTC

ooterness wrote: post #440

bitpush wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Request says "Hey... can I read a document named this?" and the computer shows you the document. Did you not skip over a lot of steps in between? User: Hey can I read a document named this? Server: Sure, let me spend resources and spin harddisk and lookup the thing you wanted. Oh hey, I found it .. here ya go User: Great. ---- You've conviently ignored the resources the "old" web had to spend to serve you. Nothing…

This argument makes no sense, because the CPU and disk resources required to serve up a modern ad (and the megabytes of JavaScript that come with it) are 100-1000x more expensive than just serving up the content.

You're right, but that's not the point the person is making is it? A bare modern webpage is no where comparable to the site of the past. If you take hackernews as an example with no ads, no tracking as an example, it still be orders of maginitude _costly_ than index.html in the past.

Hacker News is dynamic, a webserver has to dynamic stitch together the comments and send you an html. It has to make sure the page is always fresh with latest comments, and vote count. There's batch processing happening in the background, with multiple rounds of storage and backup.

So yes, to the user it is "Please give me the homepage" and "Here ya go" but behind the scenes it is expensive, at this scale.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#822

Post by ndriscoll » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:06 PM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #797

ndriscoll wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world's topmost universities (e.g. Yale, MIT) publish those same lectures on their own websites along with other course materials. We could demand public universities do the same for all courses. If they weren't part of monopolized platforms already, by now we'd probably have widespread p2p video chat (we already had p2p calling with Skype; we've regressed in that area), and it'd be unmetered just like phone call…

> by now we'd probably have widespread p2p video chat we still have it. WhatsApp video chat is the most widely used video chat app. > we already had p2p calling with Skype; we've regressed in that area Skype was barely present on mobile and got acquired by Microsoft before Mobile took off. Then it was as good as dead. So we have in fact progressed massively that anyone in Asia with a crappy handset and a decent conne…

My point here is that the reason any of this stuff is possible is because the underlying technology makes it extremely cheap. It's not ads that make it so anyone on Asia can have a video chat on a cheap phone; it's that even cheap phones are absurdly powerful and bandwidth is plentiful. Signaling a p2p call is cheap, and phone companies already do it for voice calls. Wasn't WhatsApp the one that had something like 100M-1B MAU charging $1/year on hardware from a decade ago? The actual cost of these things is trivial.

Ads don't make it possible for people to have cheap access to movies. The fact that it costs literally nothing (c.f. bittorrent) to distribute them does. Especially for older recordings that were already paid for generations ago. It actually costs more resources to centralize distribution to serve ads.

Yes it is expensive to run a giant worldwide monopoly on video distribution. But that's not necessary. And some of those problems (e.g. content moderation, discovery) don't exist when self-publishing or curating partners.

People taking ads over paying is exactly why they are anticompetitive. They allow below cost services, destroying competition from companies that just want to fairly offer a service, leading to everything having ads and surveillance, eventually driving up costs of everything.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#823

Post by Marsymars » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:07 PM UTC

yaportmax wrote: post #531

Marsymars wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are a variety of potential solutions, but one where the public marketplace is taxed/polluted by a private entity in a way that can't be avoided isn't an acceptable status quo. Requiring FB to provide a paid ad-free option with a price commensurate with their cost of providing service would be one approach. Prohibiting them from actively breaking adblockers would be another. I wouldn't wholesale ban ads,…

They have a paid ad-free option in Europe. Nobody pays for it at all. Same with every company ever that does that (YouTube, Reddit - this is a tiny fraction of their customers). Preventing them from blocking adblockers is effectively the same thing as banning ads in that it destroys revenue. Remember that that would impact all parts of the internet, even the companies without the resources of Meta. So maybe a company…

> Preventing them from blocking adblockers is effectively the same thing as banning ads in that it destroys revenue. Remember that that would impact all parts of the internet, even the companies without the resources of Meta.

I'm only suggesting preventing Meta from blocking adblockers. (And the world would likely be a better place if Meta's revenue were destroyed — but I expect they would do just fine without blocking ad-blockers — basically every other property on the web does.)

> Also - no ads on marketplace? I personally do like using marketplace vs the alternative (Craigslist), and personally I would prefer that stays available for me to use (and for free).

So maybe your jurisdiction has multiple online marketplaces and needs less regulation around them. Mine does not. It's akin to having a single consumer-hostile utility/telecom/railroad/etc. provider.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#824

Post by ericmay » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:07 PM UTC

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #812

ericmay wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what is the service Facebook actually provides then? A way to manage communities and events. A way to find, connect, and communicate with others. I don’t have Facebook or use any social media (except LinkedIn) and yet I still plan events, connect, and communicate with others. I have not touched a mainstream social media site since probably 2013. We don't need Facebook, and we especially don’t need to spend a bun…

The point you are raising is a non sequitur to theirs. The fact that you can do these things without Facebook is not mutually exclusive with others using Facebook with the same intentions.

Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply to me here.

The OP was responding to "government run Facebook?" and the premise is "we need Facebook-style technology to do XYZ things like plan events" but for-profit Facebook fills that need with these negative repercussions: "collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests." and then argues that it follows that a government run Facebook should exist to handle the things that the OP is asserting are necessary without any of the identified downside.

The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested. You don't. And I'd argue not only should we not have a government fun Facebook, we shouldn't have Facebook or other social media to begin with.

I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise. I'm simply responding to the words that they wrote. No matter how it is framed or how the goalposts are moved, you simply do not need Facebook nor do you need a government run Facebook.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#825

Post by brulx126 » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

kavok wrote: post #685

mrngld wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets be fair, here. Traditional TV was ~40 minutes of content with 20 minutes of ads. I still remember televised holiday movies "presented with limited commercial breaks by Folgers, where the best part of waking up..." or whoever was sponsoring it. Radio stations had to power their transmitters and pay their staff, so they had ads. Newspapers use ads to keep themselves affordable. This has always been a business mode…

I believe radio across Europe was largely ad free and had a different business model. The BBC for example.

You say "was" as if it was a thing of the past. But public broadcasting still exists in many countries in Europe, including radio and TV. They have either less or no ads and their quality is much higher than that of purely ad-funded private stations that nowadays are sometimes even completely automated.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#826

Post by sodapopcan » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #516

sodapopcan wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question but I honestly can't remember, even though it wasn't even that long ago. I've given up services slowly over the past few years, but since I used all the big stuff: Google search/email, instagram, and facebook, and am (still) addicted to YouTube that the ads were already soooooo specific to me that I doubt they got any more specific. I would assume that after I bought that stupid sponge that didn't work…

Cheers. A silicone sponge seems so oxymoronical: that was my responsible impetus. Hard to avoid commercial interests. Sell poets on the block.

Ha, ya I'm just calling it that for eases sake. It's a "cleaning tool" sponge replacement. It did not work. The blanket was actually good quality but it turns out I did not even want a really massively huge blanket.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#827

Post by ericmay » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:12 PM UTC

8note wrote: post #814

docjay wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The earlier link you provided is indeed refreshingly quick to navigate. What a joy that’s unnecessarily rare. It renders like trash and is unusable on my intentionally-not-updated iPhone, but still. Yay. “Provide incentive programs and reward those that take on such initiatives.” We have that too, we call it capitalism. It’s not very unique, but we heavily market it under the “land of opportunity” moniker. Do a thing…

the dearth of monopolies in america suggests that yes, you can all align om what to eat for dinner, and its that you get what you are given by Sysco

Can you? Ok you're right. We've all agreed Canada should be the 51st State [1].

Or did you have a different menu in mind?

[1] I don't like this talk, I'm just using it as an example.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#828

Post by thatguy0900 » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:17 PM UTC

jimrandomh wrote: post #282

Eventually, this arms race ends with a computer vision model that looks at the screen, classifies visual elements as ads, and draws a rectangle over anything that looks like an ad. I am significantly less tolerant of ads than average people seem to be. (I think average people are making a horrible mistake about this, and are badly cognitively damaged by ads in ways they don't realize). If my choices are to look at ad…

Wouldn't the next step of the arms race just be bots who are sufficiently able to weave ads into content that it's unrecognizable? Casually talking about things we use is completely normal and unavoidable, but a huge target for advertising

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#829

Post by ajkjk » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:25 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #540

Barbing wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any leeway here for children’s bone cancer charities to separate them from Zuckgoogle_et.al._AdCorp? Or OP: OP posted the link in good faith, not to interfere with my brain but to inform me. Reminder to brush your teeth = benevolent. Reminder wealthy people might be happy if they give a smidge of money this year to a good cause can be a check-in on whether we’re being holistically solid folks more than evidence of a…

Leeway to advertise in unrelated content? Nope.

yep, agreed. The problem is not "bone cancer charities must have a way of getting their message out!" therefore "they should be able to bug you about it while you're reading an article". The problem is that the things bugging you while reading an article is bad for your mind (and even worse if they are manipulative, which they are). If you get rid of these exploitable mediums for messaging, other mediums will appear which -- hopefully -- are more just and healthy. Particularly if they're things we value as society. And if some things we don't value die because invasive advertising was the only way they could survive? Fine.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#830

Post by jabroni_salad » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 3:27 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #787

guhcampos wrote: post #777

I'm with the developer here. At some point the effort is just not worth it anymore. Facebook, as a platform, has long since lost the relevance as a social network, it is basically just an ad platform these days. So why keep wasting resources on trying to block ads from an ad platform? A user who does not want to see ads on Facebook probably should just stop using Facebook altogether. I get the appeal for staying on I…

> Facebook, as a platform, has long since lost the relevance as a social network I don’t understand how this is determined.

At some point facebook has switched gears to be more about public/semipublic forums and marketplace. If you wanted the old facebook that was for your immediate family/friends/acquaintances then it isnt really relevant anymore compared to group texts.

I just gave FB a few screenlengths of scrolling. There was one post from a family member and about 20 from people I am not friends with and groups I do not follow. I used to use an extension to get rid of that extra stuff (Purity) but at some point I stopped fighting it and stopped visiting too.