Live data from Hacker News

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

digitalescapetools.com

831–840 of 953 posts

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

#831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those apps where you share pics or whatever would not exist without ads if people had to pay for them. So I am not sure if all is bad in that sense. Bc it lets the apps for sharing without people having to pay to exist in the first place. I am not doing any assessment regarding to the toxicity of ads. I am just trying to objectively say that this also spreads "horizontally" software for free in some sense.

The only alternative to ads isn't people directly paying cash to evil private companies. Like, the fact that instagram's average revenue per user is around $25 means that instagram ads are, on average, tricking people into buying 100s of dollars of crap they don't need. If the ads weren't successfully brainwashing people, eventually people would stop buying ads presumably. ... But yes, I agree people will generally c…

To add to this, government-run services can't absolve themselves of all wrongdoing with Terms of Service they can change on a whim. Censorship within government-run social media is subject to the restrictions placed on the government's control of speech.

(Technically, the terms are still there but they're called Titles and Statutes and other things that require a bunch of ceremony and agreement to change, not just an email.)

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

#832
post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate how normal ads seem to be to young people (under age 30). Just seeing TikTok videos secondhand on YouTube the videos seems stuffed with people pushing crap. YouTube channels none are without ads either by YouTube or by the channel owners. Plus the "oh you have an add blocker!!" whining if you dare try to slow the firehose of ads coming at you. Yes I do have an ad blocker because it seems my entire existence is…

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…

Yes I was there it wasn't as bad as now. TV or radio it was never the same three ads over and over and over. And the media is now truncated so cram in more ads. Plus the time between ads is shorter. So it's basically ads with a brief TV show in between mostly ads.

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

#833
post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 use…

I don’t like Facebook either, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant as a social network.

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

#834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governme…

> Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply

It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up.

> The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested.

This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never said people can't replace it with other means to do what Facebook currently does for them, just that they apparently don't want to, as revealed by their use of Facebook for the doings in question. If you still think that's wrong, please point me to the passage in their comment which contradicts it, because I am failing to find it.

> I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise.

Funny. I now wonder if I'm going to be dismissed as a sock puppet.

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

#835
post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That isn't enough for me. I don't just want to not see the ads, I want to stop them being fetched entirely. There are two big problems with ads. * The ad network can build up a very complete profile of what you like, dislike, and general…

If a computer vision model can identify ads and draw a rectangle over them, it can identify the DOM elements rendered inside that rectangle. Thus, the HTML, JS, and network calls of those ads can be detected. This data can then be used to train an ad detector model based on the DOM and network examples. The computer vision model essentially trains the DOM/network blocker, acting as a fallback mechanism when the block…

Technically speaking, it’s possible to have the same kind of requests for legit content and ads. It’s also possible to randomize the response type (ad or content). In that case the only way to solve this before sending a request is to break their random number generator. That’s definitely not on the level of ad blockers.

However, I have no clue whether the content delivery system is already like that, and if not, then why. My domain knowledge is slim.

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

#836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the obvious answer is, that you are the product, and you are worth $$$$, possibly $$$$$, even $$$$$$ When did you agree to be sold without representation and a contract, again? Something about malicious contracts nobody reads? Pretty sure that behavior remains...criminal.

You agree when you click I accept Terms of Service

Not only is this not really correct (obscuring pertinent legal information on purpose is a crime, e.g. such that it cannot be recalled), it isn't even applicable.

Its been long documented that these systems are attempting to monitor you, even if you did not sign up for the service or interact with it.

I.e., you are categorically incorrect.

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

#837
post #568
post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Meta would spy less on us and show us less ads if we payed to access their services ? They would just keep doing what they've been doing for ages and they would have even more money to keep their enshitification going. We are already paying too much for all the services with subscription. Like Spotify, Netflix and others...

Plenty of other services (like Spotify) stop showing you ads if you pay them enough money.

What do you think the constant reminders of "hey hey hey, use these autogenerated vibes based playlists that are more profitable to us because we filled them with AI generated fake artists" are?

Meanwhile spotify also has at least two autogenerated playlists of the songs you have chosen to play more than a few times. Literally "Here's the songs you recently took an interest in", and they do not fill your front page with that autogenerated playlist!

Because that copy they are shoving in your face is not Informing you of useful Features or Inviting you to try something we made, but is instead managed by the marketing department.

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

#838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governme…

> Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up. > The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested. This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never…

> It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up.

Ok that's incorrect because I did engage with the point they brought up in that comment, and then even quoted it specifically.

> This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never said people can't replace it with other means to do what Facebook currently does for them, just that they apparently don't want to, as revealed by their use of Facebook for the doings in question. If you still think that's wrong, please point me to the passage in their comment which contradicts it, because I am failing to find it.

If that was their premise I would just reject it off-hand as the equivalent of just saying stuff. People use Facebook. Cows moo. Sometimes it rains on Tuesday. Who cares?

The point isn't whether or not people use or need Facebook, what was in question and being discussed was the negative aspects and whether some other version of a Facebook could be swapped in to have the "good" parts of Facebook without the "bad".

For example:

  >  government-run Facebook?
  > Yes. But, it depends what you think Facebook is, which I'm assuming isn't what Meta does with Facebook. They are in the business of collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests. All of this is of negative value to both end user and society. In a world with a "government run Facebook", it wouldn't exist.
Underlying this is the presumption that we should have a service like Facebook, and the question is who should run it and what the effects might be. You can see the OP outlining these negative effect here for yourself.

My point is I disagree with the need to solve this problem by creating what will inevitably by giant software conflagrations that ultimately, in my view, do not serve any real purpose because not only does the government version serve no purpose, the private market version doesn't either.

If you want to actually challenge my point instead of engaging in "nuh uh that wasn't the premise" you could just say well other people think they need it or really want it and you're just stating an opinion, or something along those lines.

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

#839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governme…

> Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up. > The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested. This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never…

If it is of any consolation. You are spot on, and saved me the effort (which had run out). I'd recommend to leave it alone as well, as it isn't worth it to try and explain logical fallacies. Or, heck, you do you. I'm just too old for it

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

#840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I propose a sane rule for all humans: if you see an ad somewhere, or if you suspect a hidden ad ('influencers' trying to promote something), close the tab immediately and never return to that site. But this very site has lots of ads on it. Up until a few days ago, there was an "Apply to YC Fall 2026" link at the bottom of every page, and the front page usually has ads on it too [0]. So it seems tricky to strictly f…

I draw a line on advertising for myself: if it's just letting me know a service or product exists, it's fine. It's a business necessity. If I ever start a business, I need a way to communicate to potential customers that my business exists, that's fair use. When the ads start being misleading, manipulative, emotional, irrational - then we're out of the fair use field and into the "this should be a crime" field.

usage:

>I draw a line on advertising for myself

the typical phrase in English, "I draw the line at advertising for myself" would mean that is the thing that has gone too far, something you will not accept. you used a slightly different phrase, but it is still where I draw the line.

Post reply on HN