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

Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#11

Post by HPsquared »

blitzar wrote: post #10
agtorre wrote: post #2

I've definitely noticed family being far less likely to be scammed or click fake ads with ad blocker on.

Given the prevalence in the real world of scams and fake ads - is there a danger that hiding them from people just means that they are more likely to fall for them when the inevitable happens. Any time I hear of a new scam, I tell people about the method so they can look out for it. In the heat of the moment the "IRS tax problem call" or "its me your child I have been in an accident can you send me some money" can be…

It's a bit like vaccination, educating people people about the various scams out there so they are prepared in advance.

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#12

Post by TechBro8615 »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #3

What would the end result be if a significant percentage of people started using ad blockers? I mean like 50-60%,enough to make the current "free" web non viable to run. Litigation against the end users? What happens if I'm legally required to view an ad that gives me malware?

The last number I saw was 30% which seems pretty significant already. This is not some fringe group of technically competent developers. Adblockers are accessible to anyone who can install a browser extension on desktop, or install an app (content blocker) from the App Store on iOS, where Apple has features built into the OS specifically for enabling ad blocking.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach...

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#13

Post by dylan604 »

chrisbolt wrote: post #9
wildrhythms wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more likely scenario is that browsers effectively ban or restrict ad blocker extensions. Apple already refuses to support browser extensions on their mobile OS, and Google does not allow extensions on Chrome mobile, and we already know mobile accounts for a significant portion of web traffic.

> Apple already refuses to support browser extensions on their mobile OS My iOS Wipr extension begs to differ.

This is one of those things that won't die like iOS can't copy&paste. Yes, both things were true for a painfully long time. They are no longer true now, so continuing to saying use these as examples is just moronic at this time.

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#14

Post by dylan604 »

Teever wrote: post #6
wildrhythms wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more likely scenario is that browsers effectively ban or restrict ad blocker extensions. Apple already refuses to support browser extensions on their mobile OS, and Google does not allow extensions on Chrome mobile, and we already know mobile accounts for a significant portion of web traffic.

> Apple already refuses to support browser extensions on their mobile OS It's going to be interesting to see how Apple deals with this now that the EU is forcing them to allow users to install apps from alternate sources.

you make this comment like the comment you are replying to is true. it's not, and just makes your comment even more ridiculous

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#15

Post by yummypaint »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #3

What would the end result be if a significant percentage of people started using ad blockers? I mean like 50-60%,enough to make the current "free" web non viable to run. Litigation against the end users? What happens if I'm legally required to view an ad that gives me malware?

The nature of advertising will become more "native" and will make it harder to separate ads from the content. We are already on our way.

Real businesses will be mostly unaffected. People will still need to buy airline tickets, insurance, widgets, etc online.

If facebook collapses nothing of value will have been lost. If google isn't able to stay afloat without ads despite billions in R&D funding then they were never meant to be. Life would go on.

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#16

Post by gjsman-1000 »

bhaney wrote: post #8
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #4

Here’s an idea: All the websites start using Widevine and FairPlay to make blocking ads a DMCA Violation. When that happens the absurdity of the DMCA might finally be forced to end.

Why does adding DRM change something's status under DMCA? Either way, I don't even compile Widevine into my browser so I guess I'd just be locked out of those sites.

DMCA Section 1201 criminalizes breaking any “technological protection measures” of any kind, unless there is an exception for it on a list decided by a librarian that changes every 3 years. It’s absurd.

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#17

Post by idrios »

blitzar wrote: post #10
agtorre wrote: post #2

I've definitely noticed family being far less likely to be scammed or click fake ads with ad blocker on.

Given the prevalence in the real world of scams and fake ads - is there a danger that hiding them from people just means that they are more likely to fall for them when the inevitable happens. Any time I hear of a new scam, I tell people about the method so they can look out for it. In the heat of the moment the "IRS tax problem call" or "its me your child I have been in an accident can you send me some money" can be…

> is there a danger that hiding them from people just means that they are more likely to fall for them when the inevitable happens.

Probably, but there's so much variance in human behavior and circumstances that your vulnerability to scams never drops to 0. A call telling you your child is in the hospital and you need to pay them because their check has bounced sounds a lot more convincing during times when you know your child is actually in the hospital.

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#18

Post by SllX »

wildrhythms wrote: post #5
thatguy0900 wrote: post #3

What would the end result be if a significant percentage of people started using ad blockers? I mean like 50-60%,enough to make the current "free" web non viable to run. Litigation against the end users? What happens if I'm legally required to view an ad that gives me malware?

The more likely scenario is that browsers effectively ban or restrict ad blocker extensions. Apple already refuses to support browser extensions on their mobile OS, and Google does not allow extensions on Chrome mobile, and we already know mobile accounts for a significant portion of web traffic.

I currently have 17 extensions installed on my iPhone for Safari. There’s some overlap, but not total overlap with the 7 content (read: ad) blockers I have installed too.

Re: Even the FBI says you should use an ad blocker

#19

Post by sophacles »

bhaney wrote: post #8
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #4

Here’s an idea: All the websites start using Widevine and FairPlay to make blocking ads a DMCA Violation. When that happens the absurdity of the DMCA might finally be forced to end.

Why does adding DRM change something's status under DMCA? Either way, I don't even compile Widevine into my browser so I guess I'd just be locked out of those sites.

Because the DMCA says that if you try to use property you own as if you own it, and that property came with DRM, you are a criminal. Stop thinking you own things pleb, that's not for people of your class and the masters decided to put an end to that nonsense.

(the thing you want to google for a non-snarky explanation: "anti-circumvention provision")

Post reply on HN