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

FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

ic3.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#101

Post by dahart »

gerdesj wrote: post #57
azinman2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The changes Apple made were to increase privacy. Content blockers that have access to the page have no network access. A separate process that does can only update the blocking rules. I quite like Ka-block

"The changes Apple made were to increase privacy" Apple gobbles personal data too and processes it and sells it etc. They are simply rather better at looking ... friendly. They really are very good at that.

> Apple gobbles personal data too

What data and how do you know? This seems to be a popular talking point, but I’ve yet to see evidence. It doesn’t make that much sense to frame Apple’s privacy stance as similar to Google’s or Facebook’s. Apple isn’t an ad business, and Google and Facebook are, plain and simple.

I don’t work for Apple, and I don’t use an Apple laptop or desktop, but I don’t buy this Apple is as bad as businesses that are primarily built on ad revenue and are actively eroding privacy. I’m sure they’re not perfect, but I feel like Apple is relatively serious about privacy, making real changes that generally protect consumers, and setting a better example than many big tech companies. Are you sure they don't look better because they really are better?

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#102

Post by purple-leafy »

hootz wrote: post #70
purple-leafy wrote: post #13

I make loads of browser extensions, is there any wins that can be had by building another ad-blocker? An manifest v3 compliant one. Or does unlock origin lite cover everything? I was thinking continent specific ad blockers etc

All work is pretty much already done by uBlock Origin Lite and AdGuard MV3. Manifest v3 fucking sucks, and people will probably need to go to system-wide ad blocking such as AdGuard to block ads using all the filters, as v3 limits the number of filters you can use.

Is adguard a system level script interceptor like wire shark?

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#103

Post by pdntspa »

toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

This idea that content owners need compensation for making their content available needs to go. There was an entire generation of kind souls doing exactly that until the culture was suffocated to death by late-stage American capitalism. I and many others gladly made content available to others at our own cost.

The mission of making knowledge available to those less fortunate than oneself (especially in this inflated first-world lifestyle) should supercede the need for financial gain.

But once the actual moneyed assholes come in and take over, everything gets expensive and unaffordable and now you absolutely need a business model just to build something. Perhaps ad blockers and piracy are the much-needed counterbalancing force keeping the monster at bay.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#104

Post by macNchz »

toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

By my estimation the ad networks and publishers are the primary violators of the social contract by allowing malicious ads on their systems. They could absolutely stop essentially all bad behavior by 1) not allowing any rich or dynamic ad content and 2) having a human look at every ad before it goes live. Those measures would negatively impact their multi-billion dollar profits, though, so they don’t, therefore I block ads and don’t feel bad about it.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#107

Post by Loughla »

pdntspa wrote: post #103
toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

This idea that content owners need compensation for making their content available needs to go. There was an entire generation of kind souls doing exactly that until the culture was suffocated to death by late-stage American capitalism. I and many others gladly made content available to others at our own cost. The mission of making knowledge available to those less fortunate than oneself (especially in this inflated…

I'm with you. I really am. I genuinely miss the web when it seemed wild and free and not just a collection of five companies.

The problem is that the old way is dead. And its own popularity killed it. Just for example; There is no way a video hosting site the size and scope of YouTube could have possibly existed when the Internet was a hobby.

What do we do with that?

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#108

Post by RajT88 »

toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

> 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.

Let's use Facebook as an example.

You can't not get tracked by Facebook if you have a Facebook account. If you use it, they track you and monetize you somehow. All of your interactions with the site, and all your interactions with other users.

Blocking as much of Facebook's ads and tracking as you can while keeping the site working means you are monetized somewhat less. You're still not freeloading.

This is similar with other companies - you have to use the product, and they monetize your use of the product. Whether or not you see the ads in Gmail - they are still aggregating all of your data and monetizing it.

Adblockers can be seen as a system of checks and balances and incentivize certain types of monetization over others.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sympathetic to your argument. Google and Facebook can't run a service without being able to make a profit on it. I believe users should have measures of control over how they are monetized, and there should be clarity about how they are being monetized. Example: Google Maps keeps prompting me to turn on my location history. If I do, the TOS says they get to sell that to a bunch of people. That prompt to turn it on should be clear about this compromise. My wife doesn't mind; I do, but I had to read the TOS to understand the compromise is there in the first place.

As an aside, I find it really interesting how content creators are being sponsored by companies in much the same way early radio shows had sponsored ads. Everything old is new again, and I find this un-blockable type of advertising to be totally fair, fine and normal.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#109

Post by beedeebeedee »

shiroiushi wrote: post #98
beedeebeedee wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not a rhetorical question, How do you expect all software engineers to be unified on a single solution to ad bombardment, given the internet is international, driven by market dynamics and capitalism and a non-trivial number of programmers are beholden to tyrannical managers By developing a consensus that it is not ok to do that type of behavior (bombardment of ads, surveillance capitalism, etc) and changin…

Maybe we can apply this line of reasoning to crime too...

We do, and it mostly works
Post reply on HN