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

UBlock Origin

addons.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#101

Post by varjag »

gorhill wrote: post #100
varjag wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, its main purpose is blocking ads. Those visibly (and sometimes audibly) annoying flashy things. It's in the name.

> No, its main purpose is blocking ads I am well placed to speak about the main purpose of uBlock Origin. Here, from front page of the project: > uBlock Origin (or uBlock₀) is not an ad blocker; it's a general-purpose blocker [...] Ads, "unintrusive" or not, are just the visible portions of privacy-invading apparatus entering your browser when you visit most sites nowadays. uBlock₀'s main goal is to help users neutra…

Well that's what we exactly discuss, no? The adblocker who thinks it is something else.

Re: UBlock Origin

#102

Post by pikzen »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #80
gpvos wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking Google Analytics is the main point of any blocker I would consider using.

Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to…

>which is the only way they make money other than ads.

Yeah.

> So, you use the site resources

Yeah.

>don't see ads

Yeah.

> don't add to their user/page view numbers.

Yeah.

>Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc

Yeah.

Well you know what ? I wouldn't be doing this if ads provider didn't abuse my trust and displayed popup ads. I wouldn't be doing this if ads were actually targeted (lol jk). Early ads providers fucked it up for everyone. Not only do I hate the very principle of ads, I go out of my way to avoid them.

And most of all, I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't Google Analytics. Use piwik, use whatever you want as long as it's selfhosted and doesn't report to and I will allow it. After all, I have no way of knowing if you're selling my data back anyways. It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. You want stats ? Use your own server.

Re: UBlock Origin

#103

Post by click170 »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #80
gpvos wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking Google Analytics is the main point of any blocker I would consider using.

Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to…

It's not like GA is the only way to gather statistics, there are other vendors and even the access logs for your server itself.

I'm not willing to let Google follow me everywhere on the internet and if that is detrimental to the sites I visit then they are welcome to block me if they detect that I'm blocking GA.

Re: UBlock Origin

#104

Post by JadeNB »

frik wrote: post #65
mavhc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you like to go back to the AOL model, where sites got a proportion of the user's AOL subscription?

I would like that the Web stays at it is.

But you seem to argue against the culture of the web the way it currently is, which, whatever the morality of it (I use blockers with abandon!), includes both pushy, aggressive ads and ad blockers.

Re: UBlock Origin

#105

Post by glesica »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #82
amalcon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is blocking Google Analytics bad? Isn't blocking spyware like GA the main purpose of ad blocking software?

The vast majority of people use ad blockers to block ads. That's why almost no ad blockers block GA, etc by default. Plus, from my other comment: "Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their use…

> By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor.

They can still use server analytics to see me as a visitor. I even show up on Cloudflare. I don't want them tracking what I do on their site, it should be enough to know I showed up and asked for a specific page. If their business model relies on knowing more, then they chose a lousy business model.

Why is there so much sympathy for ad-supported sites on HN but when other industries with obsolete business models are brought up (like record companies) it's all about "disrupting" them? Have we given up on finding better ways to support content online?

Re: UBlock Origin

#106

Post by untog »

pikzen wrote: post #102
JohnTHaller wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to…

>which is the only way they make money other than ads. Yeah. > So, you use the site resources Yeah. >don't see ads Yeah. > don't add to their user/page view numbers. Yeah. >Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc Yeah. Well you know what ? I wouldn't be doing this if ads provider didn't abuse…

It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute.

If you really wanted to take a principled stand you just wouldn't use those web sites. Ad blockers are just lazy activism.

Re: UBlock Origin

#107

Post by _ZeD_ »

andybak wrote: post #66
gpvos wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking Google Analytics is the main point of any blocker I would consider using.

Would you block any analytics tracker - even one that didn't share data with 3rd parties? (i.e. a tracker that was purely to enable to site owners to gain insight into their visitors)

yes.

I keep analytics only for websites that are not-functioning. Still, I despise them.

Re: UBlock Origin

#108

Post by DanWaterworth »

untog wrote: post #106
pikzen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which is the only way they make money other than ads. Yeah. > So, you use the site resources Yeah. >don't see ads Yeah. > don't add to their user/page view numbers. Yeah. >Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc Yeah. Well you know what ? I wouldn't be doing this if ads provider didn't abuse…

It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. If you really wanted to take a principled stand you just wouldn't use those web sites. Ad blockers are just lazy activism.

> Ad blockers are just lazy activism.

Activism for the lazy; sounds like a good deal.

Re: UBlock Origin

#109

Post by piyush_soni »

lentil_soup wrote: post #27
decasteve wrote: post #14

From the horses mouth [1]: Main reason I published on AMO is because a feature which I think is important was removed from uBlock (per-site switches). That both versions diverged significantly enough so soon is not in my control. When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened. When uBlock removed the per-site…

Honest question, what's AMO?

Others already told the url it refers to. In other words, it is the term used for Mozilla's add on store in the absence of a suitable name.

Re: UBlock Origin

#110

Post by anc84 »

omegaham wrote: post #91
anc84 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a free website and every year I do a one week fund raising for the costs. I don't have customers but a more or less dedicated community (some people are around for years, others come and go). The community always exceeds the amount I ask for.

This is a fantastic idea. "Hey, you guys obviously get a kick out of my website. Not asking for much - just enough that I can keep the site running and still awesome." I'd definitely pitch in $20 a year to a site that has entertained me for years. The most immediate example that comes to mind is Wikipedia.

It works every time I see a site like mine try it. People are attached to the site over the years plus I am fully open about all the costs and expenses. The yearly amount is less than 20% of typical monthly income though, it is just hobbyists financing one part of their hobby. I don't think you could finance an actual job through this. But I think labour of love creates better websites than money-oriented endeavours anyways.

The key is making it very focused and short-time. People won't engage if you have a random donate button (I do, zero donations over 3 years). People love immediate motivation to participate in a common fundraising I guess.

Post reply on HN