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

111–120 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#111

Post by Loughla »

yura wrote: post #94
ryandrake wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how here's HN, a site full of Software Engineers complaining about ad bombardment, and every single one of those ads were programmed by... a software engineer! We (as a profession) are the ones doing this! "Oh, but boss told me to do it!" some will say, as if it's a good excuse. Regardless of which manager told which developer to do it, at the end of the day, a developer typed in the code and pushed it to prod.…

"Every single one of those ads were programmed by... a human! We (as humans) are the ones doing this!" See? That logic doesn't work so well. "Software engineers" are not a singular entity nor a homogeneous group. To maintain the status quo, it doesn't take more than just a few SWEs willing to implement ads and/or invasive tracking.

Your argument is a little lacking. Software engineers are directly responsible, is the difference.

The people on this site are a group of humans uniquely equipped to actually speak and interact with the people responsible for this bullshit.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#112

Post by tourmalinetaco »

toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

Service quality is inversely proportional to advertising revenue. Why would I let poor quality services profit off of me when they can’t even provide me with the answers I seek? You appear to have this idea in your head that it‘s independent websites running the bulk of advertising, when in fact it‘s SEO scams and low quality services like Google. If a website provides me consistent value, I chip in a few bucks, but as it stands I will never turn my Adblock off.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#115

Post by amusingimpala75 »

jampekka wrote: post #62

> Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. This may be sadly outdated. Android Chrome and iOS Webkit probably account for majority of traffic nowadays, and neither allows adblock extensions.

That's false. See AdGuard for iOS

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047...

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#116

Post by keernan »

toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

>There is an unwritten social contract here.

I don't feel that is an accurate take. Websites tried charging money for access and the internet citizenry responded pretty clearly that the overwhelming majority of websites were not worthy of payment for access.

So websites tried a run-around - advertising. And the use of ad-blockers exist because internet users are again voting that they would rather the website(s) disappear than be forced to watch a level of obtrusive advertising they found unacceptable enough that they turned to adblockers. And I would suggest to you that if website owners were to find a way to defeat adblockers, the majority of them would lose their traffic.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#118

Post by batch12 »

toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

> There is an unwritten social contract here.

I never agreed to this contract the same way I never agreed to watch ads on my television or listen to them on the radio. I reserve the right to change stations temporarily, mute sound, and block ads.

I hereby invoke a social contract that states that everyone who reads this comment must reply with their demographic data so I can sell it. Be polite and conform, please. My time is valuable and these comments don't write themselves.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#120

Post by taf2 »

NegativeK wrote: post #45
taf2 wrote: post #37

I must be a strange person because I don’t run any adblocker… if I happen to need to visit an ad stricken site I just toggle on reader mode. Get my info and get out… I never have to worry about clicking on a search result and it doing nothing … but also I rarely visit these ad sites…. For the cookie banners I just inspect and delete the elements when they get in the way…

> I never have to worry about clicking on a search result and it doing nothing I can't remember the last time I noticed that the ad blocker even existed on my machine. Occasionally some clever site will basically say "if you can see this, we're supported by ads and could use your help" -- but it doesn't break things and I don't see ad links in search results.

Do they remove the cookie banners?
Post reply on HN