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

141–150 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#141

Post by [deleted] »

Loughla wrote: post #111
yura wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

[deleted]

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#142

Post by dopadelic »

hollerith wrote: post #60
dopadelic wrote: post #56

Adblock would break most websites nowadays. It's commonplace to detect adblock and disable the website if adblock is detected.

Yeah, better not to install any kind of adblock even as a test. No one else does. You would be alone. Also, people who use adblock are antisocial. Also, I'd be mortified if I visited a web page, then the site told me that I cannot continue because I have adblock installed. I wouldn't want that to happen to me even once.

Uh, it's more that I had adblock installed and found myself needing to disable it for most websites just to access it. Adblock ended up being more of a hassle to use than the small handful of sites where it actually worked.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#143

Post by beedeebeedee »

bell-cot wrote: post #125
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…

> By developing a consensus that it is not ok to do that... That sounds cool...but such coordinated, idealistic behavior never occurs in human beings.

Yes it does- it happens all the time. It happens through talking about it publicly and coming to agreement.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#144

Post by hollerith »

dopadelic wrote: post #142
hollerith wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, better not to install any kind of adblock even as a test. No one else does. You would be alone. Also, people who use adblock are antisocial. Also, I'd be mortified if I visited a web page, then the site told me that I cannot continue because I have adblock installed. I wouldn't want that to happen to me even once.

Uh, it's more that I had adblock installed and found myself needing to disable it for most websites just to access it. Adblock ended up being more of a hassle to use than the small handful of sites where it actually worked.

Oh, I see that I misunderstood the motivation behind your comment.

I've noticed an increase in sites that do what you describe, but so far I've responded by no longer hanging out on those sites, and that feels OK.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#146

Post by giancarlostoro »

downrightmike wrote: post #121
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

By then, its too late if there was malware on there.

If there was, I'd be really surprised if they built it to know how to run on an OS that isn't Windows dynamically.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#147

Post by giancarlostoro »

lupire wrote: post #82
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

What's an example of a site that is on the high end lft amount/style of ads that you tolerate?

Good question, if I can't read the article whatsoever, then that's my time to leave. I don't mind ads, but if they take up all of the content, then its just not worth it. If you trick me with ads as if it were content, like some download sites do, I hate you.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#148

Post by giancarlostoro »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

That feels like a pretty fair approach. If you don’t mind, I’m truly curious why you don’t Adblock? There’s no wrong answer here. ;)

After the first scandal about one adblocker being bought out, and letting by Google ads, I tried the next one in the list, then kept hearing about the issues, and then I realized, I am better off just not visiting sites that:

A) Want me to pay to view a one-off article B) Want me to not see any of their content cause its ad infested.

To be fair, if Firefox's Reader Mode doesn't suffice as a bypass, then I really don't bother coming back.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#150

Post by giancarlostoro »

MattGaiser wrote: post #16
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

Typically people with this attitude have no-JS or something though for privacy reasons. That would cut a lot of ads down. Or do you not use any blockers at all?

I used to, I don't even bother with any of that. If I really need to I maybe bust out reader mode on Firefox, but very rarely.

Especially at work most sites I visit aren't ad infested hellscapes, like StackOverflow and its relatives are not ad infested, neither is wikipedia, etc.

Post reply on HN