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

161–170 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#161

Post by beedeebeedee »

shiroiushi wrote: post #152
beedeebeedee wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still criminals, but did you commit a crime today? How about your friends and family?

I don't understand your point. You say you want to change the culture, and that this has successfully been done in the case of crime, but this is blatantly false: every country has prisons with many criminals in them. In the US in particular (since most HNers probably live there), there are well over 1 million people in custody according to a quick google search, and over 5 million in corrections (so I assume most of…

> If your "change the culture" thing had worked, you wouldn't need police, or at least not many.

Who said that police are not part of the culture?

I'm not arguing whether or not we need police, I'm arguing that if we come to a consensus (i.e., we agree that surveillance capitalism, etc, is not ok), then we can stop the problem. That may mean we even criminalize certain behaviors if we believe it is necessary. But the foundation is consensus. So let's do that- I firmly believe that surveillance capitalism and the bombardment of ads is not ok. What about you?

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#162

Post by RajT88 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #160
RajT88 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

>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. Actually, Facebook will track you even if you don't have a Facebook account [0]. In fact, Facebook and others[1] track you whether or not you use their "services" or not. [0] https://www.howtogeek.com/768652/w…

Yeah, I knew that but with enough effort you can block that too.

I was being precise.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#163

Post by nobody9999 »

ranger_danger wrote: post #155
matt_j wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not torn at all. Ads are cancer. They're either un-curated and malware, or curated on my private data and disturbingly targeted. I reject both types.

would you rather pay to access that content? how else could the site be funded?

>would you rather pay to access that content? how else could the site be funded?

I can't speak for GP, but don't care how a site is funded, unless it's my site.

If a particular site goes away, it's no skin off my nose.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#164

Post by ndriscoll »

what wrote: post #137
keernan wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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) disa…

>ad-blockers exist because internet users are again voting they would rather the websites disappear Clearly not, or they would just stop using those sites. Instead they want the content at zero cost.

It's not like links come with ad warnings. I don't know or care which sites try to show ads, but I'd be fine with them all shutting down. It'd simply make room for everyone else.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#166

Post by meowster »

ranger_danger wrote: post #155
matt_j wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not torn at all. Ads are cancer. They're either un-curated and malware, or curated on my private data and disturbingly targeted. I reject both types.

would you rather pay to access that content? how else could the site be funded?

How were websites funded when the WWW was first created? Tax dollars, hobby/altruism, university dues, etc.

Don't want to spend an arm and a leg for bandwidth? Don't include megabutts of JS, CSS, images, etc. Optimize and respect your users/guests.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#167

Post by ranger_danger »

meowster wrote: post #166
ranger_danger wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you rather pay to access that content? how else could the site be funded?

How were websites funded when the WWW was first created? Tax dollars, hobby/altruism, university dues, etc. Don't want to spend an arm and a leg for bandwidth? Don't include megabutts of JS, CSS, images, etc. Optimize and respect your users/guests.

That only worked because the traffic to bandwidth cost ratio was small.

Youtube would cost any normal company untold millions per month just in bandwidth costs alone, and there's actually so much more to it. I would bet money that even Discord's bandwidth bills are at least 1 million USD per month if not more.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#168

Post by nobody9999 »

declan_roberts wrote: post #67

What's the current status of whole-network blockers that use DNS? I tried pihole maybe 8 years ago, and it just broke too many websites for me to leave it on for my wife. It really frustrated her.

>I tried pihole maybe 8 years ago, and it just broke too many websites for me to leave it on for my wife. It really frustrated her.

I've been running pi-hole at home for three or four years with minimal issues.

The times when I have seen issues, I just go to the admin webpage, disable blocking for some period of time, and try again. And it's almost never Pi-hole causing the issue unless I'm trying to click on an affiliate link[0].

I mention this not as something your wife might do, but to clarify that pi-hole (with default settings) almost never blocks anything I click on, and when it does, I'm almost always glad it did.

As such, assuming your wife isn't clicking marketing/advertising/affiliate links, pi-hole should be just fine for your home IMHO. As always, YMMV.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_marketing

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#169

Post by meowster »

thimabi wrote: post #52

Recently, my grandmother got herself scammed when trying to pay her bills, because she clicked a Google search ad for a fraudulent website posing as the local gas company. She lost some money and, of course, some of her personal data as well. When situations like this happen, I mostly place the blame on ad companies. It’s their product, so it should be their responsibility to prevent abuses. But there is scant regula…

I wonder what would happen if you (she) sued Google.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#170

Post by nobody9999 »

RajT88 wrote: post #162
nobody9999 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Actually, Facebook will track you even if you don't have a Facebook account [0]. In fact, Facebook and others[1] track you whether or not you use their "services" or not. [0] https://www.howtogeek.com/768652/w…

Yeah, I knew that but with enough effort you can block that too. I was being precise.

>Yeah, I knew that but with enough effort you can block that too.

Can you? As of 2021, there were more than 500 registered data brokers in the US alone.

And those brokers don't just use your Facebook profile (shadow or otherwise). Rather they source data from thousands of retailers, insurance companies, credit "rating" agencies, banks, etc., etc., etc.

How exactly do you (because I certainly don't know how to do so) keep hundreds of discrete businesses from collecting data on you? Do you squat in a lean-to on private land not owned by you? Do you have a phone purchased by you (even with cash, most retailers have surveillance cameras)? Do you own a car? Is it registered? Do you not live in New Hampshire (the only state which doesn't require auto insurance)? Do you have a credit card in your name? Do you have any professional certifications? Are you married? Divorced? Pay taxes?

If you really think you can block the level of tracking that goes on, you're either delusional or have a multi-billion dollar set of skills/ideas. Which might it be, do you think?

Post reply on HN