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

No adblocker detected

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 388 posts

Re: No adblocker detected

#161

Post by b3lvedere »

throwaway290 wrote: post #97

[flagged]

Why do corporations/publishers feel entitled that people feed them as much (personal) information as possible via invasive ads, even when these people did not consent to that?

Businesses should really stop complaining the consumer is the problem here. The businesses made this model and expected consumers to gladly accept it. Don't want people to consume your content for free? Make it a subscription or something. Can't get enough subscribers to be profitable? We're so so sorry...

Same with cookies. Don't want the mandatory-by-law cookie popups? Stop using cookies.

Re: No adblocker detected

#162

Post by NGRhodes »

ahofmann wrote: post #91
nananana9 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't use the internet at a whole - if you just stick to the 10 biggest apps/websites, the experience is acceptable without an adblocker. As for YouTube, blocking their ads is basically a part-time job at this point. On the desktop it breaks once a month, on Android NewPipe stopped working recently, and soon you won't be even able to install third party clients.

I hear this often. My experience is totally different. I've installed ublock origin and I'm using Vivaldi as my blink engine wrapper. I've never seen a YouTube ad since years. I wonder why anyone has to fight for an ad free YouTube.

I don't even think YouTube is anywhere near the worst advert offender. My local newspaper website is stuffed full of adverts. Between a large picture, article heading and advert, you often don't see a signle line of new content above the fold on a 1080p screen.

I do not regularly visit such sites. I do unblock websites that I return to often.

Re: No adblocker detected

#163

Post by bambax »

nananana9 wrote: post #68
jdprgm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really can't comprehend how aggressive ad blocking isn't the norm and at 90%+ at this point. Whenever someone just doesn't seem to care i'm concerned something is wrong with them. Youtube ad blocking was briefly not working for me recently and the volume of ads just while doing some chores which forced interrupting flow to go manually skip was astounding and enraging. It's like if I was at a quiet library and every…

Most people don't use the internet at a whole - if you just stick to the 10 biggest apps/websites, the experience is acceptable without an adblocker. As for YouTube, blocking their ads is basically a part-time job at this point. On the desktop it breaks once a month, on Android NewPipe stopped working recently, and soon you won't be even able to install third party clients.

This isn't really true. Firefox + uBlock origin works fine on the desktop and on mobile. You don't need to use the official YT app. (It is true thought that NewPipe is often broken).

Re: No adblocker detected

#164

Post by bambax »

dns_snek wrote: post #123
happymellon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox and UBlock Origin has never broken for me and works effectively.

Consider yourself lucky. Some of their A/B tests seem to be designed to psychologically torment you with videos "buffering" for 10-60 seconds before they start playing, navigation taking 15+ seconds. If that happens to you, this thread [1] is sometimes updated with manual workarounds that sometimes work: www.youtube.com##+js(nano-stb, resolve(1), *, 0.001) www.youtube.com##+js(set, yt.config_.EXPERIMENT_FLAGS.web_ena…

Hit F5, buffering gone.

Re: No adblocker detected

#165

Post by JoshTriplett »

charcircuit wrote: post #90
ryandrake wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that there is a societal expectation in this case. If I request HackerNews, it will start sending me bytes. There is no societal expectation around what I do with those bytes. Maybe I'll have my browser render them as-is. Maybe I'll strip out the HTML and render them as plain text in a green 80x24 terminal. Maybe I'll drop every second character and print out the result as wall art. Or (back on topic) when…

>There is no societal expectation around what I do with those bytes Yes, there is. If you had a group of 100 people and asked what google.com should look like and showed them how Chrome renders the page and your 80x24 modification does that all 100 would say that yours is not expected. You are still too hung up on these technical details of how things are implemented than how the average person thinks of these things…

We are all very fortunate that the world is not limited to what the average person thinks things should be like.

Re: No adblocker detected

#166

Post by JoshTriplett »

charcircuit wrote: post #75
ffsm8 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The social contract was broken by the website owner by including ads.

Even if so, while I disagree, two wrongs don't make a right.

You are pushing your opinion of it being "wrong" as though it were something objective. You are acting as though others are choosing to do something "wrong", rather than that they do not believe it to be wrong in the first place.

Re: No adblocker detected

#167

Post by cookiengineer »

landgenoot wrote: post #73
cookiengineer wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a Browser extension that farbles all these APIs on purpose instead of blocking them? By farbling I mean making the data look like it's the most common Windows configuration, for example.

I don't think that will work, because that will also provide false information to the logic. You will have messed up layouts and unneeded quirks. Moreover, banks are using fingerprinting to detect fraud so you will have a hard time on those websites as well. And more importantly. https://xkcd.com/1105/

By this logic you cannot use anything, because there's likely at least one website that uses its featureset.

Of course I wouldn't farble on my bank's website, that would be pretty stupid.

But by default I would want trackers to get the farbled data, and only allowlist the websites I trust. Same trust concept as with uBlock Origin, NoScript and others.

Re: No adblocker detected

#168

Post by ManlyBread »

toastercat wrote: post #41

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. 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. There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeload…

How can you say there's some sort of a social contract here when the ads side has no problem with psychologically manipulating me, outright lying to me and putting me in danger just so they can extract a tiny bit of profit from me? In any other context such a party would be classified as sociopathic. Why should the ad industry get a pass?

Re: No adblocker detected

#169

Post by kelnos »

neilv wrote: post #32

> No adblocker detected. Consider using an extension like uBlock Origin to save time and bandwidth. And attention and privacy. This notice is a great idea. I might remove the "like" from the notice, since "uBlock Origin" is good, but some others are questionable or even outright malware. BTW, note that the `ublockorigin.com` Web site that is linked to isn't by Raymond Hill, leader of uBlock Origin. It looks well-inte…

Your average internet user is not going to have any idea what to do with a link to GitHub. It's a shame there's no official website with easy install instructions. (But I agree with you that it's not a great idea to link to a website not under control of the author.)

Re: No adblocker detected

#170

Post by unwind »

This is a very nice idea, nicely presented too.

Bug report: There's a typo in the actual popup as shown to me, it says "extention". Consistently enough, the typo is present in the code snippet in the article:

    if (!document.cookie.includes("notice-shown")) {
        document.getElementById("ad-note-hidden").id = 'ad-note';
        document.getElementById("ad-note-content-wrapper").innerHTML = "No adblocker detected. " + 
        "Consider using an extention like uBlock Origin to save time and bandwidth." +
        " Click here to close.";
    }
Post reply on HN