Live data from Hacker News

UBlock Origin

addons.mozilla.org

161–170 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#161
post #106
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.

What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.

Re: UBlock Origin

#162
post #24

i know ublock is on safari. but will we see a ublock origin on safari?(specially after per-site switches)

Same. I wish we could get a Safari version of uBlock Origin since it does seem like in time it will be the clearly superior version.

Not to knock anyone working on mainline uBlock, but the frustrations of the original developer (justifiable or not) have led him to discontinue contributing code to mainline uBlock.

That's a serious blow to its development . . .

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38

FYI, I would just use Chrome if it didn't just kill battery life on OS X. Don't think I use Safari by choice here . . .

Re: UBlock Origin

#163
post #112
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you like to go back to Internet stoneage where you had to pay per page view in Microsoft Network '95 (MSN v1) or Germany's BTX from 1980s. Would you like to subscribe on hundreds of websites to access their paywall? The WWW got popular because it's friction-free and many sites are paid by advertisement money. At the moment many ad networks are just stubborn (bad ads) and greedy taking big chunk of the ads money…

Speaking for myself, ads don't bother me so much. Tracking does. And serving me ads on content I have already paid for really fucking does. Like purchasing a movie dvd and being coerced to watch previews for other movies before getting to the one I want. grrrrr.

Actually, if you paid for content or made a purchase driven by an ad, this makes you a "high value" lead for advertisers based on their estimation of your disposable income and therefore you are more likely to be targeted with more ads from them to make even more big-ticket purchases.

You can't really escape those pesky advertisers.

Re: UBlock Origin

#164
post #35

Honest question - what business model for free content do you see other than ads? I understand all the privacy and distraction issues related, but increasingly many news sites I read feature only paid content. I suppose it's connected to the rise of ad blocking. At the moment I'm not hosting any content of such kind myself, but I wanted to publish a game and I'm facing the same question. Should I sell my soul to the…

I've preached this for years, and its my ongoing pet project, but patronage really is the endgame for information content.

Pretty much any freelance animator online is already using patreon. Writers, artists, and comedians are using it. I'm surprised its taken this long for news companies to start trying it.

Fundamentally, the information created is not scarce. It is knowledge. It deserves to be free. But the work to create the information is scarce. Valuable. Some might even say worthy of compensation.

There are so many ways you can present patronage to your audience. Hell, advertising honestly is a kind of patronage - your viewership translates into third parties valuing your work enough to pay you for it, so their ads can go along for the ride. But on the other extreme, you could be a writer or animator or comic artist who says "next episode costs $XXXX, when I get that much money I'll produce it / release it". And there is an entire range of other options in between those two, and its really stifling how content creators are still so limited in their options.

Re: UBlock Origin

#165
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But it's not an adblocker. It's a generic blocking plugin that also supports blocking ads.

Re: UBlock Origin

#166
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hence ABE happened Fun fact: ABE is now discontinued "in favor of uBlock" because the latter is just so much more efficient. [1] [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-Us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/

It has been discontinued too early; from an AdBlock Edge comment, titled "uBlock may be fast, but is rubbish": > I've been using uBlock now for a while and while it is light and fast, it's is rubbish to use. Exclusions are idiotic, context menu controls don't work, default filters selection is idiotic, it doesn't sync settings like Adblock Edge does, I'm just starting to hate it. > I'd too like to see AdBlock Edge co…

I haven't been seeing those issues with uBlock.

Re: UBlock Origin

#167
post #87
post #35

Honest question - what business model for free content do you see other than ads? I understand all the privacy and distraction issues related, but increasingly many news sites I read feature only paid content. I suppose it's connected to the rise of ad blocking. At the moment I'm not hosting any content of such kind myself, but I wanted to publish a game and I'm facing the same question. Should I sell my soul to the…

I think we're ripe for some new business models becoming mainstream. As I see it, ads just suck. I don't just mean suck as in "I just don't like them"; they're also just terrible at accomplishing what they want to accomplish, and they're getting more terrible, and because of this there's getting to be more and more of them everywhere. I get the impression (just an impression) that society is sort of 'wising up to' ad…

https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/

Re: UBlock Origin

#168
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If their business model relies on knowing more, then they chose a lousy business model. I must disagree. I certainly understand a desire for privacy and it's definitely within your right to block GA if you feel so inclined, but to assume that sites using GA to track visitors is some sort of shady business model is simply not true. I've used GA and Heap (Analytics) to obtain extremely granular information about how…

> I personally don't believe that you should equate the use and analysis of such tracking data as evil in every instance, because it's not.

We know it's not evil - it's just business. However, plenty of businesses are built around anti-consumer practices.

I personally don't mind someone tracking me on their own domain. Javascript trackers are terrible for security and performance reasons, though I'd tolerate them. I don't like 3rd-party trackers, though, for many reasons:

1. Part of the selling point of using those third-party trackers is being able to quantify what type of user/consumer I am. That's why they track across multiple sites - to provide their customers the highest value. So that they can charge a higher per-unit price.

2. There's no guarantee that such data is only shared with the sites accessed. Even if it was made at the point of use, they can retroactively change that without contacting the user because its their customer who signs the agreement. Most will just click yes without thinking of their user's privacy.

3. If the business sells, merges, changes leadership or goes bankrupt that data policy is as worthless as your trust in it. Look at RadioShack's attempt to sell customer data despite promises not to. Or any company who changed their TOS after a buyout. They don't wipe data from people who don't agree because that data is part of the "company value".

I admit that GA makes a lot of site maintenance and analysis easy. However, I'm not particularly interested in making your job of selling to people easier at my own expense. Particularly when alternatives exist for people who know what they're doing. Yes, it's not malicious behavior, no, but it is extremely discourteous and occasionally sensitive to disclose interest to a third-party.

Think about it like this. Let's say I go to a dealership to look at cars because I like looking at cars. I love engines and wheels and stuff. I only speak with the sales guy, who really seems like a pretty nice person. But the company contracts with some guy who is watching me the entire time for "analytics". After I leave, he tells my bank, the IRS, my wife, my boss and my cousin who asked me to loan him money (but I sensibly declined because he never pays anyone back) because they know him and this guy can't and won't keep his mouth shut. The next day, my bank preemptively reviews my credit history for a car loan, I'm being contacted for an audit out of suspicions of hiding money, my wife is asking me to buy her something because we've apparently got money, and my cousin is livid that I'm somehow filthy rich but I won't give him $10K to invest in a critical MLM deal. It's his big ticket and he'll have it back to me in 3 weeks. Well, 2 months, tops.

Your intentions don't matter at all with 3rd-party analytics because that 3rd party will never respect those intentions. It's not in their contract and thus not their concern what you intend or promise. Plus, their lawyers regularly update it when the company finds new business models to exploit. Not only that, you don't care enough about me to actively review your vendor contracts to make sure your "good intentions" are being followed by your contractors. You're only using the service because it makes your job easier. Why would you go out of your way to do extra work? You don't have any bad intentions, after all.

It doesn't have to be evil or malicious to be exploitative. It's not like third-world factories with terrible labor conditions exist because the owner likes to kick puppies. It's about money, at the end, and businesses will do as much as they can get away with for money.

Re: UBlock Origin

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. Well too bad. Maybe they should take the radical step of actually looking at their server logs .

When you run a website, you have two choices: spend a bunch of time implementing log analysis and paying for all the storage necessary, or using GA, which already exists and is free. If log analytics isn't my core business, why should I spend time implementing it?

And if you choose GA, you accept that some people will block it, the same way they might block your javascript, your cookies, your css, your images, or anything else they don't want to download.

Re: UBlock Origin

#170
post #71
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you like to go back to Internet stoneage where you had to pay per page view in Microsoft Network '95 (MSN v1) or Germany's BTX from 1980s. Would you like to subscribe on hundreds of websites to access their paywall? The WWW got popular because it's friction-free and many sites are paid by advertisement money. At the moment many ad networks are just stubborn (bad ads) and greedy taking big chunk of the ads money…

I think the fairest thing is for both users to decide if they want to block ads and for site owners to decide if they want to block users who block ads. Let's see how that pans out. I predict we'd end up mostly back where we are. My ideal scenario would be 'informed curated blocking' where the worst offenders (ad networks that don't have sufficient safeguards against malware, genuinely abuse privacy controls or push…

Go ahead and try to block users who block ads. People and companies have already tried that.

In the end it's a game of cat and mouse with the AdBlockers finding a way to circumvent whatever detection the adblock-blockers are using.

Post reply on HN