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

171–180 of 388 posts

Re: No adblocker detected

#171

Post by kelnos »

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…

> There is an unwritten social contract here.

Yes, there is. It's, "I ask your server for bytes, and if your server gives them to me, I interpret and display them however I wish".

The idea that someone downloading a webpage from a publicly-hosted web server could be a "freeloader" is ludicrous.

If you really must extract some form of payment from literally everyone who visits your site, you'll have to put up a paywall. Otherwise, if you give me content when I request it, I'm going to display it however I want.

> If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine

The "contract" you describe is just something you made up. I've been on the internet since the early 90s, and that has never ever ever been the deal.

Advertising is malware for your brain. I won't let it in, and no one else should either.

Re: No adblocker detected

#172

Post by kelnos »

charcircuit wrote: post #55
randunel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The websites you speak of don't get to decide what my hardware and my software does when running in my hands. Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.

That's why the parent said it was a social contact based on the honor system. Just because you can technically block ads, it doesn't meant it's the right thing to do.

There has never in the history of the internet been a social contract that says to be a good netizen you have to look at the ads a website displays.

Attempting to normalize such a thing is disgusting.

Re: No adblocker detected

#173

Post by kelnos »

charcircuit wrote: post #76
kergonath wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a social contract. They track me whether I use their services or not, on websites that are completely unrelated. I do not get a choice, not to mention the monopolies they built (yeah, fuck YouTube). These ads eat up my resources and affect my battery life. There is no more honour involved as when someone pays the mob for protection. I strongly reject this argument. I am bound by honour but they can do anyth…

Your choice is to stop giving that place traffic.

That is one choice. Another is to use an ad blocker.

Re: No adblocker detected

#174

Post by kelnos »

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…

A consensus answer to "what should google.com look like?" does not suggest or imply any sort of "social contract".

There is not, and has never been, a social contract that says I have to look at the ads served with any website. If you think there is, then I'm sorry, but you're sorely mistaken.

Similarly, there is no social contract that says I have to watch commercials while I'm watching TV (not that I've watched linear TV in over a decade, but...). I can mute it, change the channel, go to the bathroom, whatever. If you think there is, then I'm not sure what to tell you; your opinions on this are so outside the mainstream that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

Re: No adblocker detected

#175

Post by brador »

bambax wrote: post #159
ksynwa wrote: post #36

I am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade. Once in a while I have to browse on a device that does not have an ad blocker or most of the times does not even let you install one. Seeing a website that is SEoptimised and heavily ad supported feels like walking into a crack den. That this is the normal experience for the vast majority of users is sad.

I'm in the same boat. I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.) How people put up with ads is a complete mystery.

Flick the bean once a month to see which products and services you’re missing out on.

Picked up a nice cleaner and hiking boots that my ad blockers were denying me last month.

Life changing.

Re: No adblocker detected

#176

Post by spaqin »

brador wrote: post #175
bambax wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the same boat. I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.) How people put up with ads is a complete mystery.

Flick the bean once a month to see which products and services you’re missing out on. Picked up a nice cleaner and hiking boots that my ad blockers were denying me last month. Life changing.

Are you sure you needed them? What was stopping you from doing the research without a third party shoving whatever they will make money on?

Re: No adblocker detected

#177

Post by scbzzzzz »

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…

The problem is not with the ads but all the bad things that come along with it. Collecting unnecessary personal data, targetting, disregard for others privacy and list goes on.

These small bloggers/websites are letting the huge ad corporations take up the butcher job and cry when people use adblock.

Google provides a way to turn off ad personalization and when i turn it off you know what i see. Scam/adult/gambling ads and these small websites/bloggers are ok with showing scams to earn 0.01cents. then where they broke the social contract.

Google/meta with all the policing of billion youtube/fb videos/posts dont have same policing for ads quality. Thats where they broke the social contract.

Yes they need to make money, one alternative, I am ok with companies using my compute to run crypto mining( or scientific worlloadw ) when i use their website instead of ads. Small companies should look out of box for money rather than employing a butcher to make money.

Re: No adblocker detected

#178

Post by shiomiru »

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…

> It looks well-intended

The recent PuTTY domain squatting debacle has made me suspicious, and indeed... if you look closer, you'll notice that the owner of ublockorigin.com is also advertising his completely unrelated products in a "my other tools" section.

Re: No adblocker detected

#180

Post by nicce »

bitpush wrote: post #33
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why DNS ad blockers (Ad Guard, Pi-Hole, other) aren't frequently used across corporates. Especially given the regular-ish training on cybersecurity and related.

Because ads are not how malware is distributed? You have higher chance of getting a malware from `pnpm add` than seeing an ad on the web.

GIMP is one of the best examples that comes to my mind:

https://www.techradar.com/news/this-fake-gimp-google-ad-just...

Post reply on HN