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

191–200 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#191

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #157
shiroiushi wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not bad faith at all. He's trying to use a collective blame argument: "software engineers" as a group are supposedly to blame for adware, in his argument, rather than a small minority of software engineers. It's absolutely no different than blaming all for the crimes committed by a few members, and paint them all with the same brush.

Just to clarify what I mean is it is a little bit of both: 1. Our profession is collectively allowing this by not having a widely agreed-upon ethical standard for conduct, and 2. (some) Individuals are actively doing it by actually building the bombardment code. I feel the same way about software for war fighting, which obviously has higher stakes. The profession itself doesn't push back on the ethics of it AND indiv…

[deleted]

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#192

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

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.

Humans are directly responsible, too, so the difference you cite, simply isn't there.

> The people on this site are a group of humans uniquely equipped to actually speak and interact with the people responsible for this bullshit.

There's not any method whatsoever for the people on this site to force all ad software developers to stop developing ad software.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#193

Post by bravetraveler »

bravetraveler wrote: post #190
Zambyte wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one thing I really like about Kagi - I don't have to remember which sites to not use due to ads, I simply add the site to my account-wide block list, and I never see it in search results again.

One can achieve the same thing for any website, not just their search results, with the browser extension 'uBlock' . Yes, you have to write a pattern. It saves you money while not supporting the erosion of autonomy. What's better than free vegetables? Delivery. I'm away from my computer right now but I'll copy one of mine later/reply with it. The edit window here is unfortunate.

Just missed the edit window! I'm here to deliver. Two kinds, either will be accepted in the "My Filters" section of the plugin. Edit as desired, the domain is just a recent example.

Eradication/filtering:

    ##a[href*="eng-leadership.com"]
Shown, but blocked on-access:

    ||eng-leadership.com^$document
To keep the hacker spirit alive, I leave the reader with an exercise. Consider other approaches or HTML tags. Anchors aren't their only vector, hence the document method.

HN has a 'hide' button that could be leveraged for nicer integration, removing related widgets.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#195

Post by shiroiushi »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #112
toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

Service quality is inversely proportional to advertising revenue. Why would I let poor quality services profit off of me when they can’t even provide me with the answers I seek? You appear to have this idea in your head that it‘s independent websites running the bulk of advertising, when in fact it‘s SEO scams and low quality services like Google. If a website provides me consistent value, I chip in a few bucks, but…

Yeah, there seems to be some kind of assumption by some here that just because I visit a website, that they're entitled to some money for that visit (in the form of ad revenue). Sorry, but no: I usually visited that site because they made themselves available, frequently dishonestly with SEO, through a Google/Bing search because I was looking for some information. Much of the time, when I visit a site, I don't find the information I'm looking for, and instead find a bunch of low-quality, low-effort "content", like "blogspam". It's a waste of my time. I can't know the site is garbage until I visit it and see for myself. So no, I reject the idea that these sites are somehow entitled to money for their "service". If they go out of business because of my ad-blocking, I'm not going to miss them.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#196

Post by shiroiushi »

xoxxala wrote: post #129
rty32 wrote: post #53

Wonder if someone would make a YouTube video talking about using uBlock origin to block YouTube ads, citing FBI's recommendation, see if it gets taken down by violation of YouTube's ToS.

Linus Tech Tips just had a video on using adblockers, as part of their "how to de-Google your life" series, taken down by YT for posting "harmful or dangerous content". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdZ7xmytiQ

Wow, that sounds like something out of Russia's playbook.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#197

Post by wasteduniverse »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #78
imoverclocked wrote: post #44

We still haven’t reached peak Idiocracy. YouTube/hulu/disney+ still cut to ads instead of displaying them around the border of the content. Carl’s Jr/Brawndo still haven’t purchased the FCC. We are pretty close though.

Honestly, we are there. It just didn't make the news yet for some unknown reason.

[dead]

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#198

Post by jampekka »

amusingimpala75 wrote: post #115
jampekka wrote: post #62

> Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. This may be sadly outdated. Android Chrome and iOS Webkit probably account for majority of traffic nowadays, and neither allows adblock extensions.

That's false. See AdGuard for iOS https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047...

Oh, thanks!

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#200

Post by dwighttk »

shiroiushi wrote: post #187
dahart wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple gobbles personal data too What data and how do you know? This seems to be a popular talking point, but I’ve yet to see evidence. It doesn’t make that much sense to frame Apple’s privacy stance as similar to Google’s or Facebook’s. Apple isn’t an ad business, and Google and Facebook are, plain and simple. I don’t work for Apple, and I don’t use an Apple laptop or desktop, but I don’t buy this Apple is as bad a…

>I’m sure they’re not perfect, but I feel like Apple is relatively serious about privacy, making real changes that generally protect consumers Then why do they push their crappy browser on iOS which doesn't allow ad-blockers?

Safari does allow ad blockers.
Post reply on HN