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

191–200 of 388 posts

Re: No adblocker detected

#191

Post by Freak_NL »

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.

Whenever I open Google's Play Store on Android I get this feeling of walking into some dystopic shopping mall. I hardly ever come there (F-Droid covers all utilities for me, so Google's own app store is really only for official apps from banks, public transport, etc.), so its user hostile design always hits me like a wall of visual noise and clutter.

At these moments that feeling that for most people getting bombarded by ads is normal hits hard. I'm always wondering when the ride will end and uBlock Origin can't protect us any longer.

Re: No adblocker detected

#192

Post by rcxdude »

vbezhenar wrote: post #183
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.

I don't use adblock. That's not a problem for me. May be I don't visit those ad-ridden websites often enough.

You do also get used to it. Banner blindness is absolutely a thing (and something that still trips me up where I miss the most important information on a page, despite using adblock most of the time)

Re: No adblocker detected

#193

Post by dns_snek »

bambax wrote: post #164
dns_snek wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't you think that was the first thing I tried?

Re: No adblocker detected

#194

Post by Vinnl »

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.

> 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.)

Ads in public places, bus stops, etc. are kinda hard to avoid unfortunately.

Re: No adblocker detected

#195

Post by Diti »

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.

Equally life-changing would be to keep the ads blocked, and visit the “Buy it for life” subreddit, which has recommendations for the best products and services that will last you a lifetime.

Re: No adblocker detected

#196

Post by _Algernon_ »

DocTomoe wrote: post #105

It's bad enough we got extra work for those who use adblockers. Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach. It's also deeply paternalistic: Even if it is meant well - and I assume that's the case here - it implies the site operator knows better than the user what is good for them. Finally, this will also lower the guards of less technical users for…

>Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach.

This already happens with every ad successfully shown to a person. Why don't you criticize the ad business for much more extensive overreach instead of someone doing harmless activism on their own website?

Re: No adblocker detected

#197

Post by frotaur »

kelnos wrote: post #171
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 paywal…

Yes, the paywall is reasonable, I agree. I think what the OP meant by 'social contract' is that if everybody were to use an adblocker, we would end up with a mostly paywalled internet. All the sites that currently have ads, would have a paywall.

The reason why some people get to browse the internet free, and without ads, is because there are some people that don't. Hence the 'leeching' part.

The part that annoys me sometimes, is that when there IS the option to pay to remove ads, and people still use adblockers in this case. How is this justifiable, morally?

Re: No adblocker detected

#198

Post by latexr »

shiomiru wrote: post #178
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.

> The recent PuTTY domain squatting debacle

I knew they recently added a new official page under https://putty.software but was unaware of any squatting debacle. For those wanting to know more: https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/17/puttyorg_website_cont...

Re: No adblocker detected

#199

Post by soganess »

Kiro wrote: post #189
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…

The fact that you don't just pay for YouTube Premium makes me think something is wrong with you. A Premium view gives much more money to the creator but I guess "just let me pay" is only relevant when you can't.

  > ...something is wrong with you.
Are ad hominems back in vogue? (that is partially snide and partially serious. I feel like I've also/unconsciously been doing more of them recently.)

Regardless, your argument surrounding the insult was well worn 20 years ago. And so was the first response; why would I pay into some nebulous system where I don't know how much is really going to whom?

One of the nicer things about the hellscape that is the modern internet is the low-friction ability to pay creators directly.

...oh, I know why! Because if I pay Google, then Sundar pinky swears not to mercilessly track and monetize everything I do on youtube. \s

Re: No adblocker detected

#200

Post by nemomarx »

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.

If you really needed those things, you would have thought of getting them on your own time. Being tempted into it is consumerism and kinda why we're in this mess
Post reply on HN