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

EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#21

Post by antif »

bobbyraduloff wrote: post #15

Kernel level packet filtering to avoid Spotify ads is about the same level of mental gymnastics as the GPT-generated “we’re not pirates” argument in their README. While Spotify is obviously an immoral company, you, the person reading this, are not entitled to free 24/7 cloud-streamed music on demand. They are a business and they don’t owe that service to you on principle. If you don’t like them as a company, there’s…

I’m confused.. effective ad blocking is now “piracy?”

I thought TiVo settled that argument long ago.

Edit; maybe not TiVo leading the disruption here: https://modern-counsel.com/2016/tivo/

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#22

Post by JoshTriplett »

benreesman wrote: post #5
ranger_danger wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one program that blocks everything everywhere, and doesn't rely on specific firewall configurations or DNS resolvers to be able to block requests. And because it uses eBPF, technically (it probably doesn't support this yet but it could) you could block requests at the application level, even if it uses TLS, before it ever even gets to a resolver or firewall. Taking that fact even further, this means that not onl…

This is the killer eBPF usecase for the non-engineer user: getting underneath TLS and DoH (which have both been effectively weaponized at this point). No means no, my computer my choice. sudo build a real product.

> getting underneath TLS and DoH (which have both been effectively weaponized at this point).

Only to the extent you are running software you don't trust. If you're running a user agent (e.g. a browser), rather than an app, you can easily do full ad-blocking much more effectively.

Calling TLS and DoH a weapon because apps you don't trust can use them to maintain integrity of their connections is like calling secure coding practices a weapon because they make jailbreaking harder.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#23

Post by sbarre »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #16
sbarre wrote: post #7

> We’re not here to pirate. We’re here to opt out. Then "opt out" by not using the product? No one has a right to use Spotify. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. I'll never get why people smart enough to build something technically impressive like this feel the need to throw these completely childish pseudo-rationalizations out there. Yeah, you are stealing actually.. Is it that big of a deal? Nope.…

You're "stealing" (if you can even call it that) from Spotify, not artists. As of July 2025, Spotify has a market cap of $145.48B USD. This makes Spotify the world's 118th most valuable company by market cap. They'll be fine. No one has a right to revenue or profit. Mental models differ, it is what it is. Stealing from artists is of course always poor form, don't do that.

Curious where exactly do you draw your line when it comes to who it's ok to steal from and who it's not? Do you have a formula or something?

Or is just an arbitrary bar of convenience that you set case-by-case depending on how you want to feel about it?

> No one has a right to revenue or profit.

I certainly didn't imply anything this universal. But as a society we do have laws, and if you engage with Spotify's product, you agree to their terms, and in that very specific context they do have a legal right to see their terms held up.

Now.. will they go after you for bypassing their ads? Probably not. Will your actions have a negative impact on them? Again, nope.. I definitely agree with you that they'll be fine..

But then the people who make these products that facilitate this kind of activity should just have the conviction to stand by their actions and say "yep we're helping you steal from Spotify".

Just own it, especially if your justification is "it doesn't matter anyways".

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#24

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

bobbyraduloff wrote: post #15

Kernel level packet filtering to avoid Spotify ads is about the same level of mental gymnastics as the GPT-generated “we’re not pirates” argument in their README. While Spotify is obviously an immoral company, you, the person reading this, are not entitled to free 24/7 cloud-streamed music on demand. They are a business and they don’t owe that service to you on principle. If you don’t like them as a company, there’s…

>you, the person reading this, are not entitled to free 24/7 cloud-streamed music on demand.

I took it anyway. I have a few terabytes of flac that I stream through Plex when I feel like it. I dare anyone to stop me. Pay hard drive manufacturers, not IP companies.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#25

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

jekwoooooe wrote: post #8

Not proposing a moral opinion but this is still piracy no matter how much they deny it. The contract with free Spotify is you receive ads.

no advertiser has the right to tell me how to process their advertising data. hypothetically, once it's in my network, i can do whatever i please with it.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#26

Post by toomuchtodo »

sbarre wrote: post #23
toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're "stealing" (if you can even call it that) from Spotify, not artists. As of July 2025, Spotify has a market cap of $145.48B USD. This makes Spotify the world's 118th most valuable company by market cap. They'll be fine. No one has a right to revenue or profit. Mental models differ, it is what it is. Stealing from artists is of course always poor form, don't do that.

Curious where exactly do you draw your line when it comes to who it's ok to steal from and who it's not? Do you have a formula or something? Or is just an arbitrary bar of convenience that you set case-by-case depending on how you want to feel about it? > No one has a right to revenue or profit. I certainly didn't imply anything this universal. But as a society we do have laws, and if you engage with Spotify's produc…

"Can this multinational company afford it?" and "Will this incur a felony or similar judicial record?" is my bar, broadly speaking. Never take from someone who cannot afford it, or where it would be material to them. Bits, never fiat. Laws are just words, how you decide which to ignore is a function of potential legal exposure and your belief system.

I pay for Spotify because I’m lazy and can afford it, but rip whatever I want from YouTube, for example. I own it, I do not care. Why would one care what random strangers think of them?

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#27

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

mfro wrote: post #19

Absolutely no need to do kernel level packet filtering for this. You can use the absurdly easy hostfile approach, or a simple self-hosted DNS server. This looks entirely LLM generated as well. Also... who the hell tries to make changes to a user's sudoers file from their install script? This is an awful project.

The great thing about AI coding is that you never have to learn enough judgment or context to know if something should be written a certain way or not!

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#28

Post by sbarre »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26
sbarre wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious where exactly do you draw your line when it comes to who it's ok to steal from and who it's not? Do you have a formula or something? Or is just an arbitrary bar of convenience that you set case-by-case depending on how you want to feel about it? > No one has a right to revenue or profit. I certainly didn't imply anything this universal. But as a society we do have laws, and if you engage with Spotify's produc…

"Can this multinational company afford it?" and "Will this incur a felony or similar judicial record?" is my bar, broadly speaking. Never take from someone who cannot afford it, or where it would be material to them. Bits, never fiat. Laws are just words, how you decide which to ignore is a function of potential legal exposure and your belief system. I pay for Spotify because I’m lazy and can afford it, but rip whate…

> Laws are just words

Spoken from a place of security, comfort and privilege no doubt.. All afforded by the laws of the land. ;-)

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#29

Post by therein »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #27
mfro wrote: post #19

Absolutely no need to do kernel level packet filtering for this. You can use the absurdly easy hostfile approach, or a simple self-hosted DNS server. This looks entirely LLM generated as well. Also... who the hell tries to make changes to a user's sudoers file from their install script? This is an awful project.

The great thing about AI coding is that you never have to learn enough judgment or context to know if something should be written a certain way or not!

The whole thing is AI generated and you can tell from subpar decisions made at every turn.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#30

Post by therein »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #25
jekwoooooe wrote: post #8

Not proposing a moral opinion but this is still piracy no matter how much they deny it. The contract with free Spotify is you receive ads.

no advertiser has the right to tell me how to process their advertising data. hypothetically, once it's in my network, i can do whatever i please with it.

>once it's in my network, i can do whatever i please with it.

But that literally applies to any online licensing check flow.

And extends to binaries that are on your disk. I can patch that conditional jump, it is on my hard drive.

Post reply on HN