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

201–210 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#201

Post by tpierce89 »

hirvi74 wrote: post #29
Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like a pretty fair approach. If you don’t mind, I’m truly curious why you don’t Adblock? There’s no wrong answer here. ;)

Not the GP you are asking, but I do not use an ad blocker because I predominantly use Safari as my browser. I would absolutely love one, but after Apple made all those API changes years back, I gave up trying to find one that works well and is privacy friendly.

I use the DNSCloak app and run the Adguard DNS VPN from their list. It is free and blocks many ads in safari.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#202

Post by veunes »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #6
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #3

It's always an insane experience when you hop on someone's laptop/PC who has zero ad blocking installed. POV: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/iV3js9pd5IE

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

It’s a good way to support sites that respect the user experience while steering clear of those that don't.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#203

Post by veunes »

Zambyte wrote: post #123
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

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.

Some nice user control features.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#204

Post by mystified5016 »

Zambyte wrote: post #123
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

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.

It's been years since I've seen a Pinterest result for a query like "C++ variadic template"

That alone is worth the price of admission

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#205

Post by thimabi »

meowster wrote: post #169
thimabi wrote: post #52

Recently, my grandmother got herself scammed when trying to pay her bills, because she clicked a Google search ad for a fraudulent website posing as the local gas company. She lost some money and, of course, some of her personal data as well. When situations like this happen, I mostly place the blame on ad companies. It’s their product, so it should be their responsibility to prevent abuses. But there is scant regula…

I wonder what would happen if you (she) sued Google.

I wonder too, but suing is expensive and demands some time that we don’t have. Yet we did notify the cybercrime team at the police department, so maybe they will do something about it.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#206

Post by meowster »

thimabi wrote: post #205
meowster wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what would happen if you (she) sued Google.

I wonder too, but suing is expensive and demands some time that we don’t have. Yet we did notify the cybercrime team at the police department, so maybe they will do something about it.

If the amount is/was under the small claims court level, that would be a vastly cheaper and easier route to take. Rules vary by state, but I believe generally you cannot select an arbitrary amount lower than the monetary threshold just to use small claims court, but you might be able to argue Google has 50% or some other culpability if that will get the amount under the threshold. IANAL.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#207

Post by soulofmischief »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #6
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #3

It's always an insane experience when you hop on someone's laptop/PC who has zero ad blocking installed. POV: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/iV3js9pd5IE

I have a confession to make. I don't really have ad-block. If your site is too ad-infested, I stop using it.

Ad-blocking is also about controlling what resources are loaded and executed by your computer. You won't know you were subject to a drive-by 0-day until it's too late and your computer is a botnet or your bank account drains. Not blocking ads also normalizes predatory ad-tech surveillance.

There is a lot more going on beneath the surface of just "annoying ads in my face" which need to be accounted for, since browsers do not ship with effective, granular security controls.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#208

Post by kjkjadksj »

NegativeK wrote: post #45
taf2 wrote: post #37

I must be a strange person because I don’t run any adblocker… if I happen to need to visit an ad stricken site I just toggle on reader mode. Get my info and get out… I never have to worry about clicking on a search result and it doing nothing … but also I rarely visit these ad sites…. For the cookie banners I just inspect and delete the elements when they get in the way…

> I never have to worry about clicking on a search result and it doing nothing I can't remember the last time I noticed that the ad blocker even existed on my machine. Occasionally some clever site will basically say "if you can see this, we're supported by ads and could use your help" -- but it doesn't break things and I don't see ad links in search results.

A lot of food ordering websites don’t work for me on ublock origin. Banks are also 50/50. Reddit will occasionally flag me for bot traffic.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#210

Post by consteval »

dopadelic wrote: post #142
hollerith wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, better not to install any kind of adblock even as a test. No one else does. You would be alone. Also, people who use adblock are antisocial. Also, I'd be mortified if I visited a web page, then the site told me that I cannot continue because I have adblock installed. I wouldn't want that to happen to me even once.

Uh, it's more that I had adblock installed and found myself needing to disable it for most websites just to access it. Adblock ended up being more of a hassle to use than the small handful of sites where it actually worked.

This hasn't been the case for me and I've been using ublock origin for maybe a decade now.

The only sites that break are streaming sites. Which is expected, I mean they need to make their ad money and they sell ad-free tiers.

All except paramount plus, funny enough. Yes, you can get ad-free paramount plus for half the cost if you just use ublock origin! I guess they forgot to put in that little bit of logic.

Post reply on HN