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

211–220 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#211

Post by consteval »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #76
hollerith wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the threat to children, there's also terrorism to consider. It is frightening to consider that the World Trade Center towers might still be standing were it not for ordinary users who foolishly assumed that nothing really bad could happen if they installed adblock.

When I have a time to unwind and think less sensible thoughts, I can't help but wonder whether anti-fossil fuels movement would try to capitalize on 9/11 if it happened today and not in 2001 by trying to ban use of planes due to amount of fuel used. "Terrorists use planes. You are not a terrorist, are you?"

Yes, famously the established miliary industrial complex, fiercely anti-fossil fuel.

Never mind the end result of 9/11 was used for... pro fossil fuel reasons. And the entire war fought afterwards was done for, let me just check my notes here... oil. Oh. And we didn't even invade the right country? hm.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#212

Post by 0xffff2 »

eh_why_not wrote: post #59

No-JS user here. A disturbing trend noticed in the past two months: can't login anymore to some financial/health services sites (bank/insurance/etc) without disabling all of NoScript - no amount of selective enabling of websites satisfies them, and those websites are using known infractors like Adobe. In other words, there is code in the backend checking that all tracking/-ware has run on the browser, and refusing to…

Meh, I've noticed this without any blockers at all. I cannot log in to my power company's website from my PC (on any browser) and likewise for Delta Dental on any device. So far I have been able to work around this, but I don't understand how its possible to break login so badly that even unmodified Edge doesn't work and it stays like this for months.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#213

Post by hollerith »

hollerith wrote: post #144
dopadelic wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I see that I misunderstood the motivation behind your comment. I've noticed an increase in sites that do what you describe, but so far I've responded by no longer hanging out on those sites, and that feels OK.

My adblocker is Ublock Origin Lite (the one that is expected to continue to work on Chrome indefinitely).

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#214

Post by notfed »

ryandrake wrote: post #79
userbinator wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no wonder people have gotten a lot more ignorant and less observant when they have to constantly fight the bombardment of their attention by unwanted distractions. In that situation of using someone else's device, I've had to move windows half off the screen to be able to concentrate on an article when the ads on the side were constantly distracting me.

Funny how here's HN, a site full of Software Engineers complaining about ad bombardment, and every single one of those ads were programmed by... a software engineer! We (as a profession) are the ones doing this! "Oh, but boss told me to do it!" some will say, as if it's a good excuse. Regardless of which manager told which developer to do it, at the end of the day, a developer typed in the code and pushed it to prod.…

> every single one of those ads were programmed by... a software engineer

Your key point here is a tautology; it doesn't really lead to any insight.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#215

Post by hirvi74 »

gitaarik wrote: post #189
hirvi74 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why don't you just use a different browser that gives you more control?

I find the ecosystem integration and cohesion to be the most compelling reason. Everything "just works." Apple keychain is good enough that I stopped using other password managers and works great with Safari, Messages.app and Mail.app integrate well with Safari, AppleScript works well with Safari, etc..

I do have other browsers, but I only use them for specific needs. Like I keep some version of a Chrome-based browser around solely for if I need to Chromecast something. Other wise, I do not enjoy using third party browsers like Chrome, Firefox, etc., which I use at work all day.

Safari's web developer tools are not my favorite compared to other browsers, so I try not to develop much with Safari other than testing.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#216

Post by pdntspa »

Loughla wrote: post #107
pdntspa wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that content owners need compensation for making their content available needs to go. There was an entire generation of kind souls doing exactly that until the culture was suffocated to death by late-stage American capitalism. I and many others gladly made content available to others at our own cost. The mission of making knowledge available to those less fortunate than oneself (especially in this inflated…

I'm with you. I really am. I genuinely miss the web when it seemed wild and free and not just a collection of five companies. The problem is that the old way is dead. And its own popularity killed it. Just for example; There is no way a video hosting site the size and scope of YouTube could have possibly existed when the Internet was a hobby. What do we do with that?

Why do we need video? Is there a good reason beyond the fact that moneyed interests have brainwashed people into thinking they need it? That they've destroyed attention spans so nobody knows how to frickin read? Maybe it's time to emerge from this dopamine-induced brain fog.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#217

Post by ysabri »

eh_why_not wrote: post #59

No-JS user here. A disturbing trend noticed in the past two months: can't login anymore to some financial/health services sites (bank/insurance/etc) without disabling all of NoScript - no amount of selective enabling of websites satisfies them, and those websites are using known infractors like Adobe. In other words, there is code in the backend checking that all tracking/-ware has run on the browser, and refusing to…

This has been happening to me too with PG&E. The page wouldn't load until the Amplitude calls finish.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#218

Post by thayne »

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…

> Our profession is collectively allowing this by not having a widely agreed-upon ethical standard for conduct

Even if there was some centralized group that created an ethical standard for conduct, do you really think that that would escape the influence of software companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. that have a vested interest in advertisement? Or that every software engineer would follow such a standard of conduct?

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#219

Post by slowhadoken »

ls612 wrote: post #177
slowhadoken wrote: post #65

The FBI also suggests using VPNs.

People shit on the FBI (for good reason) for being a tool of the ruling class, but their cybersecurity recommendations are consistently solid. They were amongst the first to suggest disabling Flash and Java in the browser for instance back in 2012.

When a bartender screws up a customer gets over served. When the feds screw up people die. It’s good to be vigilant when it comes to government and it’s also wise to consider the scale and scope of federal operation. The CIA is where things start to get sticky.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#220

Post by shiroiushi »

dwighttk wrote: post #200
shiroiushi wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It does? I see constant complaints online from iPhone users asking how to, for instance, block ads on YouTube, only to be told "buy an Android and install Firefox" because ad-blockers on iOS don't seem to do this.
Post reply on HN