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

221–230 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#221

Post by shiroiushi »

thayne wrote: post #218
ryandrake wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The idea that Russian and Chinese software engineers working for troll farms, bot farms, government cyberwarfare groups, etc. are going to follow an international ethical standard of conduct is completely laughable.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#222

Post by dahart »

shiroiushi wrote: post #220
dwighttk wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you talking about the browser or the YouTube app? Most iOS users watching YouTube use the YouTube app, not the Safari App, so they’re obviously asking how to block ads because the app isn’t a browser, not because Safari doesn’t allow ad blockers.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#223

Post by dahart »

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?

You’re making assumptions. There’s lots of reasons Apple might want to make their own browser to go with their own OSes, and protecting their users from Google is one of them. Controlling their own software and hardware stack is another, and Apple is famous for this. Another one is providing better user and developer experiences. Better user experience is very debatable, since as an ex web developer, I’m aware of some of the ways Safari sucks and fails to meet standards or behave like other browsers, at least as of five years ago. Standards support is better now. Safari was the first browser to have 60fps scrolling, and developing iOS and web apps with Safari dev tools is the only option, that’s not something Chrome or Firefox do for you.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#224

Post by noirchen »

patrakov wrote: post #87

And in China, using ad blockers is illegal. Go figure.

That's nonsense. Searching for "广告拦截" on Baidu returns hundreds of thousands of webpages and tutorials telling users how to install and turn on ad blockers, and Chinese smartphone brands often boast that their products perform better than competitors in blocking ads. What you are saying seems like a misunderstood version of the fact that some "ads" are whitelisted by default and you can't block them painlessly, mostly from the telecom giants that provide internet access for you.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#225

Post by shiroiushi »

dahart wrote: post #222
shiroiushi wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you talking about the browser or the YouTube app? Most iOS users watching YouTube use the YouTube app, not the Safari App, so they’re obviously asking how to block ads because the app isn’t a browser, not because Safari doesn’t allow ad blockers.

I'm talking about the browser. On Android, you can install Firefox + uBO and watch YouTube without ads. You can also install another handy extension so you can turn off the screen and the video won't pause, so you can listen to music on YouTube that way. You can't do this stuff in the official YT app.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#226

Post by shiroiushi »

dahart wrote: post #223
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?

You’re making assumptions. There’s lots of reasons Apple might want to make their own browser to go with their own OSes, and protecting their users from Google is one of them. Controlling their own software and hardware stack is another, and Apple is famous for this. Another one is providing better user and developer experiences. Better user experience is very debatable, since as an ex web developer, I’m aware of som…

If their own browser that they force on everyone doesn't support ad-blockers, and they don't add ad-blocking to that browser themselves, then I don't see the difference: they're preventing users from blocking ads, and in effect forcing ads on their users. Their justifications are irrelevant.

Even Google (the biggest ad-tech company) isn't that bad: they obviously don't make an ad-blocker themselves, and they've worked against ad-blockers in the Android Chrome browser, but they don't do anything to stop users from installing an alternative browser which supports ad-blocking. You can install Firefox directly from the Google Play store. (Note that the same is not true for ad-blocking alternative YouTube clients like ReVanced or SmartTube, but you can't use those on iOS either of course. And even here, while Google won't allow them in the Play store, you can simply install them directly from the .apk files, something you can't do on iOS.)

By preventing users from exercising choice, Apple has taken on responsibility for them not being able to avoid ads.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#227

Post by nobody9999 »

RajT88 wrote: post #172
nobody9999 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yeah, I knew that but with enough effort you can block that too. Can you? As of 2021, there were more than 500 registered data brokers in the US alone. And those brokers don't just use your Facebook profile (shadow or otherwise). Rather they source data from thousands of retailers, insurance companies, credit "rating" agencies, banks, etc., etc., etc. How exactly do you (because I certainly don't know how to do so)…

I was only speaking of Facebook off-site tracking.

>I was only speaking of Facebook off-site tracking.'

Fair enough.

And while it's not a bad thing, it's just a small part of the problem, as I was reminded a few minutes ago when I received an email about this class-action lawsuit[0].

To be clear, I'm not trying to bust your chops or be dismissive of your point of view. Rather, I'm just (through serendipitous receipt of notification of the lawsuit discussed in the linked article) providing an example that Meta's evil ways are just the tip of the iceberg.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41497486

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#228

Post by fragmede »

cm11 wrote: post #128
toastercat wrote: post #100

[flagged]

Agree with a lot of this and also feel torn (though I've been settled on a side for a little while). I've been debating with my neighbor the last few years about whether artists are still artists if they're charging for their "content". It's a bit of a facetious argument, but directionally if you have something you want people to hear, isn't the audience doing the favor by listening? Similar points have been made abo…

How do you define art? Does it stop being art once it's in a museum? Does it stop being art if the museum is a gallery? How many layers of indirection have to happen between the artist and the gallery for it to be art?

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#229

Post by Zambyte »

bravetraveler wrote: post #193
bravetraveler wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you for sharing, I'm sure people will find this useful. An extension is not very helpful for my needs though. I often use public computers at a local makerspace, and it is much easier for me to scan a QR code to sign in and then close the incognito browser when I'm done than it is for me to carry around my uBlock configuration.

Solving my problem the "hacker way" would essentially be reimplementing Kagi, or hosting a service to do it. I already host Open WebUI and that is really moving along; maybe it can replace my Kagi needs someday, but for now I am pretty happy with continuing to use Kagi.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#230

Post by dahart »

shiroiushi wrote: post #226
dahart wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re making assumptions. There’s lots of reasons Apple might want to make their own browser to go with their own OSes, and protecting their users from Google is one of them. Controlling their own software and hardware stack is another, and Apple is famous for this. Another one is providing better user and developer experiences. Better user experience is very debatable, since as an ex web developer, I’m aware of som…

If their own browser that they force on everyone doesn't support ad-blockers, and they don't add ad-blocking to that browser themselves, then I don't see the difference: they're preventing users from blocking ads, and in effect forcing ads on their users. Their justifications are irrelevant. Even Google (the biggest ad-tech company) isn't that bad: they obviously don't make an ad-blocker themselves, and they've worke…

As already mentioned in this thread, Safari does allow ad blockers, your premise is false. And even if they didn’t, there’s an absolutely massive difference between not being able to block ads and being the company both selling the ads and the browser that is engineering away your privacy.

Safari does take active steps to prevent tracking that Chrome does not. Apple has not actively worked against ad blockers the way Google has. And Apple also allows you to install a different browser on iOS, Google doesn’t get any gold stars for not preventing third party browsers on Android.

Google has a conflict of interest between your privacy and their primary source of revenue. That’s not true for Apple. Google isn’t that bad?!? Hahahaha BTW you moved the goal posts, the claim you were implicitly defending was that Apple was collecting and selling private data themselves. Nothing in this thread so far backs up that claim.

Post reply on HN