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

271–280 of 388 posts

Re: No adblocker detected

#271

Post by JoshStrobl »

Freak_NL wrote: post #191
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 bombarde…

Unless you have a specific reason to use Google Play Store (as in the app, not the distribution medium), I would highly recommend using Aurora Store (which you can handily get via F-droid). I use it on my Sailfish OS phone (C2) to similarly get apps not available via F-Droid.

https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/

Re: No adblocker detected

#272

Post by asdewqqwer »

pmontra wrote: post #104
throwawaygmbno wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fine social contract for the independent blogger just sharing their thoughts on the Internet and maybe hoping to get a few dollars for their server cost. Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people. There is no social contract with them. They just sell your data. If you know what they are doing, know how to block it, and refuse to, you are complicit in m…

> Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people. IMHO this is a very wrong take. Mega corporations are people. Demonstration: nobody goes to work at Google for a while. Everything stops, technical stuff and non technical stuff. No people, no corporations, small ones and large ones.

Sure, then governments are also just people. How about we restore Monarchy now so someone can actually be held responsible? Also we should completely abandon Nulla poena sine lege since evidently the imbalanced power does not exist between people and also people (government).

Re: No adblocker detected

#273

Post by jbstack »

loeg wrote: post #112
jbstack wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have to be very careful not to run afoul of insider trading and/or market manipulation laws. Whether you would or not would depend on all the details and the jurisdiction.

Not in the US. There's no insider trading angle at all, and it's not fraudulent market manipulation to attempt to persuade consumers to cease supporting a business you're shorting as long as you're not lying about it.

Hence why I qualified that it depends on the details and the jurisdiction. I didn't say it is insider trading, just that you need to be careful to avoid that.

> There's no insider trading angle at all

Such a blanket statement would definitely be wrong in the UK for example. Insider trading is defined at Section 52(1) of the Criminal Justice act 1993 as: "(1)An individual who has information as an insider is guilty of insider dealing if, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), he deals in securities that are price-affected securities in relation to the information."

Whether you trigger the offence depends on a number of factors such as whether the information is "inside" information and whether you were an "insider" (these terms are defined in subsequent sections of the Act). As an example, if you were an employee of a listed company (not such an unlikely scenario given the capital requirements to pull this off) that was about to engage in the proposed scheme (publishing pro-adblock adverts) and it wasn't yet publicly known (which would be necessary if you want the scheme to be fully effective), and you shorted Google shares, you could easily fall foul of insider trading.

I'm not particularly familiar with the US legal system so I can't claim you're wrong there.

Re: No adblocker detected

#274

Post by const_cast »

charcircuit wrote: post #76
kergonath wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a social contract. They track me whether I use their services or not, on websites that are completely unrelated. I do not get a choice, not to mention the monopolies they built (yeah, fuck YouTube). These ads eat up my resources and affect my battery life. There is no more honour involved as when someone pays the mob for protection. I strongly reject this argument. I am bound by honour but they can do anyth…

Your choice is to stop giving that place traffic.

Yes, or alternatively: use an ad blocker.

Their software is running on my computer. I decide what scripts I want or don't, and I can and will block whatever the fuck with impunity.

If they can't prevent that, or it's too expensive, or they don't care, that's not my problem. That's a business problem. Its not my business. I don't care.

Its like getting a free sample at Costco and then taking it home and throwing it away. That's my right. I can do that if I want.

If you want to run software on my computer, you play by my rules. That means an ad blocker. If you don't like that then figure it out. I'm not gonna figure it out for you.

Re: No adblocker detected

#275

Post by MathMonkeyMan »

mahrain wrote: post #214
Freak_NL wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bombarde…

What always surprises me is the sheer amount of fake, scammy, apps trying to appear as if they're something else. Trying to steal clicks from users looking for Adblock, VLC or other legitimate apps... it's a mess!

Nevermind the fake stuff, the real stuff is scammy enough.

When you select an app to install on Google Play, it takes you to another screen confirming the install. But that install button on top is not for the app you selected, it's for a different, advertised app. You have to scroll down to find the confirmation button for the app you already instructed the store to install.

This isn't going to ruin any lives, but it's gross.

Re: No adblocker detected

#276

Post by streptomycin »

safety1st wrote: post #63
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…

Well, hang on. Your comment is fair minded, but to be fair we have to consider the context. The context is that the courts have found Google holds two illegal monopolies within the online adtech market [1], the remedy for which has yet to be determined. Furthermore the DoJ has sued Meta for holding one as well and that trial is now underway. [2] I don't know about you, but to me, if the counterparty breaches a contra…

You could block only ads from Google and Meta. Most large sites use header bidding, where Google's ads are a fallback only if no other ad company bids higher, so most ad revenue come from those other companies. And IIRC Meta doesn't participate in that at all, so for them you'd just have to block ads on their own sites.

Re: No adblocker detected

#277

Post by account42 »

discomrobertul8 wrote: post #134
ahofmann wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this often. My experience is totally different. I've installed ublock origin and I'm using Vivaldi as my blink engine wrapper. I've never seen a YouTube ad since years. I wonder why anyone has to fight for an ad free YouTube.

> I wonder why anyone has to fight for an ad free YouTube. 90% of my YouTube use is on my smart TV. There's not really a straightforward way to block ads there. Used to be many years ago that a PiHole or similar would work, but they clued onto that years ago.

If you are using an internet-connected smart TV you already decided you don't care about ads. No one is forcing you to make that choice though.

Re: No adblocker detected

#278

Post by Freak_NL »

JoshStrobl wrote: post #271
Freak_NL wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bombarde…

Unless you have a specific reason to use Google Play Store (as in the app, not the distribution medium), I would highly recommend using Aurora Store (which you can handily get via F-droid). I use it on my Sailfish OS phone (C2) to similarly get apps not available via F-Droid. https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/

That's probably better for the sanity of all concerned. I'll have a look.

Re: No adblocker detected

#279

Post by rchaud »

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…

> 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.

No it isn't. Free websites exist: Wordpress, Blogger, Wix, Weebly etc. The only "ad" they show is a static banner for their own platform, not the giant scripts Google loads for Google Ads. Neocities and Digital Ocean are $5/mo for a custom domain and hosting, theme it anyway you like.

Most "content"-focused websites like Buzzfeed, The Verge, Gizmodo etc simply embed third party content (Youtube, Vimeo, Giphy, random poll generators) instead of hosting them on their domain. Much of their content is rehashing news articles with a paper-thin layer of "analysis" on top. Then they add metric tons of ads, and throw in affilliate link garbage "product reviews" on top.

This is the dropship-ification of the web and it pretty much killed the free website culture of the Geocities/Anglefire era.

Re: No adblocker detected

#280

Post by dheera »

DocTomoe wrote: post #106
dheera wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "law" only applies if you live in the EU anyway.

See, this is where you are wrong. The law applies if you target people living in the EU (such as using one of the languages spoken within the EU. English applies thanks to Malta and Ireland. So does not explicitly removing tracking from EU IPs). Whether it is technically enforceable in your particular case may be the question. But historically, it has been enforced outside the EU. As you live in the Bay Area - the CC…

> The law applies if you target people living in the EU

I disagree with this. Tencent WeChat targets the entire world, including people living in the EU. They do not follow GDPR.

Likewise, Facebook targets people living everywhere, including in China. They do not follow Chinese laws.

Hence, China sets up a firewall and blocks Facebook.

EU can set up a firewall too if they don't like something.

"Oh but EU doesn't do firewalls?" Not my problem. Tough luck. China, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, all did it, you can too if you have beef with foreign websites.

But no, I do not need to follow EU law just because EU users use my thing. It's on them to firewall it if they don't like my website.

> CCPA and the CPRA

This is fine. I live in California, I need to follow California law, and I can choose to live somewhere else if I don't like it. What I'm not okay with is some distant jurisdiction thinking they can make laws that I "need" to follow.

Post reply on HN