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

31–40 of 238 posts

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#31

Post by kenjackson »

Sephr wrote: post #19

Google has convinced regulatory agencies that they're not responsible for their own complicity with supporting link fraud. I wrote an article about Google's role in enabling link fraud[1], which shows how this is effectively a form of regulatory capture. Here's a particularly salient critique of these very same FBI recommendations, from my article: > The FBI suggests “Before clicking on an advertisement, check the UR…

Can’t an ad always just redirect traffic to a vanity URL while exposing a non-vanity URL to Google?

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#33

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

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

Here's your YouTube link without the creepy Google tracking (and with the missing playback controls):

https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV3js9pd5IE

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#34

Post by marginalia_nu »

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.

Yup, same here.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#35

Post by bookofjoe »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
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.

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. ;)

Because I don't know how to install one nor do I have any interest in learning how.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#37

Post by taf2 »

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…

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#38

Post by Terr_ »

I've love to see what happens if ad-networks became legally liable for any scams or malware that they enable.

The counter-argument that they don't need to know their customer/ad and are just dumb-pipes doesn't sit well with me: Them having awareness of ad-content and display-context is ostensibly part of their business model.

P.S.: I don't mean just liable for a part of the damages, although that would be a good start. I mean that if your Aunt Tillie gets served an ad of "Your computer is infected, click here to contact a Microsoft Technican" there should be some negative repercussions for the company, even if your Aunt Tillie is secretly the hacker BakinC00kies and spins up a honeypot.

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#39

Post by simple10 »

vunderba wrote: post #25

PSA: Even among tech minded folks, a surprising number of people are still using adblock which is widely known to use sponsored whitelists to allow companies to bypass the filters. The gold standard which works as an extension in both chrome and Firefox is uBlock Origin , annoyingly not to be confused with uBlock. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ub…

Is the warning on uBlock Origin Chrome extension page due to it not using the manifest v3? Anybody know if uBlock is still the best option for Chrome?

Re: FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

#40

Post by azinman2 »

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.

The changes Apple made were to increase privacy. Content blockers that have access to the page have no network access. A separate process that does can only update the blocking rules.

I quite like Ka-block

Post reply on HN