Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#31

Post by toomuchtodo »

sbarre wrote: post #28
toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can this multinational company afford it?" and "Will this incur a felony or similar judicial record?" is my bar, broadly speaking. Never take from someone who cannot afford it, or where it would be material to them. Bits, never fiat. Laws are just words, how you decide which to ignore is a function of potential legal exposure and your belief system. I pay for Spotify because I’m lazy and can afford it, but rip whate…

> Laws are just words Spoken from a place of security, comfort and privilege no doubt.. All afforded by the laws of the land. ;-)

Strange argument. The laws bind economically to extract (“these bits are gated, you must pay or go to jail for not paying for them” in this context), they are not affording what you describe. Ignoring or evading them is where the security, comfort, and privilege come from. Freedom is being ungovernable.

“Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.” is a fun quote on this. Laws don’t protect me, they protect those with property and capital, as well as large companies that have limited to no liability. I protect me.

Anyway, I block ads and don’t care.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#32

Post by Marsymars »

bobbyraduloff wrote: post #15

Kernel level packet filtering to avoid Spotify ads is about the same level of mental gymnastics as the GPT-generated “we’re not pirates” argument in their README. While Spotify is obviously an immoral company, you, the person reading this, are not entitled to free 24/7 cloud-streamed music on demand. They are a business and they don’t owe that service to you on principle. If you don’t like them as a company, there’s…

> Kernel level packet filtering to avoid Spotify ads is about the same level of mental gymnastics as the GPT-generated “we’re not pirates” argument in their README.

This jumble of sentences stuck out to me as logically incoherent, but not necessarily LLM-generated. I guess I need to update my mental model a bit to account for more things being being LLM-generated.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#33

Post by [deleted] »

mfro wrote: post #19

Absolutely no need to do kernel level packet filtering for this. You can use the absurdly easy hostfile approach, or a simple self-hosted DNS server. This looks entirely LLM generated as well. Also... who the hell tries to make changes to a user's sudoers file from their install script? This is an awful project.

[deleted]

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#34

Post by jekwoooooe »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #25
jekwoooooe wrote: post #8

Not proposing a moral opinion but this is still piracy no matter how much they deny it. The contract with free Spotify is you receive ads.

no advertiser has the right to tell me how to process their advertising data. hypothetically, once it's in my network, i can do whatever i please with it.

That doesn’t make any sense that’s like saying you should be allowed to trick your bank into giving you free money because you processed their website “in your network”

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#35

Post by benreesman »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #22
benreesman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the killer eBPF usecase for the non-engineer user: getting underneath TLS and DoH (which have both been effectively weaponized at this point). No means no, my computer my choice. sudo build a real product.

> getting underneath TLS and DoH (which have both been effectively weaponized at this point). Only to the extent you are running software you don't trust. If you're running a user agent (e.g. a browser), rather than an app, you can easily do full ad-blocking much more effectively. Calling TLS and DoH a weapon because apps you don't trust can use them to maintain integrity of their connections is like calling secure c…

Yeah I'm just going to have to completely disagree at a militant volume. Keeping the contents of connections made on my behalf secure from my own inspection is fucked up and I want harm to befall those that do so.

I'm not a little angry about surveillance capitalism, I'm start a war angry about it.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#36

Post by immibis »

sbarre wrote: post #7

> We’re not here to pirate. We’re here to opt out. Then "opt out" by not using the product? No one has a right to use Spotify. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. I'll never get why people smart enough to build something technically impressive like this feel the need to throw these completely childish pseudo-rationalizations out there. Yeah, you are stealing actually.. Is it that big of a deal? Nope.…

Spotify also doesn't have a right to unmodified client systems.

If their server sends you bits, why should you delete the bits? If you accidentally sent them the wrong bits, do you think they'd be nice enough to delete them? Pre-emptively before receiving any notification from you?

Terms are irrelevant and in most cases have no legal power at all. Fighting back with technical power (as YouTube has done) is fair game though.

The golden rule of capitalism is to do everything in your physical ability to improve your individual situation at the expense of others. Feel free to come to an agreement with Spotify, that neither of you will do capitalism against the other. Until then, you should probably play the game or you will lose by default. Spotify isn't that important but you should definitely get into the mindset of playing the hand you're dealt.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#37

Post by immibis »

breppp wrote: post #12
sbarre wrote: post #7

> We’re not here to pirate. We’re here to opt out. Then "opt out" by not using the product? No one has a right to use Spotify. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. I'll never get why people smart enough to build something technically impressive like this feel the need to throw these completely childish pseudo-rationalizations out there. Yeah, you are stealing actually.. Is it that big of a deal? Nope.…

Artists are earning pennies of what subscribers are paying? then let's not pay, that will show them artists

Some people choose to pirate media and then pay the full price to the artists directly.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#38

Post by immibis »

sbarre wrote: post #28
toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can this multinational company afford it?" and "Will this incur a felony or similar judicial record?" is my bar, broadly speaking. Never take from someone who cannot afford it, or where it would be material to them. Bits, never fiat. Laws are just words, how you decide which to ignore is a function of potential legal exposure and your belief system. I pay for Spotify because I’m lazy and can afford it, but rip whate…

> Laws are just words Spoken from a place of security, comfort and privilege no doubt.. All afforded by the laws of the land. ;-)

Doubt. All the most successful people are the ones who push the limits of which laws they can ignore. Just see any big tech founder-CEO.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#39

Post by immibis »

bobbyraduloff wrote: post #15

Kernel level packet filtering to avoid Spotify ads is about the same level of mental gymnastics as the GPT-generated “we’re not pirates” argument in their README. While Spotify is obviously an immoral company, you, the person reading this, are not entitled to free 24/7 cloud-streamed music on demand. They are a business and they don’t owe that service to you on principle. If you don’t like them as a company, there’s…

Neither is Spotify owed anything from you. They aren't owed money, unless you agreed to pay them money (actually agreed, not clickwrap). They aren't owed ad views, because clickwrap agreements to watch ads generally don't actually have any legal force. And if they think they do, let them sue you and find out. You don't owe them advance compliance according to what would benefit them the most, but they benefit greatly from you thinking you do.

This applies to a lot of things, not Spotify in particular.

Re: EBAF – eBPF Based Ad Firewall

#40

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

jekwoooooe wrote: post #34
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no advertiser has the right to tell me how to process their advertising data. hypothetically, once it's in my network, i can do whatever i please with it.

That doesn’t make any sense that’s like saying you should be allowed to trick your bank into giving you free money because you processed their website “in your network”

what? not at all. nobody thinks its bad that you're allowed to skip ads on podcasts by fast-forwarding (outside of advertisers). the ad has been delivered to my device by the advertiser. it's my choice to ingest it into my physical/mental body, or not.
Post reply on HN