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

321–330 of 388 posts

Re: No adblocker detected

#321

Post by charcircuit »

const_cast wrote: post #274
charcircuit wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aw…

No one is saying ad blocking is not technically possible. Wanting everyone to play by your rules is selfish and doesn't acknowledge the needs of others.

>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.

It's also like stealing a TV from Costco. Just because you technically can pick up a TV and then bring it to your car without paying and drive off, doesn't mean you should do it. It's unfair to Costco for them to play by your rules.

Re: No adblocker detected

#323

Post by bambax »

lakkal wrote: post #284
Vinnl wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.) Ads in public places, bus stops, etc. are kinda hard to avoid unfortunately.

Barber shops and doctors' waiting rooms are hellish for me, since I can't not-hear the radio/TV they usually have playing.

In France I have yet to go to a waiting room with a TV with the sound on; I think people would get upset.

I went once to a dentist with a TV above my head (sound off); I refused to sit in the chair until it was turned off. The assistant sighed and said "everybody asks the same thing, I wonder why we installed this".

Re: No adblocker detected

#325

Post by Jzush »

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.

Indeed seeing ads almost feels like I’ve been physically assaulted. Using YouTube in our streaming devices reminds me of the old Cable days where you watch 2minutes of something and get slapped in the face with 5 minutes of ads.

It really feels like being assaulted. Watching chill content only to have some ad scream at you, does not make me want to buy your product. I actively go out of my way not to buy things advertised to me on YouTube.

Re: No adblocker detected

#326

Post by loeg »

jbstack wrote: post #273
loeg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IMO you don't need to be particularly careful to avoid insider trading if you were never at risk of doing it. It's pretty obvious when you have a duty of confidentiality and when you don't (again, in the US). The hypothetical scenario upthread just doesn't have any of the elements.

> 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.

Yeah, that isn't the scenario described earlier at all. Here's what was proposed:

> I wonder if you could spend a few million on promoting adblockers to justify a short position on Google or Meta.

In this sentence, the entity performing the short and performing the advertising are one and the same.

Re: No adblocker detected

#327

Post by const_cast »

charcircuit wrote: post #321
const_cast wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aw…

No one is saying ad blocking is not technically possible. Wanting everyone to play by your rules is selfish and doesn't acknowledge the needs of others. >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. It's also like stealing a TV from Costco. Just because you technically can pick up a TV and then bring it to your car without paying and…

> Wanting everyone to play by your rules is selfish and doesn't acknowledge the needs of others.

I'm not wanting anything, I'm telling you literally they are playing by my rules.

They are requesting to run scripts on my computer. It is my computer. If I say no, then the answer is no.

This is merely a request from them. I can abide, and I often will, but I have absolutely no moral, technical, or legal obligation to do so.

> I's also like stealing a TV from Costco.

No, because that's illegal.

You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer. I can deny that request.

If you don't like that, then don't allow me access. It is my responsibility, solely, to decide what scripts are running on my computer.

If Google asked you to download heartbleed and run it, you wouldn't do it, would you? Great, so you understand the concept.

The disconnect here is you believe I am entitled. And I am - I am entitled to deciding what runs on my computer.

You are not entitled to run arbitrary code on my computer because your business model requires it. I'm not your accountant, figure it out.

Re: No adblocker detected

#328

Post by Vinnl »

Theodores wrote: post #222
Vinnl wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.) Ads in public places, bus stops, etc. are kinda hard to avoid unfortunately.

Get a bicycle and learn the car free routes into town and to your work. Nobody puts up adverts on cycle paths. It isn't against the law, it just makes no commercial sense to do so. By making the bicycle however you get about, you cut down on seeing ads.

Incidentally almost all my trips are already by bicycle, with on foot and with public transport numbers 2 and 3. Unfortunately, since almost everybody uses these modes of transportation here, there actually are ads everywhere still.

(Besides the idea of me having to adjust my route to -for now- not see ads being somewhat offensive to me too.)

Re: No adblocker detected

#329

Post by hananova »

rkomorn wrote: post #225
freehorse wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't consider myself/users responsible for solving the broken business model of a big part of the modern web. The problem of ads is not just "I do not like ads", which is also a valid reason imo concerning how intrusive and distracting they are blinking and yelling around and making everything slower, but a matter of privacy and safety. There is no social contract that accepts this. Moreover, I have no way to actu…

> I would not mind if a website detects my adblocker and not serving me the content either. How do you feel about ad blockers continually trying to evade detection, though? Or guides about how to avoid things that block access to users of ad blockers? I think the "you're free to block me for using an ad blocker!" argument doesn't mean much when said ad blockers do their best to not let that happen in the first place.

The websites are in their right to try to detect adblockers, and the adblockers are equally in their right to avoid detection. If a website really cares, they can try harder.

The goal of an adblocker is not just to block ads, but to block anything that isn't the content the user wishes to see. This includes calls to action, consent banners (despite websites wishing otherwise, the default answer is still "no"), and of course "please disable your adblocker."

Re: No adblocker detected

#330

Post by pmxi »

kelnos wrote: post #169
neilv wrote: post #32

> No adblocker detected. Consider using an extension like uBlock Origin to save time and bandwidth. And attention and privacy. This notice is a great idea. I might remove the "like" from the notice, since "uBlock Origin" is good, but some others are questionable or even outright malware. BTW, note that the `ublockorigin.com` Web site that is linked to isn't by Raymond Hill, leader of uBlock Origin. It looks well-inte…

Your average internet user is not going to have any idea what to do with a link to GitHub. It's a shame there's no official website with easy install instructions. (But I agree with you that it's not a great idea to link to a website not under control of the author.)

Fortunately, the GitHub README opens with a list of links to install ublock Origin.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock?tab=readme-ov-file#ublock-...

Post reply on HN