41–50 of 334 posts
Color me shocked. Why does anyone use Chrome anymore? Firefox is better in every way, and it isn’t tied to the biggest data harvester the world has ever known.
[0]https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By themselves, ads aren't the real problem --- personalized ads are the problem. The idea that they have to profile and track your every move all over the internet in order to try and sell you stuff you don't really want or need. Example: If I go to a pet supply web site, an ad for dog food is perfectly understandable --- maybe even welcomed. But just because I was profiled visiting and maybe even buying, I shouldn't…
> By themselves, ads aren't the real problem --- personalized ads are the problem. I don't even care about that, what gets my goat is that ads pileup significantly slow down pages and increase energy consumption; and sites still get plastered to unreadability.
Are people really that adamant about blocking ads on the web? I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators. At the most it amounts to a very mild annoyance and ads also help small businesses to grow. Edit: I'd appreciate it if someone could respond to the points I made rather than simply complain about why they don't like ads.
As far as I'm concerned, we'd all be better off if that entire industry was nuked off the face of the Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care if they have my data. My data is useless to me. Have it. I don't even think it's worth that much in the first place. I care that they make the web a crappy, unusable, annoying place. They make the browsing experience less secure. They slow down the webpages and eat bandwidth. They look ugly. It' my goddamn pc, i very well can choose what to run on it.
I don't care if they have my data. You should. They're inventing new ways to use this data against you all the time. For example, there has been some effort to profile you based on the price you pay for goods on the internet. They assign you a "sucker score". Once you're classified as a sucker, the price you get offered is higher than what a "non-sucker" might receive. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201…
Are people really that adamant about blocking ads on the web? I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators. At the most it amounts to a very mild annoyance and ads also help small businesses to grow. Edit: I'd appreciate it if someone could respond to the points I made rather than simply complain about why they don't like ads.
I wouldn’t mind simple banner ads without tracking. The digital equivalent of magazine ads.
Are people really that adamant about blocking ads on the web? I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators. At the most it amounts to a very mild annoyance and ads also help small businesses to grow. Edit: I'd appreciate it if someone could respond to the points I made rather than simply complain about why they don't like ads.
By themselves, ads aren't the real problem --- personalized ads are the problem. The idea that they have to profile and track your every move all over the internet in order to try and sell you stuff you don't really want or need. Example: If I go to a pet supply web site, an ad for dog food is perfectly understandable --- maybe even welcomed. But just because I was profiled visiting and maybe even buying, I shouldn't…
That's not true. If I'm forced to see ads they might as well be personalized. Hell, sometimes (rarely, I'll admit) I even find some things that interest me, like new products or services. Personalized ads work, there is no way around it.
What irks me about these complaints is not complaining about ads, we all know they are annoying, but the faux moral high horse people, especially in this supposedly ultra rational community, put themselves on. I mean, it's not like you are begging to be paying a subscription to get rid of ads. For most sites you are still going to be browsing there with your adblocker even if the "legal" opportunity to get rid of ads is offered. If the ads weren't personalized you would complain about how irrelevant they are or something in that vain. You are not avoiding websites that display ads you find annoying you just block them. So please, stop with the moral high ground. You block ads because you can and because it's easy and, on the face of it, harmless.
Yes, the data gathering can be abused, like anything, really.
Are people really that adamant about blocking ads on the web? I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to remove the primary source of revenue for content creators. At the most it amounts to a very mild annoyance and ads also help small businesses to grow. Edit: I'd appreciate it if someone could respond to the points I made rather than simply complain about why they don't like ads.
Nobody wants to hear the stupid jingles on YouTube every 5 minutes (yes, I've had them every 5 minutes). I'm sick of lazy loading ads shifting content and then when I interact with the main content spring to life with that interaction and start playing audio.
I don't want ads at all, period. Their abusive history is enough reason for that.
I do not care if the website owner goes broke, if they want to live off of it charge for it. If people don't want to pay then a lot of people need to realize their content isn't all that valuable in the first place. It is great that small businesses can use ads, but unfortunately the market has ruined it for everyone by being so lax with the experience as a whole. Ads lie and sell you shit, so everything that shows up is probably shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care if they have my data. My data is useless to me. Have it. I don't even think it's worth that much in the first place. I care that they make the web a crappy, unusable, annoying place. They make the browsing experience less secure. They slow down the webpages and eat bandwidth. They look ugly. It' my goddamn pc, i very well can choose what to run on it.
I don't care if they have my data. You should. They're inventing new ways to use this data against you all the time. For example, there has been some effort to profile you based on the price you pay for goods on the internet. They assign you a "sucker score". Once you're classified as a sucker, the price you get offered is higher than what a "non-sucker" might receive. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201…
Personally, I don't care that they're doing this (to me). I care more that they shouldn't be able to legally do it.
And also, as other people have said: it's ads that are the problem. Not personalized ads. Ads in general. They're ugly, bad, awful, battery-sucking, headache-inducing, loud, autoplaying, CPU-hungry, slow, very bad no good.
Seriously.
For example, with Manifest V2 we can initiate a request from a content script after we begin listening for it from the background script, pass a single-use token in the Accept header, identify the request from the background script based on the token, remove the token from the Accept header and edit other headers before the request is sent to the server, then manipulate the response for that single request and stop listening from the background script.
I use this workflow in Search by Image to grab an image from the page context when no CSP headers are present for the asset, and the image is only served if a certain cookie and referrer is sent. This will no longer be possible to achieve with the current API of Manifest V3. Extensions used for page archival will also be impacted.
Manifest V3 removes a robust toolset that content blockers can use the react to all evasion techniques ad companies implement, and the rest of the extension ecosystem will be part of the fallout.