611–620 of 962 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, dude, from your other comments: "What a selfish dickhead, helping them make better nooses to put around everyone's necks (including his own)." And "People like this are enemies of freedom and should be called out publicly." What the ?
[flagged]
The best bypass is to use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
The best bypass is to use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…
Adverts have no positive effects for anyone other than the advertising firm. They cost the viewer more than the provide the advertiser
[flagged]
If a major adblocker used a bug or security vulnerability to work around restrictions, it would have been patched away immediately. The uBlock team was never going to ship code that depended on a bug to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has never been ad-free, sponsored segments have always existed
you should blame the creators for being greedy, not YouTube for that
The best bypass is to use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…
For me, ads broke the informal social contract between provider and end user years ago. Small, unobtrusive advertisements might've been okay, but ads eating an inordinate amount of my time and bandwidth, which exfiltrate my personal information, and which are served to me via SEO tricks and dark patterns are not okay. If sites want to ban me for not viewing their ads, fine. In the meantime, I won't lose any sleep over using my adblocker.
For you, if you are lecturing us on the moral imperative of viewing ads, then you better be viewing those ads yourself rather than only espousing cheap rhetoric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…
Almost all content I consume is not funded by adverts, it’s funded by passion or subscription or donation. Adverts have no positive effects for anyone other than the advertising firm. They cost the viewer more than the provide the advertiser
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t help seeing ad blockers as fairless content consumption, like choosing to download films, musics and books without paying the creator and the distributor (VOD, MOD, concerts, libraries…). Sounds great for you but how would that work if everyone would do the same? Although we all be happy to se more competition, using an ad blocker on Google sites (and G-add financed-sites) have no positive effect for the comp…
Almost all content I consume is not funded by adverts, it’s funded by passion or subscription or donation. Adverts have no positive effects for anyone other than the advertising firm. They cost the viewer more than the provide the advertiser