[HN Gopher] uBlock Origin becomes top addon on Firefox
___________________________________________________________________
uBlock Origin becomes top addon on Firefox
Author : nixcraft
Score : 726 points
Date : 2022-03-11 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (addons.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (addons.mozilla.org)
| t8e56vd4ih wrote:
| just installed it today on my father's partner's laptop.
|
| in my opinion ublock origin is by now an integral part of the
| internet infrastructure.
|
| it's also the only piece of software which I consistently install
| on every platform I use (Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, iOS).
|
| Raymond deserves some sort of Nobel prize or something for this.
| The internet is not usable for me without it.
| chrizel wrote:
| How do you install uBlock Origin on iOS?
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| damn, you're right. I repressed that. I would, though!
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Try AdGuard - not as good as uBlock but it's the best you can
| do on iOS given API limitations.
| [deleted]
| wnevets wrote:
| It doesn't JUST block ads, it also blocks malware and other
| garbage. IMO Its not safe to browse the modern web without it
| dotcoma wrote:
| The most popular extension, and the 2nd most popular, just like
| the 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th most popular, are ad-blockers.
|
| I guess it's only marketers that love targeted ads...
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Only marketers love ads in general. To the rest of us, it's
| just annoying noise, to be filtered.
| openknot wrote:
| From an older submission to Hacker News: "Appreciate
| marketing. It seems like bullshit, but it's bullshit I don't
| want to have to do. I'm glad someone else is doing it, I'm
| sincerely grateful for their efforts." [0]
|
| Software development is important, but marketing is also
| important, and it actually works. Most companies can't
| survive without effective marketing.
|
| [0] https://devjac.dev/posts/2021-05-29-my-personal-creed-of-
| emp...
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Appreciate marketing. It seems like bullshit, but it's
| bullshit I don't want to have to do.
|
| Bullshit? To me it seems more like mind rape when a bunch
| of corporate ideas and brands are suddenly and forcibly
| injected into my mind. I didn't ask for it, I didn't
| consent to it. We don't tolerate it when people violate our
| bodies, so why is it okay to violate our minds? They "need"
| it to make money, so it's okay?
|
| If I want to see products, I'll ask for it. I'll open the
| store app. Until that time, they better keep their
| marketing to themselves or I'll do everything in my power
| to defend myself. That's what software like uBlock Origin
| is: self-defense against hostile megacorporations who want
| to exploit you in every way possible.
| bosie wrote:
| Aren't you consenting to it when you are browsing the
| web? If it bothers me so much ("mind rape") and I know a
| website has ads, why would I go there?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Aren't you consenting to it when you are browsing the
| web?
|
| No.
|
| > If it bothers me so much ("mind rape") and I know a
| website has ads, why would I go there?
|
| Websites don't have "99% advertising 1% content" warnings
| to help me decide before I click a link.
|
| Also, there is no reason to avoid going anywhere these
| days because uBlock Origin exists.
| akomtu wrote:
| It's the other way around: when advertisers and website
| owners decide to leverage the internet, the largest
| distribution channel in the world at no expense to them,
| agree to the "public square" terms. If they dont like the
| terms, they can always build their own distribution
| channel and set whatever rules they like. Advertisers are
| the real freeloaders here.
| bosie wrote:
| I don't think distribution channel can be ad-free as
| such, let alone claiming every page on the internet needs
| to agree to this. Would be great if I can get access to
| superb resources without paying for them but that is not
| going to happen, hence ads. If you don't like ads (or
| block them), how come you are not a freeloader?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > If you don't like ads (or block them), how come you are
| not a freeloader?
|
| They sent us the web page for free. It's their choice,
| they don't get to shame us for it.
|
| They did that because they assumed we'd look at the ads.
| The chance that this assumption would turn out to be
| false was always there. There's just no way they didn't
| know about this risk.
|
| What's happening is we don't want to look at this noise.
| We're not gonna do it. They need to accept that and move
| on instead of shaming us for invalidating the silly
| assumptions their business model is based on. Where does
| it say we're obligated to "give back" in exchange for
| their "free" content? That's just an idea they made up.
| They got it into their minds that we are "supposed" to
| pay them back by viewing ads when we are under exactly
| zero obligation to do so. They are not entitled to our
| attention.
| ssklash wrote:
| I agree 100%. If your company can't survive without
| exploiting human psychology and contributing to a
| surveillance infrastructure and monetization scheme,
| good. Companies survived for centuries without internet
| ads, tracking, targeting, etc. Just because you can take
| advantage of technological methods and mental
| vulnerabilities to pimp your product without the consent
| of the target, doesn't mean you should.
| openknot wrote:
| > "Companies survived for centuries without internet ads,
| tracking, targeting, etc."
|
| As far back as ancient Rome, vendors still used
| advertising and marketing. This included word-of-mouth
| advertisements and billboards (such as in Pompeii before
| the volcanic eruption). [0]
|
| In the 1900s, newspaper advertising was a major source of
| advertising. Now that fewer people read print newspapers,
| advertising has shifted to internet ads and email
| newsletter ads.
|
| Technology evolves, and marketing evolves to keep up.
| Even non-profits have significant marketing investments
| today. I encourage you to actually try to run an
| organization, for-profit or non-profit, and try to
| sustainably achieve the mission while rigidly adhering to
| the ideal that companies shouldn't use marketing.
|
| [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4387300.pdf
| carapace wrote:
| I was having this argument a couple of weeks ago. (
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30418664 ) cut-n-
| pasting from there:
|
| Organic word-of-mouth referrals and recommendations are
| waaaaaay more effective than any other form of marketing.
| If you can't develop and sustain word-of-mouth
| organically then you have to use other less efficient and
| more coercive means. There are marketplaces that operate
| efficiently on word of mouth alone. E.g., there are the
| various "black" markets. There was no appreciable change
| in availability, quality, or price before and after pot
| legalization, for example. The high end of most services
| and products doesn't need to market, they're "saturated"
| by word-of-mouth alone.
|
| - - - -
|
| Going further, you can trace the historical rise of
| modern marketing directly from military propaganda
| techniques. (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#World_War_I
| )
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > This included word-of-mouth advertisements
|
| This is not really advertising. It's more like a
| conversation. It's real people talking about their
| experiences. Advertising is when some phony who's on the
| corporation's payroll comes to you unsolicited and starts
| overstating the positives and downplaying the negatives.
| burnished wrote:
| There is two things going on here that are getting lumped
| under the same umbrella. 1) Modern marketing that uses a
| deep understanding of psychology to treat people as a
| series of levers to be pressed in order to get a certain
| reaction. 2) Service discovery. This can be really
| valuable. Just imagine you made something you were truly
| proud of and thought would bring value to others lives,
| or of something you already think is incredible. Finding
| out about it brought you value.
|
| These two things both get called advertising but we have
| (quite reasonably) different feelings about them.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Service discovery
|
| I don't consider this advertising either. If there is a
| list of services somewhere and people consult it
| voluntarily, then it's not really advertising, it's
| information. People are informing themselves about what's
| available.
|
| For example, I don't consider an online store to be
| advertising. The whole reason I went there is to see
| products, so it's totally fine when products are shown.
| It becomes unethical when they start shoving products in
| my face everywhere I go.
| Melatonic wrote:
| The problem is that in order for you to hear about a
| product probably a lot of other people need to first. Not
| a huge fan of advertising myself but to call it 'mind
| rape' seems a bit over the top.....
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| Making a science out of convincing people to buy things
| they don't need is not only not _important_ , it's
| fundamentally dishonest. No amount of apologies or hand
| waving will change that fact. Marketing is a pox on the
| human mind that we'd all be better off without.
| Melatonic wrote:
| I don't think it is marketing as a concept that is the
| problem - it is that we are forced to have it everywhere.
| There is no choice.
|
| I think a much healthier relationship would be a system
| where you can choose to dedicate some of your time and
| preferences to marketing. Instead of companies trying to
| trick you into clicking their advertisement they would
| need to create compelling and entertaining advertisements
| for stuff you might actually want. What I am envisioning
| is basically something like an app or channel you might
| willing give some type of inputs (say, for example, you
| are looking for a new car - you could input some data
| about your preferences) and then advertisers would have
| to compete to show off the best product. You could choose
| to dedicate 0 of your time or X amount of minutes.
|
| Some of the products I actually use and like the best
| also have the best (in terms of entertainment) marketing
| - if someone can make me laugh with a 10 second video AND
| show off a well designed product at the same time then I
| generally take that as a positive. But the advertisement
| needs to be providing entertainment value on its own.
| openknot wrote:
| >"Marketing is a pox on the human mind that we'd all be
| better off without."
|
| If you work, marketing pays part of your salary. A
| company can't survive without it.
|
| Marketing includes the "Who's hiring?" threads on the
| front page; word of mouth recommendations; and job
| postings on LinkedIn. If you've found a job that pays
| your bills, marketing played a role.
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| You pay your bookie a vig too?
|
| The fact that marketing exists isn't something I'm
| debating. The fact it has wormed its way into all aspects
| of life is a sign that we lead sick lives, to me.
| openknot wrote:
| Your point, as written, was: "Marketing is a pox on the
| human mind that we'd all be better off without." A
| reasonable response is that marketing has likely directly
| benefited your life.
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| Agreed, it surely has benefited my life. That benefit
| doesn't seem to outweigh, in my mind, the dishonesty
| pervasive in marketing, however.
|
| A thing can benefit me and still be a net drag on
| humanity. I'll continue to maintain that "the human mind
| would be better off without" marketing.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I don't think most marketers are evil, but as an industry
| marketing includes a lot of bad actors and boundary pushers
| that actively make the internet worse for financial gain.
| As a result I think it's fair for an individual to have an
| adversarial stance with "marketing" even if your employer's
| marketing department is pretty benign and helpful.
| layer8 wrote:
| Or maybe it's just the lack of targeted-ad-injection plugins.
| ;)
| wongarsu wrote:
| I like targeted ads (if I ignore the general threats to privacy
| and democracy they pose). There are certainly ads I've enjoyed
| seeing, mostly ads for specialized software, tools or machinery
| that I wouldn't have known about if not for targeted ads.
|
| I still hate ads. Youtube has maybe five interesting, relevant
| ads a month it can show me, and I'm willing to see each one
| maybe twice. That's ten ads a month. But Youtube has hundreds
| of ad slots to fill every month if they want to show me two
| pre-roll ads before each video and a couple within the video.
| Those slots have to be filled with something, and the few
| relevant ads mostly get drowned by the garbage. Other platforms
| have the same problem.
|
| Ads on the internet have fallen to the tragedy of the commons.
| If there was just a couple of them they would be more relevant
| and less distracting, but every advertiser and platform is
| incentivized to increase the number of ads without end, leading
| to where we are now.
| scarface74 wrote:
| If I listen to a software engineering podcast, isn't
| "targeting" by the fact that I might be a software engineer
| good enough? The same is true for websites I visit. If I go
| to Mens Health, that's a huge signal to what I'm interested
| in.
| passivate wrote:
| >I guess it's only marketers that love targeted ads...
|
| That maybe, but it might be hypocritical if you're working at a
| private business that generates sales via ads, which in effect
| pay your salary. I'm not against ads, so I wouldn't use an ad-
| blocker on principle, I would just avoid visiting sites that
| show excessive ads.
| dvtrn wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if adtech devs also use adblockers.
| vmaurin wrote:
| I have worked in the ad industry for 10+ years. Firefox,
| strict mode but no ad blocker for web. What I would not do
| though, is using an android or ios phone (or anykind of
| smartphone where I don't know what the system nor the
| application do). I am not sure that people realize how many
| power and data are used on these phones, for things totally
| unrelated to their personal usage
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| So you don't use a smartphone at all? Or am I
| misunderstanding?
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Why not just use an Android phone with Firefox and the same
| exact settings that you use on desktop?
| agamentium wrote:
| When I worked in adtech I absolutely did. I think it was
| fairly common at the company.
| irrational wrote:
| I'm a web developer, but I use noscript, despite the sites I
| work on relying on JavaScript and the business not allowing
| us to make them work without scripting enabled.
| runjake wrote:
| It is a well-known fact they do.
|
| This is why adtech has gotten craftier about ads, and
| adblockers have had to respond accordingly.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| That case is to thwart adblockers abilities to block ads. I
| think the OP's question was more rhetorical, as in they
| don't eat their own dog food type of thing.
| Corrado wrote:
| You know, I don't mind advertisements that are really targeted
| and would enrich my life in some way. I use Ublock Origin (and
| others) everywhere I can and it's great. However, there are
| some things that I want to be told about or update on. The
| latest superhero movie? Yes, please. A new keyboard or update
| for my car? Yes, please. A valentines idea for my wife? Yes,
| please!
|
| The problem is that I (almost) never get these ads. Most of the
| things shoved into my face are something that I would NEVER
| purchase or recommend to others. The same truck commercial 100
| times? Nope. Alcohol commercial? Nope. Cable sports package?
| Never.
|
| I was really hopeful that Google, with all of their knowledge
| about me (and they have a TON of it!) would be able to target
| advertisements that I might like. Yet, YouTube is chock full of
| Truck, Beer, and Football commercials; I guess just because I'm
| a middle aged man and that's what "we" like.
|
| So, I'm forced into blocking everything I can, whenever and
| wherever I can. The Ad companies are really doing this to
| themselves. If they were better at their job I wouldn't even
| know they existed. As it stands, I get bombarded with so much
| unwanted things that I actively hate the things they spew at
| me. I will NEVER buy the products that they are advertising;
| even if it did fit my personality or needs.
| jstx1 wrote:
| Right but what are they really competing with for those top
| spots? Most other functionality comes built into the browser
| these days.
| Exendroinient00 wrote:
| Surprisingly the adtech is by far the profitable industry
| including costs to operate comparing to any other industry. Ads
| are the biggest pillar on which most of the faang stands. Sadly
| most people don't even want to make a few clicks to download a
| browser extension.
| keb_ wrote:
| How do ya'll feel about the idea that adblock can be morally
| equivalent to theft[1]? I see this argument pop up from time to
| time in relation to people who use alternative clients to
| services such as YouTube. But if you're using uBlock Origin, you
| are probably browsing many, _many_ sites that rely at least
| partially on ad revenue, so it 's a similar case.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/LeaVerou/status/518154828166725632
| foo_barrio wrote:
| If you argue that from the site's side then you can bring up
| that ads are taking up data, bandwidth(thus time) and battery
| (insane JS "game" ads) on the client side no?
| vehemenz wrote:
| If piracy isn't morally equivalent to theft, then I'm not sure
| how adblocking would be.
|
| Personally I think there is a stronger argument that dirtying
| up the Internet with advertising is more immoral than piracy.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Don't forget the invasion of privacy. These ads include
| tracking.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I'd have more sympathy for this argument if ad-tech didn't
| consistently run roughshod over my preference not to be
| tracked. If ad-blockers are theft, trackers are stalking.
| chii wrote:
| it is no more theft than smelling the cooking of a restaurant.
| npteljes wrote:
| Not really. Imagine a restaurant which says, hey, here's this
| sample, it's free if you watch an ad while you eat. And then
| you eat, and specifically don't watch the ad. That's not just
| smelling the cooking, just like how reading an article is
| incurs traffic on a website, which the provider has to pay
| for somehow. Not to mention the procurement of the article.
| sebastien_b wrote:
| Obligatory: http://www.marilynkinsella.org/Fabulous%20Folktal
| es/theft_of...
| ask_b123 wrote:
| Nice website/stories.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I don't think it's theft but I also don't think it's really
| equivalent to that either. After all 1,000,000 people can
| smell what the restaurant is cooking for another customer and
| it doesn't cost the restaurant any more than if 0 people did
| because the restaurant is letting the scent go out either
| way. On the other hand if 1,000,000 people watch a 100 MB
| video and block ads it certainly costs the content provider a
| lot more than if nobody did.
| [deleted]
| RedComet wrote:
| Ad blocking is analogous to paying someone to cut
| advertisements out of a magazine you ordered before you read
| it.
|
| You request something which is when sent to your house. Sure it
| is via http, but that is irrelevant. It could have just as well
| been via snail mail.
| lizard wrote:
| You are absolutely allowed to remove the ads from your copy
| of a magazine, whether you do it yourself, another household
| member, a visitor, or even someone you pay.
|
| Even if someone does it without your consent, the dispute is
| with the copy owner not the magazine publisher.
|
| This would be an issue if an unauthorized party took it from
| your mailbox, but that still has nothing to do with the
| publisher or content.
| RedComet wrote:
| Precisely my point.
| lizard wrote:
| Thanks, that was not clear with the commentary about
| "paying someone" and "before you read it" that make it
| sound like something normal people wouldn't do and should
| be wary of.
| somehnacct3757 wrote:
| If the site owner views it that way, they can detect my
| adblocker and put up a paywall.
|
| And if they're afraid that a paywall will cause people to
| bounce, then deep down they know what I already know: their
| content isn't worth paying for.
| epmatsw wrote:
| This is probably the best take. If someone says that ads are
| part of the deal, fair enough. I can go somewhere else, or I
| can honor the deal. Otherwise, seems unethical to me.
| godshatter wrote:
| What "deal"? They are providing publicly accessible
| information, I'm choosing to only download a portion of it.
| If this is affecting their bottom-line, maybe they should
| rethink their business model. Not my problem.
|
| I block ads to save myself from buying things I don't need,
| to save myself from being tracked over the internet, and
| because they are often annoying and sometimes contain
| malware. I see nothing wrong with this.
|
| I'm not the one that is abusing some sort of "deal", in my
| opinion.
| ManlyBread wrote:
| No one on the internet is entitled to ad revenue, especially
| when it robs me of my right to decide what does and what
| doesn't get run on my own personal machine.
| marssaxman wrote:
| I am not responsible for the mistaken assumptions underlying
| other people's hopes for their business models.
| brimble wrote:
| I don't have to instruct my computer to display everything you
| decide to send to it. Period. That's the end of the moral
| argument.
| npteljes wrote:
| I'm personally annoyed by ads so I block them.
|
| But I see the point in the sentiment. People pay for
| advertisements to be seen. On the other hand, a good
| businessman calculates this into the cost - like if someone
| prints 1000 flyers, they are sure not every single one of them
| is read. Like it's part of the flyer business that many go into
| the bin without being looked at.
| epmatsw wrote:
| "Hey, viewing this ad is the price of getting this product I'm
| offering" "No thanks, I'll just take it".
|
| I don't think it's an incorrect argument. We're free to seek
| out ad-free content, or paid content, or whatever, but
| unilaterally rejecting the implicit terms of an interaction is
| ethically grey at best imo.
|
| Edit: this would mainly apply to sites that detect and block
| ad-blocking. Other sites are a little less clear imo.
| anonymousab wrote:
| It's as morally equivalent as muting the tv/changing the
| channel/averting your eyes or attention when a commercial comes
| on.
|
| It only gets fuzzy when you start to argue about how
| surveillance capitalism let's them deny payment when ads are
| avoided on a Web browser but not when they are avoided with
| television. But "I don't get paid because they spy on you and
| the process more effectively than in other mediums" is already
| far more morally dubious.
|
| And at the end of the day, brand or product awareness is only
| one part of the reason for an advertisement to exist - and the
| reason to pay for someone to run your ad. Another big part is
| an expectation that users will click on the ad, that they may
| buy the thing. So I take even more moral umbrage with content
| creators who show ads and argue that users should have to view
| them and are bad for not doing so even if they knowingly will
| not click or buy them; the content creator tacitly acknowledges
| that they are fine with only delivering part value to the
| advertiser while receiving payment in full. At that point it
| becomes "I am mad at my readers/viewers for being parasitical
| with me instead of helping me be parasitical with the
| advertiser" and any arguments about morals have become bunk.
|
| So... unless they also demand that every user should fully read
| each ad and at least click on them in good faith with an open
| mind to open the wallet, I see it as a bit hypocritical to
| question the morality of Adblock users.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| People find all sorts of arguments that are both logically and
| morally unsound to justify their behaviour, and it isn't going
| to change.
|
| For a while I thought they might notice that they are hurting
| themselves just as much as they are hurting the publishers,
| since ad blocking is part of the reason the time of freely
| reading thousands of high-quality sources is coming to an end.
| But there is really zero appreciation for the work of
| journalists. Local papers are already gone in rural areas and
| it took maybe five years until nobody remembers what they've
| lost.
| Karunamon wrote:
| I would take this argument more seriously if paid
| subscriptions didn't also include ads.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Theft requires taking something someone already has, not just
| going out of my way to avoid giving it to them. Anyway, my
| user-agent, my rules. That should really be the end of the
| argument.
| executesorder66 wrote:
| I mean, do you consider it theft if you don't look at a
| billboard? Fuck these assholes for trying to spin it as if we
| are stealing from them.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I'll consider this if publishers and adtech vendors consider
| the fact that stealing my personal data, bandwidth and
| processing power (= battery life on mobile) could also be
| unethical.
|
| Publishers and adtech might not like the fact that _I_ am in
| control of what happens on my device and do things they
| dislike, but then they seem to do exactly the same when it
| comes to controlling how many ads are displayed and what
| personal data they collect.
|
| Maybe if the industry can come to an agreement for a reasonable
| amount of ads, respecting privacy and taking responsibility for
| the ads they serve (aka compensate the user in case of scam or
| malware) then people might be more inclined to consider it.
| pmontra wrote:
| I saw a comment more or less like "Please add more ads and make
| the x button to close them smaller" today on a website. I was
| seeing no ads and I never did see one there. I was about to reply
| to use an adblocker, then wondered if that could make me banned
| and the reply deleted (they have a moderator approve every single
| comment).
| mariuz wrote:
| Dear Mozilla.org please add it as default in the browser if you
| care about privacy and the web in general, This is the first add-
| on that I install on all computers , mine or for friends
| brimble wrote:
| That they've put off doing the obvious for so long ("obvious"
| because one of the key selling points of the browser at initial
| release was, _de facto_ , a form of ad blocking--namely, popup
| blocking) makes me think we're more likely to see integrated
| ad-blocking in Safari than in Firefox. But probably neither is
| very likely.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| I have a website bringing a lot of money using ads. I don't
| attempt to detect adblockers, or deter users from using them, and
| use them myself.
|
| ublock origin is wonderful. If one day, everybody is using it and
| I can't make money from ads anymore, I'd say it would be a sad
| day for my wallet, but a great day for humanity.
| rnd0 wrote:
| The bottom line is that the web is completely unusable without
| some sort of ad blocker. That's a pathological condition which
| speaks ill of the long term viability of the internet. When
| ublock breaks as it inevitably will, so does the internet (in
| terms of usability, not in terms of sending packets around).
| hutrdvnj wrote:
| Let's make it a native Firefox feature.
| i67vw3 wrote:
| Librewolf (fork of firefox with privacy tweaks) comes pre-
| installed with UBO.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| How do people reach technical audiences on Google search when the
| said technical audience has Adblock installed? Do any founders or
| tech startups use Google Ads? I don't know any tech person that
| doesn't use uBlock Origin.
|
| I've seen people recommending StackOverflow ads to reach exact
| people that might be interested in your product, but I've never
| ever seen ads on StackOverflow - thanks to uBlock Origin.
| px43 wrote:
| If you want to get the attention of technical audiences, create
| great technical content. Blogs, YouTube videos, conference
| talks, etc. If it's good, your audience will spread it among
| themselves using their existing social connections.
|
| If you don't have good content, then you don't get access to
| technical users who do everything in their power to avoid
| useless noise on the internet.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Youtube thing is being eroded. I just searched "Django
| tutorials" on YouTube and being spammed by boot-campish
| videos that show horrible coding practices.
|
| Blogs, especially the ones that upvoted here on HN, are very
| very good. Thanks for the info.
| Zachsa999 wrote:
| My biggest issue with web advertising is placing video ads on a
| text website.
|
| Your eye is constantly flicking over to the flashing lights
| making the ability to focus impossible. Ad blockers are the only
| thing that makes most ad supported sites usable.
| criddell wrote:
| The most irritating thing about that for me is that my device
| thinks I want to hear the audio so it will stop my music to
| play the ad audio.
| [deleted]
| unglaublich wrote:
| The internet without an adblock is just a scary, misleading place
| that's trying to trick you into scams, echochambers, bad deals,
| bad advice, botnets and cryptolockers.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| In 16 years on the internet with as blocking limited to
| manually blocked annoyances only I have never had any of those
| issues.
|
| I'm almost certain it's just an argument to justify adblocking.
| I wish people had the ability to avoid all the motivated
| reasoning and just honestly admit the selfishness of their
| behavior.
| unglaublich wrote:
| The motivated reasoning is in line with the corresponding
| selfishness. I want a clean internet. I don't want to be
| exploited by advertisers. I am proud to admit that this is
| purely selfish indeed. The only way for an advertiser to
| reach me is to align with my selfish wishes.
| robryan wrote:
| Ad tech went too far and has driven everyone to blocking. If
| the extent of ads was a couple of Google style sponsored text
| based results a lot of people would probably be fine seeing
| those.
| [deleted]
| Topgamer7 wrote:
| I haven't run without an adblocker for like 10 years plus. The
| odd occasion I have it disabled, I can't actually believe what
| a trash heap some websites I browse are... popular ones!
|
| The internet has become so user hostile, I don't want 10 popups
| or alerts for cookies, ads, newsletter subscriptions to read a
| 10 second article.
| gruez wrote:
| >echochambers
|
| >bad advice
|
| I doubt ublock does anything about that
| unglaublich wrote:
| The biggest echochambers (like ultranationalist parties) and
| worst advisors (financial, political, social) try to recruit
| new members via targeted advertising.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| For the past five years it seems like any time I saw an adblocker
| mentioned you'd see someone replying that uBlock was better, and
| then another reply clarifying that uBlock Origin is the one you
| want.
|
| It's crazy that despite that it still took this long.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| Good. Blocking ads is essential for...
|
| security reasons: to prevent malware from being installed via
| rogue ads;
|
| for privacy reasons: to reduce being tracked by corporations;
|
| and for mental health reasons: to reduce being bombarded with
| injunctions to buy things.
| ayushnix wrote:
| I wonder how the post manifest v3 world will look like and how
| much it'll affect uBlock Origin on Chromium based browsers. Even
| now, several features, such as CNAME uncloaking, happen only on
| Firefox.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Some Chromium based browsers plan to just continue supporting
| v2 extensions regardless what Chrome does e.g.
| https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/20059
| george0812 wrote:
| If major browsers were 100% user-centric they would've built ad-
| blocking into the browser. Maybe make it opt-in, but it should be
| there as a built-in feature.
| bityard wrote:
| All of the major browsers (except perhaps Safari?) are built to
| increase the control of the browser vendor (through profiles
| and tracking) and web developers (through increasingly
| intrusive hooks into the OS). All of this at the expense of the
| user. Users are _not_ given fine-grained control over what
| websites can do with their computer, and what control still
| remains is being slowly eroded by changes to APIs and
| intentional hiding/removal of important privacy settings under
| the guise of "not overwhelming users with too much choice."
|
| Extensions _should_ be able to help here, but browsers keep
| slowly marching forward with changes that take away extensions'
| ability to perform meaningful actions on behalf of the user.
| Extensions these days are pretty much only useful for turning
| the browser into an application delivery platform, like the
| Apple App Store or Google Play. Firefox switched to "web
| extensions" some years ago, neutering many useful extensions.
| Google is now switching to Manifest V3 (which Firefox has
| stated they will adopt), which means the days of effective ad
| blocking will soon be over.
| vehemenz wrote:
| Firefox are not blocking the limitations of
| declarativeNetRequest. They are picking and choosing the good
| parts of V3 and implementing those.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| I think it's only a matter of time until adblock is legally
| banned.
|
| The current situation, where the vast majority of the internet
| relies solely on ads and an increasing number of people use
| adblock year over year is unsustainable.
|
| The system can support a certain number of free riders (people
| who consume the product but don't contribute back in ad
| eyeballs), but at a certain point the math will no longer work.
|
| Eventually we as a society will reach a point with only two
| options:
|
| 1. Stop using ads to fund most of the internet
|
| 2. Ban adblock so our current ad funded internet can work.
| st3ve445678 wrote:
| If ads were reasonable, I would not block them. I define
| reasonable as simple static image ads with no tracking that
| link to the advertised product/service.
|
| But ads today bloat pages with so much tracking & other
| nonsense that it has ruined the experience. I cant stand to
| browse the web without an ad-blocker, it's horrific.
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| > certain number of free riders
|
| This implies that ads means paying/sutaining for the service,
| and no ads means not paying/sustaining.
|
| This hasn't been the case for a long long time. Even paying
| customers get ads piled on them. Sure for many sites ads is the
| whole business. But there are also many business that
|
| 1. Never had a business plan to begin with, even the ads won't
| sustain them. The goal is just to be bought by a bigger company
| or become a loss leader and then "figure it out later".
|
| 2. The goal is to maximize profits by any means necessary even
| with paying customers upon which a sustainable business could
| be built. But instead we get dark patterns, abuse of user data
| and ads.
| csa wrote:
| > Even paying customers get ads piled on them.
|
| Often times more... they have demonstrated that their wallet
| is open.
|
| If you want an example of this in the US, make a small
| political donation.
|
| The amount of money that will be spent coming after more of
| your money is mind-bending.
| [deleted]
| packet_nerd wrote:
| I had a good laugh when I saw my grandma using her iPad
| calculator app to do her finances. The app was displaying an an
| ad, she didn't want to see it and stuck a sticker over that
| part of the screen. :-)
|
| Is my grandma's sticker going to be illegal in this forced
| advertising future? If not, where in the stack between the
| webpage and your eyes will it start to be legal to block? What
| about blocking in the graphics stack in the OS? The display? A
| sticker in front of the display? A smart film in front of the
| display? Smart glasses? Will it be illegal to avert your eyes
| from advertisements, a la Black Mirror?
| duxup wrote:
| I keep wondering if / when we as users want to pay for more
| things...
| bmicraft wrote:
| I would pay for I the things I currently block. The problem
| is they usually want >5$/mo for things that would make maybe
| 10c/mo from ads otherwise which I don't find fair
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Option 3, let the ad funded internet die and keep the remaining
| good parts.
| aidanhs wrote:
| Ad funding would never stop because people wanting to make
| money off content would never stop - it just becomes more
| subtle. Think sponsored posts, product placement, added bias.
|
| Imagine a plain text blog run by an individual, good quality
| technical content, and a company comes and offers $10k to
| write a blog post about their product after trying it. If the
| author decides not to disclose the financial motivation, you
| now have a subtle biased funded advert that no adblocker will
| save you from.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| We already have mountains of shilled astroturf on the
| internet. I'm fine with it since shill content tends to be
| low quality and not too difficult to distinguish (except in
| google SERPS, which is another problem).
|
| Legitimate content creators won't just blindly hop on the
| shill bandwagon because building a following is hard and
| takes time, and getting caught shilling can destroy your
| credibility and cause you to bleed followers VERY quickly.
| Adding a sponsor call-outs will probably be the ultimate
| go-to for legitimate content creators, but even that must
| be done carefully as pushing low quality sponsors will also
| hurt subscriber numbers.
| [deleted]
| jandrese wrote:
| The problem is that the most popular alternative,
| microtransactions, doesn't work. Turns out there is a big
| psychological barrier between free and literally any payment
| at all, even a few pennies. People are sensitive to the
| danger of being nickled and dimed to death.
|
| And that's before you get into the problem of how to set up a
| clearinghouse where you can handle microtransactions without
| being eaten alive by fees.
| glenstein wrote:
| I thought the porous paywall + subscription model is the
| most popular alternative?
| coldpie wrote:
| If ad-based business models truly become unviable, they
| will find a new one. Ad-based businesses suck all the air
| out of the room, preventing other models from even forming.
| It'll take effort to find better models, but they'll come.
| But TBH, I don't see the ad-based model dying any time
| soon.
| visarga wrote:
| There are plenty of reasons to post good content that are
| not related to ads, and very weird incentives to write
| good content otherwise. Content for ads is riddled with
| SEO, hyped headlines, short shallow and unoriginal
| articles.
|
| Good content is posted by people and companies for
| indirect benefits: a researcher makes videos about papers
| to motivate and held himself accountable to the public, a
| company publishes documentation and tutorials that are
| related to their business, a hobbyist does the same for
| pure fun. A teacher posts lesson plans to collaborate
| with other teachers. We'll be fine without content-for-
| ads.
| irrational wrote:
| > People are sensitive to the danger of being nickled and
| dimed to death.
|
| And yet, people will sign up for multiple subscription
| services (Netflix, Disney plus, HBO max, Amazon prime,
| etc), which I consider to be the same as being nickeled and
| dimed.
| jandrese wrote:
| Consider a Netflix like service where you paid $0.50 per
| show you watched. It happened seamlessly and you just saw
| a bill at the end of the month. Would you have the same
| video viewing habits?
|
| Services like this exist, but total revenue is so small
| they don't even register on most charts. People don't
| like it.
| irrational wrote:
| Well, I watch maybe 1 movie a month. So, .50 sounds
| pretty good.
| Fornax96 wrote:
| I think taxes are the biggest hurdle for microtransactions.
| You are legally required to report taxes in _every_ country
| where you have customers. This means that the customer will
| need to fill in address information for each website they
| want to use which is also a high barrier. And if you run an
| online business it won't take long before you have to
| report taxes in 200 countries. It's a job on its own to
| administrate that!
|
| With advertisements you receive payments from a single
| party, and because it's a business-to-business transaction
| it's tax free.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| If it's unsustainable, it's their own fault. They _chose_ to
| send people content for free. They did so _hoping_ they 'd look
| at the noise they call advertising. Well, it's not happening
| and they need to deal with it. We don't owe them a thing, they
| need to accept it and move on.
|
| The fact is people don't want to be subjected to ads.
| Advertisers aren't entitled to people's attention and they're
| not gonna get it. So either they start charging people for
| access or they just turn off the servers, either is fine. If
| they send us ads, we're gonna block them.
| titzer wrote:
| It's exponential growth that's unsustainable. Just five years
| ago, ad revenues on the internet were _half_ of today. How did
| we "sustain" it then?
| pluc wrote:
| If AdBlockers become illegal it will lead to a slew of adblock
| devices like PiHole-preloaded RaspberryPis and will just shift
| the blocking at the DNS level
|
| Ads are for people who don't know how to avoid them.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| How do you draw the line? What is adblock? Is it addon which
| allows to control your browser? Is it list of rules for some
| websites? Web is too flexible and built with flexible user
| agent.
| everdrive wrote:
| There's definitely an option #3 here: ad-blockers eventually
| lose the arms race. We're already partially there.
| bspammer wrote:
| I think this is most likely sadly.
|
| There has been no working adblocker for twitch.tv for over a
| year now. As far as I know, they are splicing the ad directly
| into the main video stream while it's playing, so there's no
| way to differentiate it from the content at all.
|
| Surely it's only a matter of time before youtube starts doing
| this too.
| coldpie wrote:
| > Surely it's only a matter of time before youtube starts
| doing this too.
|
| I recently learned about the SponsorBlock extension[1] for
| YouTube. It's a crowdsourced collection of the location and
| duration of in-band sponsorships in YouTube videos. The
| extension queries the database for each video, then skips
| over the sponsorship portion of the video. I don't use it
| myself, since I don't mind skipping sponsorships manually,
| but it's kind of fascinating that it exists and
| (apparently) works.
|
| [1] https://sponsor.ajay.app/about
| bspammer wrote:
| Oh yeah SponsorBlock is great! It reminds me of Wikipedia
| - it is surprisingly reliable given that it's
| crowdsourced.
|
| It does rely on the sponsor being at the same location in
| the video every time though, so it's not a solution to
| twitch-style adverts.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The ad model is unsustainable for many other reasons too and it
| will likely fail anyway.
|
| See Facebook's struggle when Apple limited their ability to
| track you.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| If any ad-evasion technology was ever going to be banned
| legally, it would have been TiVo. The internet is far less
| reliant on straight ad revenue than TV shows were.
| jandrese wrote:
| Did TiVo actually affect ad revenue? My understanding is that
| the revenue figures were calculated based on Nielson family
| scores, and TiVo ad skipping wouldn't show up in there.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Did TiVo actually affect ad revenue? My understanding is
| that the revenue figures were calculated based on Nielson
| family scores, and TiVo ad skipping wouldn't show up in
| there.
|
| Given that TiVo has been running "pre-roll" (i.e., when you
| start playing a recording) ads for a couple years now (they
| are skippable), they're certainly trying to get a piece of
| that sweet, sweet ad revenue for themselves.
|
| I have no idea whether that cuts into the existing pie or
| is additional ad spend.
|
| That said, TiVo isn't as intrusive (in that you can skip
| their "pre-roll" ads) as YouTube, Amazon Prime, etc.
|
| Really, the best thing about TiVo is their video Fast-
| forward/rewind. It actually scrolls the content as it does
| so. No other platform seems to support that, which really
| kills UX for me.
|
| As for ad skipping, that's only supported for some shows,
| and even those don't generally allow it until at least a
| few hours after air time.
|
| Of course, you can still fast-forward through the ads (made
| much easier by the TiVo video scrolling) which works quite
| nicely.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Legally banning adblock will open up a large can of worms that
| I don't think anyone really wants to probe into. Third party
| "ads" can run shady, if not outright malicious JavaScript. If
| "adblocking" becomes illegal, does it logically follow then
| that a visitor to a website is _legally compelled_ to allow the
| site 's shady-ass code to run on their computer?
|
| That would likely fail in the courts, and it might cause
| inverse blow-back that fully bans such things from running at
| all. The ad vendors don't want that, because they're probably
| content to let a minority of users block their ads if it means
| that the majority still let their ads and all associated
| tracking/JS run unabated.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| What happens when the people who grew up without the internet
| die and all that's left is the people that have been watching
| youtube since they were 3. Won't the vast majority of people
| be using adblockers?
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Anecdotally, I feel like half the people in my immediate
| circle of friends/family still don't use adblockers _unless
| I help them set it up_. And then that only holds until the
| next time they get a new device and I 'm not there to help
| them do it again.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| How old is your immediate circle? The truly internet
| first generation is only like 15-20 at this point.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Are we sure this "truly internet first generation" is
| primarily using laptops? If they grew up with an
| iPhone/iPad, there's no guarantee that they even have
| adblocking as an option.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| That's a good point. I do think the push to get users on
| mobile has a good deal to do with the difficulty of
| blocking ads on mobile. Maybe that's where we're headed.
| Instead of making adblockers illegal users will be herded
| into locked down platforms that don't allow adblockers.
| Jalad wrote:
| There's good precedent for adblock remaining legal through a
| few lawsuits[0]. Granted that is in Germany but I'm hopeful
| legal action in the US would have a similar outcome.
|
| [0] https://torrentfreak.com/adblocking-does-not-constitute-
| copy...
| Trellmor wrote:
| So far, adblockers have won in court every time.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32903235
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43838308
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/adblocking-does-not-constitute-copy...
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| Yes, they would have to create new laws to ban adblockers.
| With the justification that those laws are necessary to save
| most of the internet.
| z33k wrote:
| That would set quite a precedent.
|
| Anyone is free to point a domain at a server and serve
| HTTP, in the sense that they are allowed to buy a server,
| domain and maybe software- in order to have a website.
|
| A fair comparison could be done for a pamphlet or a book-
| you are free to pay a publisher/ printing press/ editor- in
| order to have a pamphlet or book.
|
| Banning adblockers would not simply affirm this. It would
| go further and set a precedent that you, the publisher, can
| run arbitrary code or display arbitrary things on a user's
| screen; potentially against the user's wishes.
| dasKrokodil wrote:
| There was an internet before everything was funded by ads. It
| was different, but also nice.
| treeface9000 wrote:
| aquir wrote:
| The problem with ads is that they are intrusive and not
| respecting the privacy of the users. I don't mind static, well
| placed and well curated ads on any page. The pages then should
| fund ourselves using crowdfunding and good ads. It's already a
| working model. They can't ban it anyway, once the data reaches
| my device I do whatever I want with it.
| bambax wrote:
| I too fear AdBlock will eventually fail, not because it will be
| legally banned (on what basis??) but because Chrome will kill
| it and other browsers will die.
|
| You seem to welcome it; I think it would be a great
| catastrophe.
| jart wrote:
| It's more likely governments will make it illegal to not use
| an adblocker. For example the security community is now
| having adblock installed on normie browsers as a matter of
| policy. If everyone starts doing that and the companies whose
| survival depends on ads react in a way that ends the free
| ride for the technical class, things will really hit the fan.
| Imagine all the smartest programmers in the world wake up one
| morning and are forced to use the unfiltered internet. We'd
| all switch to SerenityOS within the fortnight and the old
| regime would skulk along like a brainless beast for a few
| decades while Andreas Kling becomes emperor of the world.
| gaius_baltar wrote:
| This can be a new selling point for Firefox: "the browser
| that allow you to block ads"
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Shifting the blame onto the law and not the companies who are
| actually breaking it to annoy you on purpose is exactly the point
| of making the banners obnoxious.
| OnionBlender wrote:
| Are there any add blockers for iOS? I want to get a tablet for
| reading on the couch but I assume I would need an Android or
| Surface tablet in order to install Firefox with uNlock Origin.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Not as good as uBlock Origin due to API limitations, but
| AdGuard is probably the best you can go for because it supports
| (and internally converts) uBlock-style filters as opposed to
| using its own, usually outdated filter list like other blockers
| do.
|
| Lockdown Privacy is also a good one to filter out malicious
| traffic across apps - this neuters the Facebook SDK malware
| present in many apps for example.
| akaij wrote:
| Try Firefox Focus.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| It's simply the best there is. I had used various of the
| adblock** plugins until I came across uBlock Origin.
|
| Whatever it is you want to block, Javascript, fonts, ads, etc,
| it's just works, with global defaults and per-page exceptions.
| swarnie wrote:
| I've just removed adblock and installed ublock origin.
|
| Having tested a few sites on my favourites bar the difference
| is night and day.
|
| Where has this been all my life....
| superkuh wrote:
| Too bad modern Firefox doesn't actually have the support to run
| full featured uBlock Origin since they moved to the Chrome
| extensions model and threw away the entire Firefox add-on
| ecosystem. Actual Firefox forks like Sea Monkey and Palemoon
| still support the fully featured uBlock Origin.
| jmkni wrote:
| I had no idea SeaMonkey was still going, I remember using that
| +15 years ago!
| jeltz wrote:
| You are confusing Chrome and Firefox. Firefox has no plans to
| remove the old api.
| btdmaster wrote:
| How? Mozilla has kept the old webRequest API:
| https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat...
| px43 wrote:
| Back in the day, Firefox plugins were able to execute shell
| commands, and had complete access to the OS of the user. Some
| people apparently miss this, but it was a key reason why I
| moved to Chromium based browsers in the first place.
| superkuh wrote:
| I'm not talking about Google's Manifest v3 or anything
| recent. I'm talking about Firefox 57 (~2018) and onward when
| they abandoned XUL and all the extensions/add-ons had to be
| re-written as chrome-style web extensions. Unfortunately many
| of the most complex extensions could not and lost features at
| best.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Librewolf
|
| I'm surprised LibreWolf doesn't get more attention. [0]
|
| It's stock Firefox, with uBlock Origin preinstalled and a bunch
| of Firefox configs adjusted to more privacy oriented settings.
|
| It ranks as the most private browser experience, even better than
| Brave. [1]
|
| https://librewolf.net/
|
| https://privacytests.org/
| cuteboy19 wrote:
| Entropy increase is bad for privacy, so using more obscure
| browsers would make you stand out more often right?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| They used a slightly tricked out version of librewolf on Garuda
| Linux as the default.
| mhanberg wrote:
| Recently, the uBlock Origin icon in my toolbar has just
| disappeared and doesn't appear in the overflow menu.
|
| Anyone else see this?
| neogodless wrote:
| Windows 10
|
| Was on 97.0.2 and did not have that issue.
|
| Just now updated to 98.0 and still do not have that issue.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| "The overflow" has been moved to the puzzle piece menu, I had
| to open that and manually pin the extension.
| pavon wrote:
| I need to give uBlock another try. I use and love uMatrix, and
| was hoping someone would step up to maintain a fork of it, but
| six months later it is apparent that will not be the case (and is
| far outside my expertise).
|
| For some reason uBlock never clicked with me. The various global
| blocking settings I tried either broke too many sites or let too
| many annoyances through, and I found the process for
| allowing/blocking third-party resources on a per-site basis was
| clunkier than other blockers like uMatrix or Privacy Badger.
|
| I really respect what gorhill has done, and keep hearing great
| things about new privacy preserving techniques being adding to
| uBlock that go beyond what other blockers do, so I really want to
| like it. Given how so many people love it and don't have these
| complaints, I'm probably approaching it with the wrong mindset /
| usage model, that is causing me to fight against it rather than
| work with it, so I need to step back and try again with a blank
| mind.
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| I don't know how long ago you used it, but it's install and
| forget and works great. Maybe once every few months I'll use it
| to hide a frame on a random site.
| Arnavion wrote:
| >I found the process for allowing/blocking third-party
| resources on a per-site basis was clunkier than other blockers
| like uMatrix or Privacy Badger.
|
| It's clunkier yes (requires editing the static filters list by
| hand), but you might get used to it. My own list is huge (~700
| lines across 75 web properties) and took some time to create,
| but now I only have to touch it once a month on average.
| Melatonic wrote:
| uBlock Origin + NextDNS has been a pretty amazing combo for me.
|
| If you want to really take it even further you can setup pfsense
| or any other edge router that supports IP blocking and then (at
| least on your home network) block the IP's of common DNS
| providers other than the one you want your devices to use. This
| stops apps and devices that have hardcoded IP's trying to do
| encrypted DNS (DoH or DoT) to bypass your preferred DNS choices.
| Its a bit of a game of whack-a-mole but I find they do not change
| all that often. Unfortunately of course this does not do anything
| for when you may be walking around using mobile data on a phone
| (at this point now only NextDNS would be in play - still better
| than nothing) but I suppose you could run a VPN back to your home
| network if you wanted to.
| kerneloops wrote:
| mancerayder wrote:
| What kills me is even paid subscription sites like WSJ,
| Bloomberg, Seeking Alpha, show you ads even when you're a paying
| member.
|
| Why is it a war on our attention?
| porcoda wrote:
| They also include ads in print versions of newspapers and
| magazines that you subscribe to, and always have. Advertising
| has always been a component of making them viable businesses:
| the problem isn't the existence of ads in things you pay for as
| much as the obnoxious way they are implemented on the web.
| caymanjim wrote:
| This annoys me too, because I dislike ads, but to be fair,
| newspapers and magazines have always had ads as their primary
| revenue source, and also almost always charged for the print
| copy as well. About 30 years ago, when physical newspapers were
| still more popular than virtual newspapers, you'd pay about 50
| cents for the daily edition and $1.50 for the Sunday edition.
| That adds up to more than the current monthly fees for the
| online versions. In fact, way back in 1990, the New York Times
| cost $5/week for home delivery[1]. It's $17/mo now for the
| digital-only version[2]. Granted, if you want both digital and
| daily home delivery now, it's $40/mo. If you look at old free
| print papers (like the Village Voice), the volume of ads is
| enormous compared to something like the Times.
|
| In any event, paying for a product with ads has always been
| part of the print media/news business. I'm far more annoyed by
| paying for cable TV (or streaming services) and still getting
| ads.
|
| [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/21/business/the-times-
| raises...
|
| [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/subscription
| Nextgrid wrote:
| That adds up to the current monthly fees only if it assumes
| you buy every single edition. In print, you have the choice
| not to - with the subscription you pay full price regardless
| of whether you actually read every day's edition.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| The fact that you're able and willing to pay is exactly what
| marks you as a desired target. You can't spend your way out of
| people wanting your money; they'll always want more.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Why is it a war on our attention?
|
| Entitlement. They literally think they have a right to our
| attention. The audacity of these people never fails to impress.
| Paying any amount of money will only make them bolder.
| vehemenz wrote:
| I find this ironic too. I get NYT via my institution, and on
| the actual app there are ads, but when I browse on the website,
| logged in with uBO, there is nothing.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Funnily enough, the _only_ way to not get ads on those news
| apps is by using moded apks (unless you use root or dns
| adblock, but that usually messes with the layout) . There 's
| no amount of money you could pay to remove them even if you
| wanted to, so the only way is to download apks that not only
| remove ads but also make _all_ the articles free without
| paying anything.
|
| It's crazy because Bloomberg already charges quite a lot
| (40$/month?) if you don't get a discounted price, how much
| are they getting with those very generic banner ads? It can't
| possibly be more than a few cents, maybe a dollar or two per
| month for casual readers. It's so counterproductive if it
| makes them lose even just a few % of their subscribers.
| bootlooped wrote:
| A DNS-based ad blocking solution helps with this problem on
| mobile.
| patall wrote:
| Isn't it that those people that can easily afford the payment
| and thus buy it are those that are most attractive for any
| advertiser (for that very reason). At least that's what I
| heard, before Youtube Red became a thing which kind of
| disproves it.
| sorokod wrote:
| Why would they not show you adds? I mean, they already got your
| money, now they will get a bit more.
| openplatypus wrote:
| This!! For real. Paid subscription for Bloomberg and boom,
| there is huge banner on top. Takes ~10% of screen.
|
| Why?!
| [deleted]
| Rafuino wrote:
| Great news! Adblock Plus has been compromised for quite some
| time. This means the pressure will definitely increase on uBlock
| Origin but I hope they stay strong.
| Larrikin wrote:
| I prefer Ad Nauseum (https://adnauseam.io/) because I don't want
| to just block the ads I want to ruin the profile ad companies
| have on me by having all the ads clicked as well.
| xigoi wrote:
| Do you think they can't tell when a click is automated?
| Larrikin wrote:
| Google banned it from the Chrome store while leaving other ad
| blockers up, so maybe they can't?
| malka wrote:
| This is the strongest sign that it actually hurt their
| bottom line
| ManlyBread wrote:
| This gets brought up every time Ad Nauseam is mentioned but I
| have yet to see a proof of concept.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| I bet it could probably be done by doing statistical
| analysis or some AI technique to analyze one's browsing
| data, and maybe combining it with other information about
| you that they get from other sources (purchase history,
| social media participation, etc...).
|
| The problem for them is that even if it works this adds
| extra processing time, effort, and development time.. which
| can add up when aggregated over the many millions/billions
| of users they have.
|
| Much easier to just oppose effective ad blockers.
| wldcordeiro wrote:
| Hah it'd be even funnier if it was able to use their "report"
| functions to report the ads as the spam they are.
| beardog wrote:
| UBlock Origin is not just an adblocker though, in their own
| words it is a "wide-spectrum content blocker" capable of
| blocking things like malware, cookie consent popups, social
| media buttons, and outsider intrusion into LAN.
|
| If adnauseam did those things I would use it (I don't want to
| run both at the same time).
|
| edit: i'm wrong, it is a ublock origin fork, apologies
| Larrikin wrote:
| Ad Nauseum is a wrapper over Ublock Origin. It says so in the
| second sentence explaining what it is.
| beardog wrote:
| I see, I originally saw AdNauseum years ago and
| misremembered how it worked, I should have read about it
| again. Sorry!
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I have always assumed our future fascist overlords will use the
| curated ad profiles to bootstrap a social credit system. So
| instead of clicking on any ad I need one that only clicks on
| regime supporting, pro-social, good citizen ads.
| jart wrote:
| They probably don't have the data. Unless they started
| monitoring people for jaywalking, driving through crosswalks,
| smoking on trains, not cleaning up after dogs, buying junk
| food at 711, etc.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| An efficient government could figure it out from proxy
| data, I'm sure I could do it. A corrupt and inefficient
| government wouldn't care so much about getting it wrong.
|
| I suspect it'll be the inefficient one. I can't convince
| Google ads that I'm not 60 and not single and absolutely
| not into mature age dating. My non-ad blocked internet
| browsing experience is marred by pictures of leering
| grandmas. I expect my future in the fascist dictatorship
| will be an unpleasant one.
| jart wrote:
| If you enable ad personalization then they have an ad
| settings panel where they let you know what they think
| you're interested in. For instance, Google Ads thinks I'm
| a married disk jockey living in Orange County who listens
| to pop and hip hop and loves bread making, aviation, and
| environmentalism. They let us turn some of it off, but
| there's no option to tell them what we like.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| You realize all that _is_ coming, right? Health insurance
| companies would _love_ to adjust your premium on the fly
| when they see you buy a 6 pack at the store.
| jart wrote:
| Or perhaps the opposite where more cities and suburbs
| become like San Francisco and everyone is so afraid to go
| outside they retreat into darth vader pods with internet
| connections or escape to Fiji like Larry.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| My main concern would be that that means _loading_ enough for
| it _to_ click on, right? Part of why I use uBo is to avoid
| loading any bytes over the network that I don 't need, and
| avoid executing any JS that isn't useful.
| dorgo wrote:
| Automated clicks on ads don't change anything. Even if
| everybody did this, over time the prices for ads would adjust
| and find a new equilibrium. Everything else would stay the
| same. If an advertiser pays $100 for 100 clicks today then he
| will pay $100 for 1000000 clicks in an ad click inflated world.
| Maybe slightly more for the additional energy burned to power
| all this madness.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Actually, this happens in close to real-time:
| https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2459326?hl=en
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| I really like the concept but I would be concerned about having
| my Google account banned the instant it becomes popular
| the_other wrote:
| Time to diversify your supply chain then.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| I mean, I say Google but I can't imagine any website will
| allow a logged in user who is committing rampant ad fraud.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Don't give leverage to ad-supported websites?
|
| No site I use/rely day to day has any ads so those won't
| have a reason to ban me. For the rest, not only do they
| have very little to ban me on (no account, etc - best
| they can do is IP address?) but an IP ban would actually
| be beneficial as there's a chance it'll also propagate to
| their trackers and essentially mark my network as
| invisible or untrusted, not collecting/processing any
| data from it as it's considered fraudulent.
| xdennis wrote:
| That's the same concern I had. But after years of draging my
| feet, I've finally degoogled enough to not care if they
| banned my account. Time to install AdNauseam now.
| malka wrote:
| This is one of the reasons I now use my own domain name
| moneywoes wrote:
| As it should be
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Is there any reason not to enable all the blocklists and filters
| in uBlock Origin that aren't enabled by default?
|
| And why aren't they enabled by default?
|
| Finally, are there any other quick/easy things that can be done
| by users to improve uBlock's blocking... like maybe installing
| some other blocklists that aren't in uBlock Origin at all?
| rfgil wrote:
| I usually add this list to uBlockOrigin to remove the cookies
| consent popup. https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/
| ericra wrote:
| The primary reason for not enabling every list is that some
| additional % of sites will "break" (although frequently, this
| will only be cosmetic).
|
| An example of this is that the lists can block very general
| class or id attribute such as #cookie-banner. While it's likely
| that you'll want this blocked in general, some small number of
| sites may have an element (unfortunately) named this that is
| functional and that you actually want to see.
|
| Because some of the lists have tens of thousands of entries,
| these edge cases can add up to break more sites than is
| actually desired. So there is a give/take there.
|
| Another point is that some of the lists are redundant but have
| different maintainers. So it may make sense to choose one of
| these, but you it would just be additional overhead to check
| them all.
|
| In my experience, running the default lists along with the
| "Fanboy's Annoyance" list and a few custom entries in "My
| filters" provides a good experience for me.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Really great on firefox for android too, along with YouTube
| background player.
| rinze wrote:
| I use Firefox on Android as a background YouTube player. Just
| open Youtube on Firefox, select the video you want to watch,
| lock the screen. The video will stop, but if you press 'play'
| in the dialog you get in the lock screen, it'll start playing
| again.
| anonymousab wrote:
| The issue is that the YouTube webpage video player itself
| tries to detect when it is backgrounded - seemingly via both
| APIs and usage patterns - and will stop playback when it
| detects that. This is true on desktops as well.
|
| There were extensions to disable this behaviour that
| thankfully work with Firefox for Android.
| Liquix wrote:
| NewPipe allows both picture-in-picture and background
| audio, no extension wrangling required :)
| FreeFull wrote:
| There is an addon available for Firefox on Android that stops
| the video from stopping, too, which makes this even easier.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| I am frequently annoyed by FF but then I use Chrome. What
| capitalism has done to the internet... Long live Mozilla.
| alarmingfox wrote:
| I instantly install this extension whenever I work on a new
| machine as I could not imagine browsing the web without it.
|
| For that reason I just went looking for a donate button to help
| fund the project and it turns out they don't even accept
| donations
|
| https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don't-you-accept-...
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| the day is coming - between changing how 3rd party cookies
| work, how ads are served from the same domain as content
| itself, to the intended feature-creep of Trusted Computer..
| that ublock origin, pihole (which is already a piss poor
| solution), and other tools are going to be rendered useless.
|
| It's a great tool. But it's days are numbered. A couple more
| years and mark my words, things like ublock, will be defeated.
| devmor wrote:
| If you think that's going to happen, you definitely have
| never worked with an advertiser or agency.
|
| Most would rather die than trust the content provider with
| reporting their own statistics.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Good luck with that. ISPs, DMCA people, etc have been saying
| that for 30 years.
| YaBomm wrote:
| flurdy wrote:
| > (no donations = no expectations)
|
| He/She/They has a great point
| Pooge wrote:
| The pronoun "they" is enough if you don't know the person's
| gender[1] ;).
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
| flurdy wrote:
| I was also unsure if that was just opinion of the core
| maintainer or a collective of committers. Again a "they"
| would have fine :) .
| iso1631 wrote:
| Most people, even the most rabid "anti-pronoun" people,
| have used "they" in the singular sense for decades
| without even realising it
|
| "I had a great teacher at school" "Oh really, what was
| their name?"
|
| etc
| randomguy3344 wrote:
| did you really have to add the pronouns mate?
|
| "that's a great point" would suffice
|
| wouldn't you agree?
| oauea wrote:
| or even just "they"
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| calling people a word intended for the plural, is so
| fucking moronic. I will die on this hill.
| ska wrote:
| You aren't going to have a whole lot of company. All of
| the major style guides have given it the nod because they
| are practical.
|
| It's a weakness in English, lacking a unique indefinite
| pronoun - so we're probably stuck with "they" unless a
| neologism sticks.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| You could potentially get fired, but I don't think you
| employer will actually end you for it.
| stonogo wrote:
| If I were to die on an English-related hill, I would
| probably pick one that didn't put me in opposition with
| Shakespeare.
| [deleted]
| jsmith99 wrote:
| Intended by whom?
| fernandotakai wrote:
| i have so much trouble with they as singular because ESL
| + romantic language with no genderless pronoun.
|
| i always call users "he" because user is, by default,
| male in my native language.
| [deleted]
| willcipriano wrote:
| The upvote button is fine if all you want to say is "great
| point"
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| - ublock origin
|
| - vim c
|
| - user agent switcher
|
| are the big three for me.
| planetafro wrote:
| I prefer DNS filtering over extensions as they generally want
| all permissions to essentially impersonate you at the browser
| level. Am I wrong?
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Wrong, no. It's a compromise. Addons have the ability to
| filter advertisements that cannot be identified by their
| domain name or ip. They also can take actions to compensate
| for website failure when ads are blocked.
| everdrive wrote:
| You're not necessarily wrong, however there are whole
| categories of ads and tracking that cannot be prevented by
| DNS blocking.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| You're not wrong. We're all placing immense amounts of trust
| in uBlock Origin. I often say that the blockers should be
| fully integrated into the browsers themselves in order to
| solve the trust problem. It's sad that it can't happen due to
| conflicts of interest.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Given that it's open source, we have the freedom to audit
| the code to make sure it's trustworthy.
|
| Also, Mozilla has a vetting process it puts a popular
| subset of extensions through.
|
| >Due to the curated nature of Recommended extensions, each
| extension undergoes a thorough technical security review to
| ensure it adheres to Mozilla's add-on policies.
|
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-
| extensions-...
| airstrike wrote:
| _> the blockers should be fully integrated into the
| browsers themselves in order to solve the trust problem_
|
| s/solve/transfer
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| I assume browsers are trustworthy user agents. If this is
| false, we've already lost.
| pmontra wrote:
| The browser owns the connection anyway and can do
| whatever it wants with the content. Of course trusting
| one party is better than having to trust two parties so
| we are back to do we trust the adblocker?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| You can bet with every release of ublock origin that
| security people are all over looking at the code diffs for
| security issues. I don't have an issue with it. At some
| point you have to trust somebody. Otherwise just take wire
| cutters, walk outside your house, and cut the cable.
| rootsudo wrote:
| DNS is better, but I find that you need to have a dns server
| rather than modify/update the host files on router because
| it'd kill it.
|
| Pihole is great, but you have to maintain a pi. It's not
| hard, but the other issue is also training and education when
| users/family is not on it.
|
| In the end, subscription purchases for youtube, help because
| the ads are really horrible on mobile platform and not
| blockable easily on iphone.
|
| I went all over the place with this comment, but I agree DNS
| level is better then browser level. The IP is still
| enumerated on a browser adblock level, but not on a DNS
| level.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| DNS filtering sucks and can't filter ads served from the same
| domain as content, if all you can block is a FQDN, there's an
| absolute shit ton of trackers and ads that are getting past
| you.
|
| This is why piholes are awful. I don't know why they get such
| high praise - it's just a crappy DNS filter that blocks like
| what 40% of the ads you see?
| caymanjim wrote:
| PiHole is not awful. It greatly enhances the blocking
| provided by browser plugins. Most valuably, it blocks an
| enormous amount of ads in non-browser apps. If I'm using
| e.g. the BBC app on my phone, PiHole blocks most of the ads
| (or at least it used to; I haven't checked recently). It
| also blocks ads in smart TVs and other places where you
| can't install uBlock.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| it doesn't enhance anything a browser plugin does -it's a
| redundancy.
|
| yes, it can block SOME ads in apps. it's also really good
| at breaking access to said apps too, then you must spend
| a great deal troublehsooting apps one at a time.
|
| IMHO - ublock on the browser, pay for apps that have
| adfree versions, don't use apps that don't, and pirate
| the rest.
| burnished wrote:
| I thought part of the point is that 40% or whatever never
| gets sent to your device in the first place - speeding up
| requests, reducing usage. Those seem like good things.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| And, it's 40% that don't show up even on devices and
| browsers where you can't install uBlock.
| biomcgary wrote:
| Pihole is contributes to a defense in depth strategy. Lots
| of android games are unplayable when I'm connected to the
| internet unless I'm on a network protected by pihole. Yes,
| I can run a firewall on my phone, but maintaining firewalls
| on every device that my family uses?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Solution: don't play games or use any app where the
| business model isn't "I give you money and you give me
| goods and services".
|
| I have _one_ ad supported app on my phone - the Overcast
| podcast player. That's only because the author created
| his own non scummy ad network and I find ads on the
| podcast player that advertise other podcasts useful.
|
| If I didn't, I would pay him too to get rid of ads.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| That only works when they're willing to take your money
| and willing to then not show you ads or track you. Lots
| of places won't take your money and _only_ do ads, and an
| upsetting number are happy to take your money and then
| track you and /or show you ads _anyways_. (My "favorite"
| so far is Hulu, who has the audacity to call their paid
| plan "no ads" and then include ads.)
| scarface74 wrote:
| Then don't use those services or buy those products?
|
| When I did buy Windows PCs, I either bought from the
| business division of Dell or the Microsoft store
| specifically because they weren't bundled with adware.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| That's great. I'm glad you have balanced out your
| morality and online browsing. We will all sleep easier
| tonight.
| scarface74 wrote:
| It's not about morality, its about my preferring not to
| be bombarded with ads.
| dheerajvs wrote:
| Defense in depth.
|
| On my Android I have Netguard[0] configured with a hosts
| file, Firefox with uBlock Origin and NextDNS with
| comprehensive blocklists.
|
| uBlock Origin protects only one app -- the browser.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases/
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| pi hole is great and is just another layer.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| pi hole is as great as those blocklist filters people
| used to add into Torrent clients or using tools like
| PeerBlock.
|
| It's just so faulty and pointless.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Its better to do both - layered approach. And if you wanna be
| extra see my other comment on this thread :-)
|
| The advantage of DNS is of course that it will generally also
| work on things other than your browser which is a pretty huge
| win.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Pero ?por que no los dos?
| rpdillon wrote:
| > impersonate you at the browser level
|
| This is a new framing for me...I don't think of ublock as
| impersonating me, but rather representing me, like an agent
| in a transaction. While it's true that agents that represent
| you need to be trusted, there is also a huge upside: ublock
| origin can do things that DNS blocking cannot. Given ublock's
| (gorhill's) track record, I think this is an excellent deal.
| biomcgary wrote:
| Gorhill's track record is the critical bit. He transferred
| maintenance responsibilities for ublock to someone who
| immediately exploited it to make money, which is why we now
| have ublock origin. In a world of 7.9 billion people, it is
| amazing that a decent internet experience depends so much
| on a single person being competent and honorable. He (and
| the block list folks) are the heroes that run into the
| virtual dumpster fire and pull us out.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Right; there's a reason we literally call the browser the
| "user agent", and uBlock is just a part of that. It's not
| impersonating me, it's a vital part of the browser being a
| useful tool _for_ me.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| The concept of a user agent is hilariously and sadly
| quaint on the modern web.
|
| Can you imagine what a user agent to interact with
| Facebook would look like? Or Instagram? Or TikTok?
|
| It shows how far we slid backwards for large, popular
| areas of user functionality, post-90s.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| On the contrary; the _browser_ is still generally the
| user 's agent (although Chrome can be iffy) - we don't
| need to imagine, because we can compare the Facebook app
| to browsing Facebook in a browser, and see that the
| browser is _still_ far more friendly to the user 's
| interests than what FB ships.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It is, although both Chrome and Safari obviously have
| their own, non-user interests.
|
| But browsers in 2022 are second class citizens, for
| business models that can generate positive ROI from
| developer time. They are at best dissuaded (e.g. Reddit,
| TikTok), and at worse actively crippled or prohibited.
|
| The majority of users are on apps, and more users are
| moving to devices (e.g. Chromebooks, Portal). All of
| which are explicitly _not_ user agents.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _I prefer DNS filtering over extensions_
|
| DNS filtering is weak and there are numerous bypasses [0],
| including ones you can never fix at the DNS layer [1]
|
| [0] Ex: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30412070
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30411049
| IMSAI8080 wrote:
| I have extensions turned off in private browsing and then use
| this mode for banking etc.
| Ayesh wrote:
| Most ad services now swap their ad JS domains frequently,
| aggregate snippets (ads and functional) over a Tag Manager,
| or simply even proxy the ad scripts through the main domain,
| which a DNS filter cannot block reliably.
| pbronez wrote:
| > I don't want the project to become in need of funding in any
| way: no dedicated home page + no forum = no cost = no need for
| funding. I want to be free to move onto something else if ever
| I get tired working on these projects (no donations = no
| expectations).
|
| This resonates with me. I'm thinking about spinning up a new
| open source project, and I really want it to be default-alive.
| I know that I don't have infinite time and attention for it...
| I want it to be able to live without constant feeding.
|
| I do think that donations will be part of the picture though.
| Similar to uBlock, the project will have some dependencies on
| upstream data providers. I would love to generate revenue and
| pass it to those upstream providers to support the broader
| ecosystem.
| meerita wrote:
| We're two. It's so useful. I use it on those website who
| display the "accept all cookies", specially on those ones
| because I'm tired of denying cookie usage.
|
| I still don't understand why Firefox, champion of privacy,
| doesn't make a uBlock native.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > I still don't understand why Firefox, champion of privacy,
| doesn't make a uBlock native.
|
| That's the best technological solution but there are inherent
| conflicts of interest since Firefox depends on Google for
| money.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Blame government for not understanding unintended
| consequences when they pass laws regarding tech (GDPR)
| btdmaster wrote:
| The law says that agreeing or disagreeing should be equally
| easy. Companies are breaking that law.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| I don't want to agree or disagree at all. I want my
| internet back pre-banners where I just get the content.
| The new internet is awful.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Personally I like the banners because they are an active
| reminder that that website is explicitly harvesting
| personal information.
| scarface74 wrote:
| It's hard to know what a law says that requires you to
| read 11 chapters with 99 sections just to create a
| website.
|
| https://gdpr-info.eu/
| paulmd wrote:
| completely false, it's trivially possible to create a
| website without needing to involve GDPR at all.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Don't collect any information you don't actually have to,
| and if you do hold personal information, treat it
| basically like you'd want your own information treated,
| and you're basically good. It's really that simple.
|
| The only people who think it's particularly hard or
| onerous are the people referenced by "It is difficult to
| get a man to understand something when his salary depends
| on his not understanding it."
| scarface74 wrote:
| I don't deal with the clusterf%%% of modern front end
| development. I'm just tired of seeing cookie banners
| everywhere.
|
| Did the law in anyway make my life better?
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Obnoxious banners are not required under GDPR. In fact,
| unless denying consent is as easy as granting it, they're
| illegal.
|
| It's not the law's fault that companies would rather
| implement such detrimental UX than either give up the
| teat of personal data or give people their rights.
|
| It is, however, the fault of regulators for not stamping
| down on such behaviour when it is against both the letter
| and spirit of the law.
|
| And, honestly, I consider the fact that so many websites
| are forced to admit that they are trying to take and sell
| my data to be positive.
| dfinninger wrote:
| Personally, I rarely come across a site that makes it
| harder to agree than disagree. I find both paths equally
| annoying.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Examples are plentiful.
|
| https://twitter.com/cookieshame
|
| One interesting thing is that loads of sites use OneTrust
| to implement illegal banners. However OneTrust has a
| compliant banner on their own site.
|
| So they can do it, but most sites deliberately configure
| it illegally.
| forty wrote:
| We must not use the same internet. Agree is always one
| click for me, and there is generally no disagree button,
| but a "manage your privacy settings" button, that opens
| the biggest popups ever, slow as hell, when then even
| work,with thousand of button to click.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Or, blame companies for throwing passive-aggressive
| shitfits that aim to mislead people. GDPR doesn't mean you
| have to have an intrusive confusing mess of a cookie
| banner, for example.
|
| In fact, a confusing banner that makes you play a minigame
| to get the respect for your personal information that you
| have a legal right to (in the EU) is explicitly disallowed.
|
| And if you don't want any banners, then don't collect any
| information you don't have to. If it's actually technically
| needed, you don't need consent. For example, Wikipedia has
| lots of cookies for things like UI elements and they don't
| need a banner.
| scarface74 wrote:
| That's not really comforting to me as an end user forced
| to deal with punch the monkey cookie banners everywhere.
| takeda wrote:
| I don't think it is a good idea. Usually when things like
| that happen the project will become less and less effective,
| also once it is so ingrained it will be harder to switch to a
| new kid in town that is better.
|
| Firefox has its own built in privacy mechanism that is
| enabled by default and don't prevent me to use uBlock
| together with it. I prefer that approach.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > I still don't understand why Firefox, champion of privacy,
| doesn't make a uBlock native.
|
| Mozilla's "commitment" to privacy is all talk and no action.
| ericra wrote:
| Just to make people aware who may not be, you can block a lot
| of cookie banners and other annoyances that are not blocked
| in uBlock Origin by default by enabling more specific filter
| lists in the extension options.
|
| In the "filter lists" tab, I would recommended enabling the
| "Fanboy's Annoyance" list. It's a huge list that focuses on
| removing various annoying, recurring website components, and
| it's created by the maintainer of Easylist (uBlock Origin's
| primary filter list).
|
| The downside, of course, is that this may in theory break
| some additional % of websites, but this has not been an issue
| in my experience.
| meerita wrote:
| I do that, especially those from onetrust
| telchior wrote:
| "Have a thought for the maintainers of the various lists. These
| lists are everything. This can't be emphasized enough."
|
| So you can fund the project -- by donating to the lists it
| relies on.
| frankharv wrote:
| While I agree on supporting the things you use. I don't think
| "the lists are everything". Quite the opposite, Its the
| blocking features. For me I like uBlocks disabling Javascript
| with an easy click and the other granularity (popups,
| multimedia) it allows on a site by site basis.
| helph67 wrote:
| Please explain how you are able to disable Javascript.
| ericra wrote:
| To disable javascript for specific site in uBlock Origin,
| click the extension icon, then click the "more" button in
| the menu several times until all options are displayed
| (you only have to do this step once total, not per site).
|
| Once the 5 top menu icons are visible, click the one to
| the right that looks like </> to disable javascript for
| the site you're on.
| telchior wrote:
| I'm thinking of it this way. A guy builds a flamethrower to
| burn away the creeping slime that threatens to overtake
| your house. Someone else then supplies the fuel. You want
| to donate, but the builder says no. "The fuel is
| everything."
|
| That's pretty much correct from one perspective. The
| flamethrower is built, just needs a bit of maintenance now
| and then. But its everyday slime-burning power comes from
| the fuel.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| The lists are more like an automatic targeting system for
| your world-saving flame thrower. Both are vital since the
| slime killed everyone who knew how to use it, so now you
| have to enlist average people who only use them to clear
| weeds and snow.
| Melatonic wrote:
| When your flamethrower needs to shoot hundreds of
| thousands of little slime balls all at once using tiny
| little blasts of flame I think that targeting system
| becomes pretty damn vital!
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| As a general life rule, not just for uBlock: help in the
| way you are asked to help.
| HstryrsrBttn wrote:
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| I can definitely understand his point. Some guy donates a
| dollar to your project and suddenly they act like you _owe_
| them the 80 hours required to implement their stupid
| enhancement request.
| amelius wrote:
| Just block them then ;)
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's hard to forget to install it. The first time you open a
| browser on a new machine and for a moment, for probably the
| first time in a while, see how the internet really looks,
| that's the best ad for uBlock Origin.
| trts wrote:
| The internet with no adblock is a little like driving through
| Breezewood, Pennsylvania
|
| https://imgur.com/a/qmAxHfk
| louky wrote:
| Hilariously that won't even load for me on firefox w/ublock
| origin.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| that picture only captures, like 5-10% of what you see as
| you pass through there.
|
| I think it's always ridiculously represented as "hurr this
| is what America is!"
|
| It has every chain business there because it's the
| intersection of major highways where there's no other
| meaningfully-sized rest stops around for hours.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| A little. On the internet, the ads actively jump in front
| of our faces while we're trying to read something. Imagine
| driving under such conditions.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| Be more like this virtual barrier in Sydney:
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325904/Water-
| stop-...
| neogodless wrote:
| That's actually a pretty famous photo. You can right-click
| and see a much larger one. Must get that full-sized
| advertising goodness.
|
| https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2017/postwa
| r...
| runjake wrote:
| What do people use to block garbage domains from their Google
| results? Google results, especially for developer stuff, is so
| awful -- cluttered with junk sites ripping off content from blogs
| and Stack Overflow, etc.
|
| I've been trying to figure out some rules for uBlock Origin, but
| haven't gotten there, yet.
|
| Edit: Multiple fantastic options in the replies, below. Thanks,
| people!
| criddell wrote:
| There are other search engines out there you might want to try.
| I've been using Kagi and am happy with it. Even though Google
| is one of their sources (probably the main one), they do things
| like omit sites that scrape Stack Overflow. They also re-order
| results assuming their user is tech savvy.
| pwdisswordfish9 wrote:
| pseudostem wrote:
| There was kagi.com here on HN a few weeks ago, I've been
| mighty pleased
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I've noticed this getting worse recently. We went through a
| sort of "golden era" where most results would be stack
| overflow, mailing lists, or blogs and now we're almost back to
| the "expertsexchange.com" days of spammy results for
| programming queries.
| gzer0 wrote:
| I've started using
| https://programmablesearchengine.google.com/about/ which is a
| programmable, custom search engine that Google provides. I only
| include sites that I want to. For news, I have a separate
| search engine; for programming, I include Gitlab, Github, and
| others. It's quite nice, and you can share your search engines
| with others via a public URL.
|
| Another example is creating a "social media" only search
| engine- I have over 50 social media websites in one of my
| custom searches, it makes it relatively easy to find another
| person this way.
| freediver wrote:
| > I have over 50 social media websites
|
| What are the others besides the usual 2-3?
| gzer0 wrote:
| https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock
|
| My list is based on this project. It has over 200 items,
| many of which I was unaware existed.
| exlurker wrote:
| I use uBlacklist, and I get a "block this site" option on every
| Google result. Worth a try, I hope it's legit.
| Pxl_Buzzard wrote:
| https://github.com/quenhus/uBlock-Origin-dev-filter is a pretty
| well maintained list specifically to block copycat developer
| sites.
| wnevets wrote:
| Not only did I not know this was a list, I also didn't know
| it was super easy to add new list to uBlock Origin, thanks!
| NmAmDa wrote:
| uBlacklist
| higuyswearehere wrote:
| Give ublacklist a try. Very effective to content farm.
| godtoldmetodoit wrote:
| ublacklist is what I've been using, works well.
| so_fruity wrote:
| I have a dream that some day all browsers come with builtin
| uBlock.
|
| I wish I could install it for everybody. Browsing the Web and
| watching Youtube is such a different experience with adblock.
| [deleted]
| Nextgrid wrote:
| There's an inherent conflict of interest here - much of our
| computing tools today is built for "growth and engagement"
| which is why no mainstream browser has it - the only holdouts
| so far are Apple and Linux distributions.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| I think YouTube has an _okay_ monetization policy, it 's
| nowhere near as malicious as a random recipe blog with 19 ads
| and auto playing videos
| 0des wrote:
| Why is it that after 11PM YouTube will randomly show me ads
| that are entire movies long, like 90 minutes long? Do they
| think I am asleep and want to charge their ad client full
| price for the view?
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| uMatrix seems even better, but no uMatrix for mobile. Reasons.
| wesapien wrote:
| I still use a hosts file instead of pihole. The tool is called
| hblock. I'd use pihole if I can find a deal on a rapsberry pi.
| humanwhosits wrote:
| Why doesn't firefox build ublock origin directly into firefox
| pthread_t wrote:
| That makes perfect sense -- browsing the web on desktop without
| uBlock has become a nightmare.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Nothing says "our entire industry[0] is a blight upon human
| society" like a thriving ecosystem of popular software existing
| for the sole purpose of _shutting you the hell up_.
|
| [0] advertising and marketing industry
| amartya916 wrote:
| I _think_ I know why you are being downvoted, but I just wanted
| to chime in and say that I get exactly where you are coming
| from. On certain days, I cannot shake a similar thought from my
| mind as well.
|
| Today though, I'd recommend skimming through uBlock Origin's
| Github readme: https://github.com/gorhill. Note the "Free. Open
| source. For users by users. No donations sought." in the About
| section. Our industry reflects our collective condition: some
| good, some bad, and some in between. The oft used Mr. Rogers
| quote about "look for the helpers" seems particularly
| appropriate for uBlock Origin and its creator (and maintainers
| :)).
|
| P.S. In case this comes across as a lecture, I assure you that
| this was just as much for myself as a reminder, as it was for
| the community here :).
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Oh, I think I see the issue. If your post is anything to go
| by then people think I'm talking about tech or even just the
| web. That's understandable since both are frequently the
| target of my ire, however in this instance I am specifically
| talking about the advertising and marketing industry.
| brimble wrote:
| I think it's fair, considering the sky-high salaries at the
| top end of our industry are almost _solely_ due to ad
| revenue. We 'd all see significant downward pressure on
| wages without that--we're basically accountants by social
| status already, but losing ad revenue would put us in the
| same area pay-wise, too.
| amartya916 wrote:
| Ah sorry, I misunderstood as well. Makes sense!
| openplatypus wrote:
| uBlock Origin, with CNAME uncloaking is the most powerful
| ad/tracker blocking tool. Browsing Internet without it is often
| time a scary experience.
|
| It does block our [Wide Angle
| Analytics](https://wideangle.co/documentation/track-with-custom-
| domain) tracker about which we are open about.
|
| And ... we are not against. Every user should have a right to
| self determination and control when browsing the Internet. Our
| tracker is not invasive. It does not spy on users across site. We
| do not facilitate user profiling and personalized Ads. So maybe
| we should be against? But we are not.
|
| It is your browser. It is your device.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Is AdBlockPro needed with uBlock or does uBlock do everything
| ABP does and more?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Ditch adblock pro and use ublock Origin (origin!), you will
| only be getting more wins and not losing anything. I suggest
| reading up on the various lists to enable outside of the
| default ones that are enabled. Don't turn them all on though,
| that is a LOT of "stuff" to block, even on modern machines
| and will noticeably slow down your page load.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >Is AdBlockPro needed with uBlock
|
| Nope
|
| >does uBlock do everything ABP does and more?
|
| Yep
| Melatonic wrote:
| AdBlockPro has built in allowlists for some advertisers
| (might be paid on the advertisers side?) and Ublock does not.
| And from I remember the developer of Ublock might have
| originally also been involved in AdblockPro and then left? I
| could be wrong
| ksec wrote:
| My experience with uBlock or in fact any Ad Blocker have been
| suboptimal. It sometimes uses a lot of CPU resources in places
| I dot understand and couldn't be bothered to figure out why.
|
| In the end I just switch to NextDNS.
| freeAgent wrote:
| NextDNS and uBO are complimentary.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Agreed
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Just FYI, the problem with analytics providers like yourself is
| that even if you don't explicitly intend to spy, you're still
| collecting a lot of information in a single spot that could
| allow someone to track the user across websites if it were to
| leak or be compelled (by law or force - enemy invasion like in
| Ukraine) to share it.
| 0des wrote:
| This went from props to a sales pitch fast
| copperx wrote:
| I'm tired of the tech hustle culture.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Yeah, I hate it when people believe in the work they're
| doing and are eager to talk about it.
|
| Just the worst.
| ouid wrote:
| You genuinely believe that this guy is passionate about
| his tracking software and is just eager to share?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Yes, absolutely.
|
| Is money a factor? Yes. Do you _need_ passion to make
| money when building a startup? Yes.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Part of me thinks this would be a better place if
| everyone was prohibited from talking about themselves and
| their projects. Let the braggarts chest-thump on Product
| Hunt, that place is already a wasteland
|
| It's like everything tech has to be a dog and pony show
| nowadays.
| chrisfrantz wrote:
| Tired of the tech hustle culture? Then check out
| nomohustle.co a paid newsletter I run on substack.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Tired of nomohustle.co ? Checkout no-nomohustle.io !
| hef19898 wrote:
| I'd upvote more than once if I could! If every tracking / ad
| provider would like that the internet would be a better place!
| CSMastermind wrote:
| It would be nice if browser makers started bundling ad block by
| default.
| gilrain wrote:
| Those that aren't financially supported by the blocked
| advertising often do.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, and I'm sure others have
| built in ad blockers and even have it enabled by default.
| Firefox and Safari do not (they stop at built in privacy
| tracking).
|
| Of course every single built in blocker is vastly inferior,
| either intentionally (like Chrome) or just because uBlock
| Origin is that much better (like Vivaldi).
| bradyd wrote:
| Where is this built in ad blocker in Chrome? I have never
| seen this feature.
| zamadatix wrote:
| It's on by default since 2018 and not very configurable,
| you can toggle it on a per site basis in the site settings
| of a site via the "ads" permission for that site. It of
| course exists to bolster the number of their ads that are
| viewed not actually block all ads
| https://blog.google/technology/ads/building-better-web-
| every...
| boplicity wrote:
| I really, truly, sincerely wish more developers put
| _compatibility with adblockers_ at the top of their priority
| list. I have _so many_ customer support issues to deal with
| because some of the SaaS platforms we use are not compatible with
| ad blocking software.
|
| Usually, the first thing I tell people is to _turn off their
| adblocker._ This almost always fixed the issue. Yes, I absolutely
| hate asking our customers to do this.
|
| If you want adblocking software to thrive -- then please make
| sure you test your software with adblocking software enabled.
| (Please!)
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > I have so many customer support issues to deal with because
| some of the SaaS platforms we use are not compatible with ad
| blocking software.
|
| That's amazing. I hope this keeps happening until businesses
| are forced to fix their sites to make it work with uBlock
| Origin.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" I hope this keeps happening until businesses are forced to
| fix their sites to make it work with uBlock Origin."_
|
| I very much this is going to happen on a large scale unless
| there's legislation demanding it.
|
| Businesses want to serve up ads and track their users both
| because:
|
| 1 - it's profitable
|
| 2 - it gives them insight in to what their users want, so
| they can improve their products and come up with new ones
|
| Supporting ad blocking goes directly against these two
| motives, so for most business it won't be done voluntarily.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > for most business it won't be done voluntarily
|
| I'm okay with that.
| LordHeini wrote:
| Incopabiltiy can happen incredibly fast.
|
| One of our backends had a route called /statistics for showing
| application statistics to the user.
|
| Some Adblockers with some lists block routes named like that
| which caused a confused bug hunt.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| First thing I show people that I show ad blockers is how to
| turn them off. I tell them that is the first thing to try if a
| page gives them hell. Don't call me until you've tried that or
| you will get (mildly) yelled at, Aunt Janie.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-11 23:01 UTC)