I literally haven’t seen anyone even mention it anywhere on the internet as if it never existed, when it comes to Ad blockers I always see uBO recommended with absolutely no mention whatsoever of ABP why? What makes it better than ABP? What happened to it? or maybe I’m wrong and ABP is not as well known as I think it is.
I have been using ABP for many years until someday don’t remember when I switched to uBO because I read that it is “the best ad blocker”.
I maybe need a history lesson as everything on the matter seems so vague to me and the whole situation is super weird
Adblock Plus is not recommended as by default it allows certain promoted ads to show if it deems them unobtrusive. I think they actually receive profits from ads, which is asinine for an adblocking entity.
On the other hand, uBlock does much more than just block ads. First of all, it blocks all ads, and it blocks other trackers and annoyances from Facebook, Google, as well as having the ability to add custom rules for bypassing certain types of popovers, and to clean up tracking data that often gets appended when you click a URL.
Ublock doesn’t freeze my YT videos when it rolls over a midroll ad. I’ll never use anything else (maybe a Pi-Hole)
A pi hole is great, but I don’t believe it’s effective against YouTube ads because of the way they’re delivered
You are correct.
Yeah. I believe YouTube ads are basically just YouTube videos so it’s difficult to filter out.
SmartTubeNext or Newpipe and other apps can effectively filter YT ads.
NewPipe is amazing. I’ve made NewPipe+Sponsorblock my default YouTube app on my phone, and I use the Libredirect addon on PC to redirect all links to Piped instances.
ublock origin + sponsorblock
Am I the only one that has a problem with this? Unless you’re paying for use of a site then aren’t you basically being entitled to someone else’s labor?
Someone made the site, created the content, and hosted it for consumption. Until money isn’t necessary for survival it seems reasonable to make sure they’re compensated for it.
Ads nowadays are
That’s a no from me
Honestly, back when most normal sites just had banner ads, I wasn’t too concerned.
It was only when they started intruding inside actual videos and making every news site look like the sites we were warned never to visit back in the 90s that I ever considered using an ad blocker.
If you’re blocking them all how do you know how obtrusive or obnoxious they are?
Secondarily, why do you think that is? Have they gotten more or less instant since ad blockers have been an option?
I’m not at all against ad blockers. I’ve got a Pi-hole myself. I just think blocking every ad ever is doing a lot more for the problem than it is to help
Every now and then, I deactivate my blocker because I’m curious to see, and I almost throw up
Sounds like a pretty weak constitution if you can’t stomach looking at something so mundane. I hope you don’t drive.
And great job ignoring the other part.
Aren’t you a nice fella
Nice enough to be considerate of the low level employees who only have jobs because the company they work for has ads on their site.
If these ads were unobtrusive, off to the side, not serving as trackers, and not speaking the most flashy design language someone’s ever screamed at me, then I would respect them.
Everyone’s gotta pay the bills, but todays online ads make up quite a few of the reasons the modern internet turned to shit.
I do feel bad about it on occasion. But then. I remember getting the ol’ rootkit/worm combo from gamefaqs and forgive myself. These sites have long since lost my trust.
So you got screwed once and that’s it for everyone ever? How do you not live in a hut in the mountains?
You are right, I’m sequestering myself by avoiding malvertising on my expensive electronics. If you have any additional tips to aid in sequestering further, I’ll listen to those.
We’re obviously not on the same page here.
I object to blocking “all ads”.
You responded to that by stating you lost trust for, presumably, everyone after a specific incident.
To extend that it seems implausible that you could trust anyone, about anything, ever. If one instance of a thing can break your trust for everything like it, what other possibility could exist.
On the other hand, if you’re blocking malicious ads, which is to say not every ad across the whole of the Internet, that’s a very different thing which I do not object to.
Are we more clear now?
If there were an assurance of safety in advertising then I’d be fine with accepting ads. Insurance or somesuch. Credit card stolen by a pickpocket in a crowded street? Cancel, reverse charges, out an hour, a card replacement fee, and a few weeks of fuming as police do nothing. Multiple compromised devices on your network? Tough luck, buddy. Shouldn’t have used a well trusted site. Enjoy your months of confusion and hundreds spent.
I lose nothing from blocking ads. Ads aren’t an experience to try out, as if pusillanimity has something to do with it. When sites go back to stock banner ads, I’m back in.
You think no one has ever had to spend time and money dealing with a picked pocket or a pothole on a road they drive every day? It’s not always as easy as you make it sound. Just like a lot of times you run an antivirus and it takes care of everything. Not always but sometimes your whole identity is stolen and it can be years later and you’re still dealing with problems. Guess you shouldn’t have gone to the gas station you always go to.
Why would sites go back to stock banner ads when they’re so easily blocked. Why do you think they stopped? The same culture you’re now defending pushed them out. Now it’s an arms race with stronger measures on both sides all the time.
You lose nothing by blocking ads today. At some point the bill comes due and either you can’t block them so easily or you lose access to the content you want to see. You’re pulling pebbles away from a levee and telling everyone it’s safe because nothing has happened.
You have it backwards, Adblocking exploded after tracking became commonplace and invasive, and it has only gotten worse on that front. I get the vague impression you weren’t around for the days when malvertising was a chronic threat created exclusively by greedy companies without decent security controls. Bring back dumb ads and I’ll see them. I’m still going to block every form of JavaScript on your site that I can, but I’ll undoubtedly see your banner ads.
You’ve got yourself mixed up. They’re not entitled to my compute, or my eyeballs. They handed my browser a pile of HTML, and I’ll do what I want with it.
Did you cut all the advertisements out of magazines and newspapers before reading them?
What about the billboards on the side of the road?
You are not entitled to their hosting or their content. They provide them to you in exchange for ad revenue they receive from showing them to you. You’re refusing to engage in the exchange.
Am I obligated to look at every billboard by the road or can I not get up and leave or at least mute commercials on TV? Why should I have my computer use my bandwidth against my data cap so that a company paying someone other than me can show me an ad?
The way I see it is that the host is getting paid for giving the opportunity to show an ad. The exchange is between the company hosting the content and the company advertising the product, not the end user.
Just as easily as you can scroll past an ad on a page
Why should someone have to pay for your ability to access that data? Your isp isn’t sending that site money for you to be able to access it. Someone has to cover costs.
Frankly data caps are bullshit but that doesn’t help the current situation.
Except you are denying them that opportunity.
So an advertiser should pay for functionally nothing?
Let’s go on a hypothetical journey. Tomorrow a switch is flipped and everyone in the world is blocking ads the same as you. How are the web designers and content creators getting paid now? Ad revenue dries up because it’s pointless to pay for a thing you’ll never get. Those employees are not going to continue to get paychecks because the site is just an expense now. This should not be difficult to understand.
The main difference is that my computer takes an active roll in the process of showing me an ad. Traditional advertising is there whether I look at it or not. Websites not making money on their content is their problem not mine. If they can’t make money on traditional advertising then they’ll go bankrupt or find a new way to generate income. I didn’t sign a contract to agree to be served ads and have no obligation to not block them.
In the same way your TV does, sure.
It becomes your problem when the thing you want to see is not available because it shut down.
Whether or not they can make money on traditional advertising is a complex thing when I’m not sure what you mean by traditional advertising. Can a website offer traditional advertising? If so how do you think the existence of ad blockers has contributed to its decline? I remember when TiVo was a big thing we started seeing banners at the bottom of shows advertising other shows. Seems like a pretty clear correlation to me.
And they didn’t sign a contract and are under no obligation to serve you content. That road goes both ways. Is a contractual obligation the only way you deal with something you don’t like to get to something you do?
People absolutely block ads on TVs, DVRs have been around for ages and auto ad skipping has been a feature since at least 2002. Well before then people were fast forwarding through commercials or simply muting them. Of course with live TV you can’t skip because the content is timed to commercial breaks but you don’t have to consume the commercials shown in the breaks.
What I would consider traditional advertising would be any clearly separate banner, pop up, intermediate page etc placed around the main content, think commercials on TV as opposed to the conspicuous coke being drunk in the movie. There’s a limitless number of ways to monetize content, many of which an ad blocker is useless against. I can block a banner ad, it’s way harder to block a paid review.
As far as I am concerned content online is easily replaceable, the only site that I think I would genuinely miss if it went away would be wikipedia and I do donate to them. No matter what you or I do, web content will survive and the market will evolve new ways to separate us from our money.
As a question, how do you feel about data mining and tracking? Selling identifiable user data is one of the most common ways to monetize a website and is generally unintrusive to a user’s experience while using the site. Would it be amoral for a user to try to eliminate or at least reduce the data they allow a website to collect? What about providing deliberately false data?
You’re missing the point, but your example is perfect. If I have a magazine or newspaper, I’ll cut the advertisements out of them if I damn well please, and they can’t stop me. Sure, I’m not entitled to their hosting or their content, but that’s what paywalls or logins are for. When you hand off a document to someone, expect that they’ll do what they want with it, because that’s the way the world works, and also the way it should work.
Also, fuck billboards. They should be banned, like several states already do.
Right. How do you cut the ads out? Do you just snip around blindly and hope for the best?
And how do you react to those when you encounter them? More often than not the people I see blocking everything flip out.
The analogy would be that I get a robot to identify the ads in the magazine and cut them out before I have to see them. That’s what ad blockers do, but on a computer instead of IRL.
I don’t know why I’d flip out when encountering a paywall or login. It works out great, and as a society we don’t have to end up with ads enshittifying everything they touch.
Go take a look at nearly any conversation about streaming services, for example. It won’t take long to find someone upset about how “it’s as expensive as cable now”. Then extend that same logic to the entirety of the Internet and how do you think it would go over.
My issue is that blocking all ads indescriminantly is costing someone and the rich won’t allow it to be them.
The analogy would still break down because the robot would need parts or maintenance. There would still be a cost and someone would still be getting their money. Instead you’ve just got a lot of people proud of themselves for sneaking their hand into someone else’s pocket.
I’m not in a position nor pay grade to subsidize someone else’s income with my time or attention
I try to find freely contributed materials when I can; for instance, I try to watch non-monetized YouTube channels and visit sites that are freely made and shared, but I’m not so high on my horse that I’m above clicking a link to a news article on a site like this one and using an ad blocker
If you have so little attention to spare that an ad along side or even within content is too far for you how did you find the time to comment?
Good on you for looking for free options. On the other hand that furthers the question about how much attention would really cost you…
I enjoy commenting. I don’t enjoy ads.
Yeah, like YouTube for instance – that was the cool part: It was free.
I imagine that is up to each person. Fortunately, no one is mandating that you use an adblocker, so you are free to do as you please. Far be it from me to condescend to you for something so inconsequential to me.
I’ve donated to keep this server running because I’m willing to do so. If the admin asked me to watch ads instead, I’d decline.
Another argument against not my position.
If someone who does something for a living does that thing for you, do you pay them or scamper off beforehand? Why?
Great. I’m glad you think it’s inconsequential. I think people being able to pay their bills is very consequential, so I raise my concerns where I see a problem.
Though you’d think inconsequential would go along with how you don’t enjoy ads. Curious, no?
If donating weren’t an option and there was, occasionally, an easily missed ad somewhere off to the side, what then?
Obviously, I would pay someone for services rendered, but my accessing content that I wouldn’t pay for anyway is completely different than paying the guy who helped fix my toilet. Again, it is not my duty to subsidize your income just because you posted content online, so it is not my concern to ensure you get paid by ad revenue. When I choose to support someone who I think deserves it, I do things like donate or buy a bunch of records I don’t even need from an independent record label owned by a real person who’s not a rich suburbanit, or I buy a t-shirt or sticker from a small book publisher to show support. I don’t watch ads on behalf of some dumb millionaire with half-assed “content” when the free stuff from randos (which are the only content creators I even enjoy) is far superior.
And I put my money where my mouth is. You can go to my profile and find my Skyrim mods, book reviews, and decklists, and you have my blessing to use them for free, without watching ads. You can even reshare or remix them, or not give me credit, idgaf, because that’s the world I want to create.
I’ve got to go now. I’m at the public library and about to unethically steal content from authors by checking out books for free and without watching ads. I really hope Haruki Murakami can eat tonight, but ultimately it’s not my responsibility. Hasta luego!
So it’s only a possibility for millionaires to serve ads and get paid from them? Someone should alert the podcasters and independent app developers.
It’s your moral responsibility to “subsidize income” when you’re consuming the content someone created in order to afford to live, no?
I’m with you, that’s the world I want to create and live in along side with everyone else. That’s not the world we live in today and a whole lot of people need to be able to survive before we can get to that point.
A whole lot of people seem to think I’m out here trying to encourage everyone to give up their time and bandwidth to donate to the rich. Not at all. But the idea that they’re the only ones who might be getting any money from ads is absurd.
Interestingly enough the library is possibly the analogy I needed. It’s funded by your taxes. Tiny little amounts that won’t make a difference to you at all but it’s still there. I would absolutely object to someone looking through everything I checked out on my way out the door (trackers) as well as salesmen lurking around the whole place (obtrusive ads). I don’t mind them setting up displays or flyers on community boards (unobtrusive ads) or late fees (payments). It’s also great that the writers and publishers (creators and hosts) are still getting paid since the library still bought the books. It may be tiny amounts per reader, but so are ads.
On the other hand I’m pretty sure most people agree that if you spend the day in a local coffee house using their free Wi-Fi and not buying anything that you’d be an asshole and it would be reasonable for them to kick you out.
My issue is more with trackers than ads anyways, altrough ads that block so much that using the site normally becomes a pain in the ass are the other extend which is sadly also getting more and more common. But sadly most websites and services that let you pay to get rid of ads will still put everything full of trackers…
Also, there are quite some sites that just copy content or or have an AI write content, made to rank high in searches, then is putbfull of adds to make money. Those are automated money-farms, and deserve blockers.
I block everything, ads and trackers alike. Somewhat regularily I’m on the web without and it’s always a great reminder why I normally do use them.
But I also pay for multiple websites and services I use regularily despite them working fine without paying or having “free” alternatives. After all, nothing is free and I rather pay with money than with data. And I also want to be paid for my work, and I can only imagine so do others. So I do agree with you there, and I highly encourage people to pay for stuff.
But I won’t feel bad for blocking that shit, also not on the websites I don’t financially support. Because most of the time they are the ones that made it impossible to use their website privacy-friendly without blocking stuff anyways, even if I’m willing to pay.
Agreed. I have no issues with this.
I agree here as well. Though the simplest solution is to avoid them altogether I don’t have an objection to working against deliberately malicious sites like this.
And with this I have no objections to anything else. My issue is specifically with the mindset of neither viewing any ad regardless of anything besides it being an ad combined with refusal to offer any sort of recompense. You’re supporting at least a few sites that you feel are worth supporting and that’s plenty for me.
@Doug @LinkOpensChest_wav I used to think this way but so much advertising today is malware. I’m happy for sites to write simple text or image ads that won’t even be detected by adblockers, much less actually blocked. It’s the pile of JavaScript that’s the problem, and it’s the pile of JavaScript that adblockers block.
@Doug @LinkOpensChest_wav for sites I very frequently use, I’m also happy to pay a subscription. I have been subscribed to LWN and to YouTube.
@Doug @LinkOpensChest_wav noting that a fair subscription price for MOST websites is on the order of $1-$10 per user per YEAR.
That seems reasonable. Conversely, most subscription prices are asking disproportionately large sums of money, $10/month or more. I get that capitalism sucks and trying to survive, but I resent people who want to become a millionaire at my expense.
I’m totally with you there. JavaScript ads are not ok. But that’s not what the quoted statement said. It said “all ads”.
I see this a lot with the ad blocking crowd. Especially the ones that will run over to tell you how you’re doing things wrong if you’re not using their preferred method (usually ubo). It’s not enough to block problematic ads because all ads, simply be existing, are problematic.
But then they won’t offer anything else either. They want all the content of the internet served up to them for free.
I’d love to live in a utopia where we can all freely share everything. Until that happens I’ve got a family to feed and bills to pay. So does everyone else.
@Doug do you think that Nintendo has a right to lock down its consoles so you can only play licensed Nintendo games? This is basically the same thing.
In the usual situation, Nintendo has a right to try to lock down my console and I also have a right to try to unlock it. This is also the situation we have today with adblockers.
That’s not at all the same situation. To even get close to similar we’d need to assume that we’re getting either the console or the games for free. Even then it’s still quite a road to even imperfect analogy.
In the current situation we buy every piece of that puzzle and are still locked out of modifications through obfuscation, proprietary knowledge, and security measures. So that makes the analogy even harder to sell.
It’s more like ordering a package and being upset about the company’s name appearing on the box/label/receipt.
@Doug it’s the same legal principle.
How so?
@Doug the right of a provider of a thing to lock it down vs the right of a consumer of a thing to unlock it
@Doug another perspective is that there’s nothing wrong with wanting everything for free.
There’s absolutely something wrong with taking steps to get everything for free as it’s going to come at the expense of someone. Companies and the rich are unwilling to absorb any costs when they can get away without, and they usually can.
Who are you willing to pass the cost of your consumption on to?
@Doug would you like to play at a handicap against the rich? Or are you willing to copy their tactics and play even?
We’re all playing at a handicap against them all the time.
I grew up beyond poor. I don’t need a reminder of how big that gap is.
No, I’m not willing to employ their tactics. I’d rather help those worse off than me succeed than elevate myself on their backs.