6 ms·
im happy to just block/not visit those entire domains there comes a point when the content is just not worth it doesnt scale obviously we're headed back to t
by SeanMacConMara 7y ago
im happy to just block/not visit those entire domains
there comes a point when the content is just not worth it
doesnt scale obviously
we're headed back to the "golden age" of TV advertising except via http instead of radio waves/cable
- devicetray0 7y agoSame, I've been avoiding domains that I know will just show me an unacceptable banner (on mobile) or paywall (desktop). It's funny that I've trained myself to avoid them. I wouldn't really mind them being blocked in these lists, as long as I can optionally disable/enable the domains, or whitelist them if I want (there are some news websites I've paid for)
- xiphias2 7y agoThe problem is that the links to these sites already grab my attention. If ads can't be blocked on a web site, links to the web site should be blocked, so I never see them in the first place.
- lazypenguin 7y agoI’ve installed an addon to filter duckduckgo and google searches to avoid hide the SEO spammy websites. Maybe you would be interested. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hohser/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hohser/?src=s...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zerocrates 7y agoWeb advertising is, and long has been, far worse and more intrusive than TV ads.
- SeanMacConMara 7y agoi was referring to the "golden age" of captive eyeballs ie eveyone watched lots of TV and mostly could not avoid seeing most of the ads. at least we've had ad blockser on browsers that work well up to now the tracking of web ads obviously vastly overshadows what happened with TV. they obviously want the best of both worlds "avoidable ads" and "extreme tracking"