6 ms·

It’s OK to block ads (2015)

118 points by hvenev 1y ago

Abdii430 1y ago
[flagged]
keernan 1y ago
For me, it is a straight forward proposition. There is literally nothing online so far that has ever interested me enough to pay money or with my eyeballs. I either see it without ads or move on without even a moment of thought.
- roscas 1y ago
  It very very sad that some people will even say "I like to see ads, it might have something I want...". They are not just dumb, they are dangerous. This ads companies have been online for too much time. It is time to bring them down. Fast. And with them all those parasites of ads associations and marketing. We do need to bring the level of ads to 0. Then start new.
  - dkdcio 1y ago
    every hackernews thread on this topic has like 10 of those people and it genuinely baffles me. like in the year 2025 the idea that you need to see an ad to know to buy something you were otherwise unaware of is genuinely insane to me
  - al_borland 1y ago
    To take this a step further, I have had people argue with me that tracking and profiling online is a good thing, because it provides more relevant ads for things they want to buy. There are people who actively want ads that can better target and manipulate them into giving up their money. I would like to say I've only run into one person like this, but no. I've lost count of how many of these people I've run into. I like to think I'm pretty good at understand other people's point of view, even if I don't agree with it. This is one I have a lot of trouble with. I'm fine with relevant ads, but I think they should be relevant based on the context around them, not on the viewer. If I go to a website about trout fishing, show me ads that would be useful to a trout fisherman. There is no need to track anyone to do that.
    - nkrisc 1y ago
      It’s because they view the world with a consumerist mindset and buying things gives them pleasure.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      People paying money for things is a win win situation. People are not just "manipulated into giving up their money", they get something they value more than money in return.
      - al_borland 1y ago
        The advertisements convince them it is something they value. Most of what people buy becomes clutter and trash almost instantly. A lot of this stuff is being purchased with debt. People aren’t happy about their debt, their inability to buy a house, or all the clutter that consumes their home. Yet, in the moment, they are led to believe that a Labubu is what they really desire. It’s not.
      - immibis 1y ago
        Correction: People think they get more something they value more than the money. It's easier to trick someone into thinking they're receiving value from you, than to actually provide that value. But I've had this argument before, so I know the reply will be that value is defined as the feeling of receiving value, therefore they are delivering real value.
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      They're imagining a benevolent system that will match them to the personal best deals for them despite all evidence that megacorporations are not in fact benevolent, and will in fact use that knowledge to find the worst possible (i.e. most profitable) deals that they'll still accept, or abuse their psychology to get them to buy things they shouldn't, etc. They think the system is thinking "ohh! I bet X will like this pair of shoes! And this is a great deal on them!" when in fact a more accurate model is "Who is willing to pay the most to put a message in front of someone with the following detailed list of characteristics?" and then people bid for the right to manipulate you, so even if 2 companies are trying to sell you the exact same thing that you do want, the one that thinks they can extract more from you will pay more and win the spot.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    Ads would be ok if they were non-personalized. Just buy ads for places that show similar content. Put ads for videogames on twitch streams, that sort of thing. These tracking system: it’s just stalking, but done on such a massive scale that, unfortunately, law enforcement and politicians don’t see it that way.
  - DanielHB 1y ago
    My mom has been getting some supplement ads and asking me to buy them (she can't do online shopping, too computer illiterate). Man just yesterday she wanted to buy a supplement that was basically a redbull in pill form...
- maximus_01 1y ago
  How much do you value your time? A lot of people think like this and I'm not judging you or saying this applies to you. But I find it kind of odd when people I know who earn hundreds to thousands of dollars an hour won't pay even $0.10 for something that took them say 15 minutes to read. If their own time is worth $200 / hr, they thought it was valuable enough to use up $50 of their time. If they refuse to pay anything for the content, then in their mind the content was worth exactly $50, not a cent more to spare to the author of said content (eg $50.10, if you paid the author $0.10 and paid $50 of your time).
  - Dfiesl 1y ago
    Its a neat and rational way of looking at things but does it always make sense to give your time a monetary value?
    - moritzwarhier 1y ago
      Also, when I'm.. ehm.. accidentally reading blogspam in my spare time, who's reimbursing me? And if I'm actually reading instead of working, isn't the time I spend more of a debt than a declaration that I want to donate as much money as I wasted by not working for X minutes? Employers haven't paid me for spending a lot of time with them so far. But let's stick with the argument and claim that our time is worth the hourly rate of whoever creates what we consume. That also doesn't make sense, no matter how charitably I view it, for media. Even if I want to live in a radically equal society where everyone's time is worth the same amount of money, it would only make sense when trading 1:1 - for example, I can compare my hourly rate to that of my barber, if I pretend there are no corporations, no taxes etc. But yeah, to be brief, no, it doesn't make sense to give all of your time a monterary value. And when it comes to non-working time, I even find it to be a deeply gross way of thinking. Not regarding the willingness to pay, it's fair to think about your own income and how other workers have to make ends meet and to put it into perspective.
      - maximus_01 1y ago
        If you invert it, though, money is really compensation for time (directly or indirectly). Most of the things you pay money for are compensating someone for time spent (whether that time was spent in the past, present or future). Why is it so hard to go in the other direction? It doesn't mean that you think money is more important than time or anything. It's just that people trade one for the other. Even if you remove the money element altogether, you have a finite amount of time and should value it as such. I also never said anything about equality or that an engineer or a scientists time is necessarily worth the same as other occupations. I was pointing to a very large disparity (paying a very small amount for content that one clearly values, if they value their time). You can put whatever numbers you want in my original comment and my point would stand.
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  You know that you are lying, in the defense of your precious precious wallet. There is plenty of stuff online which is worth the money, just YouTube premium alone is a great bargain with the highest quality content conceivable inside. Or if you prefer empirical evidence, millions of people pay for Spotify.
alphazard 1y ago
I remember reading this closer to 2015. I'm convinced that these sorts of mental gymnastics and philosophizing are an info-hazard for otherwise smart and thoughtful people. Not a particularly dangerous one, but time that you won't get back. Unless you are a psychopath, your human instincts will alert you to when you need to show respect or gratitude, or reciprocity is expected from you. You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things, especially when the other party is a large corporation bothering you over the internet. The whole premise of the article is just nuts. TLDR: You should blocks ads because they are annoying. Don't overthink it.
- themafia 1y ago
  I'm not blocking ads. I'm blocking unaccountable third party advertising networks that let random javascript code run in my session. If site operators want to put their ads inline then there really isn't anything I can do about it and I doubt I would even try.
  - nosioptar 1y ago
    I would make no effort to block ads if they were either static images or text, required no js, and were clearly marked as ads.
- JdeBP 1y ago
  When one is (in 2015) a doctoral candidate in ethics at Balliol, there is not really any such thing as overthinking this. (-:
- martin-t 1y ago
  > You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things I think the danger is the opposite. Normal (non-psychopathic) people are prone to being manipulated into feeling for inanimate objects, such as corporations, especially if those are driven by exploitative incentives where humanizing _itselves_ is beneficial.
shortrounddev2 1y ago
I work for an adtech company and we recently discovered that we were serving ads to some users using ad blockers, but the impression tracker endpoint had bbeen blocked. We decided the best course of action is to just submit our bidders domain to whatever lists we can (easylist, ublock, whatever). My project manager wanted to try just changing our endpoints periodically to evade the list. I said to him "You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go up against a software pirate or ad blocker when privacy is on the line!'
- freeopinion 1y ago
  And then you keeled over while your project manager went on about their business?
  - moritzwarhier 1y ago
    Maybe they lost sleep over it, thinking Wait, these people are clearly not just saying: Do Not Track me, they're also saying: Don't show me ads! Which is a demand that any ad-tech company must take very seriously! We can't ignore the privacy implications of our ad networks. We better avoid any such privacy concerns and comply with the user's expressed priorities.
    - shortrounddev2 1y ago
      That's exactly how the meeting went. The CTO agreed that the best thing we can do is help comply with user's wishes about ads and privacy as best we can, so we are in the process of adding our domains to the block lists of common ad blockers
      - freeopinion 1y ago
        I'm beginning to suspect there isn't even a princess in your version of the story.
- 1y ago
ilvez 1y ago
Just for the context, in 2015 world's most used browser still had a sophisticated adblocking.
- JdeBP 1y ago
  And a year or so later, the article's author went on to write this: * https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108453004 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108453004
  - busymom0 1y ago
    What is it? The website doesn't say much other than the name of the book.
    - waste_monk 1y ago
      It's an open access book, you should have a "open full book pdf" button (a couple down from the blue "export citation" button). I haven't the time to read it myself at the moment, but the gist appears to be about "attention economy" and how technology affects our lives. There's a blurb and some discussion on goodreads [1]. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38364667-stand-out-of-our-light https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38364667-stand-out-of-ou...
tjpnz 1y ago
There's no good argument for not blocking ads with so many of them pushing literal malware for criminals.
Ms-J 1y ago
Yes, it is not only OK to block ads, but should be done.
yen223 1y ago
> In the 1970’s, Herbert Simon pointed out that when information becomes abundant, attention becomes the scarce resource. Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable?
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable? Attention's value lies in its scarcity and its ability to drive action, connection, and influence. Every moment you spend focusing on something comes at the cost of not focusing on something else.
- globalnode 1y ago
  Its fuel for your life goals, lets you think about where, what and how you want to do things for yourself. As opposed to being led along by what other's tell you you want. I'm not a philosopher but this seems like a good reason for why its valuable.
- TheBozzCL 1y ago
  It’s literally what you experience in your life. I’d say I value my life a lot, in the end it’s all I actually own. On the other hand, others value my attention because they can make fractions of a cent by making me look at stuff, because there’s a minimal chance they’ll convince me to spend money on stuff of probably little value. Seems to me they don’t value my attention a lot, and I don’t get much of value out of it.
- akho 1y ago
  For a certain definition of information, its net volume and availability on the internet has been declining for quite a while. There is a growth of bytes with zero information content (ai slop, influencer video, ...), worse discovery tools (search is dead), and outright negative information (political disinformation, ads). Net value tends negative. Attention is still being consumed.
12_throw_away 1y ago
I accidentally turned off my adblocker on youtube today, and I immediately got 2 ads, both of which were AI deepfakes of some celebrities selling "supplements" of dubious legality. So, um, is this what internet ads are now? Because even if it weren't "ok" to block these ads, I'm sure as shit going to keep blocking them.
- orwin 1y ago
  Happenned two days ago for me, the rule to block shorts from appearing in my feed caught a bit too much, and I mistakenly deactivated ublock while trying to refine them. YouTube ads are terrifying. Probably others are to, but my opinion to avoid any product showed on internet if possible is vindicated. How can I trust an Axe ad if it's advertised side by side with an obvious scam?
  - DanielHB 1y ago
    I actually use a full blown desktop computer as media center specifically because it can run adblock (and games). I got one of those "fly-mouses" (like a wii-remote pointer to control the mouse cursor), works really well and it is nice to be able to pull a wireless mouse+keyboard when you want to do more complex things. We often use our TV to plan trips using google maps or do some planning using excel sheets with this setup.
Leynos 1y ago
Mate, you've had since 1995 to come up with a functioning micropayments system, and you're unhappy that I am not requesting every image referenced by your web page? I think that we are long past the point where we can safely say that this is a "you" problem.
honeybadger1 1y ago
every website that stops me from viewing it because i am blocking ads will never get a visit from me again. i don't watch television because of unavoidable advertisements. i will never accept advertisements as anything other than deception.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  I have a lot more respect for pages that block me outright than those that try to circumvent my blocking or whine about it. The standard on the internet is that people send what they want and the recipients render it however they want. That’s how it’s always been, and how it always will be. That includes the possibility that they won’t want to send me anything. But once it is sent, it is my bits in my RAM, to do with what I will.
lelandbatey 1y ago
Applying ads to the real world makes it clear: blocking ads is always ok. If you were given free pizza and a stack of ad flyers, do you have to read the ads? Do you have to even acknowledge them? Can you accept the free food while putting the flyers directly in the trash? Obviously yes you would toss those ads in the garbage, because what fool would give away food and expect you to look at ads in exchange? So it is with ads online: their business model is not your responsibility and you can ignore stuff (even automatically) if you want, they're your eyes.
h4kunamata 1y ago
It isn't just okay but mandatory! 2015, 10 years later things got so much worse, only know some minority are realising all the problems behind an AD. With the rise of privacy being breached by American companies and now AI, the way we deal with technology should change altogether. Basics first, if you only use your PC to access the internet, YouTube, office/excel(LibreOffice) and alike, Mint Cinnamon Linux to replace Windows. No money wasted with licensing and its AI flooding you with ADs Android and iPhone are such major issue with targeted ADs, GrapheneOS running on Pixel phones are the only way to have a phone and life without having all your personal life leaked, plus ADs. At home, I run Pihole + Unbound as recursive DNS, OPNSense to force all the DNS traffic to them, and WireGuard to connect to home when I am out. Pihole blocked traffic goes brrrrrrrrrrr If people knew how much crappy their phones, Windows/Mac PCs are sending out to Microsof, Apple, Meta, Google, etc, to be exchanged into targeted ADs, people would lose their mind lmao
- DanielHB 1y ago
  I has gotten better security-wise at least, malicious ads can't infect your OS anymore just by being loaded. The browser sandbox is much more secure these days.
  - lrvick 1y ago
    If we do not count the multiple sandbox escape vulnerabilities that happen every year, sure. https://issues.chromium.org/issues/405143032 https://issues.chromium.org/issues/405143032
  - h4kunamata 1y ago
    I run Linux only at home and all my devices including WiFi6 router. That alone prevents you from getting malicious thing, you only get a Linux system infected if you have zero common sense. The way how the permissions work on Linux prevents that from happening unless an user did an user thing. With Windows, all you need to get malicious crappy is to use Windows. When the system itself is collecting sensitive information aka Microsoft Recall. You cannot access the internet, have VIRTUALLY no problems with virus AND have privacy while using Windows. That is like saying you have an umbrella with a EF5 tornado passing by.
npc_anon 1y ago
People block ads and/or not pay for content because they can. Simply because it's possible. People have been conditioned to consider any and all digital content to be worth zero. Yet continue to consume it for hours on end every day. When not paying at all is an option people will reliably pick that option. They'll even go into extremes to avoid paying. I know somebody that plays a particular mobile game about an hour each day. Every round (taking 90s or so) it's interrupted by 1-3 mins of ads. It's maddening. She suffers through this instead of paying a one-time $4.99. We're talking about somebody firmly upper middle class.
- jen20 1y ago
  Many things do not give you that option, and the ads are obnoxious and invasive to privacy. If that is the only option, you will get nothing from me, and your ads will be blocked. Furthermore if there is a content subscription involved, I will only ever consider it via Apple because I refuse to risk having to telephone someone to cancel something I signed up for online. The well has been poisoned by an obnoxious industry and that industry is unlikely to ever gain even a modicum of respectability.
  - npc_anon 1y ago
    You're just retrofitting reasons to justify the behavior I describe. Forget about those reasons. They don't matter. They can have merit or not, it's irrelevant. Because the behavior takes place regardless. When people can legally avoid paying for something whilst still consuming it, they'll do that. The idea that if only ads were more privacy-friendly people would not block them or start paying for content at any scale is laughable. They won't. When there's a free path, people take that path.
    - jmholla 1y ago
      Then why do people pay for services like Spotify, Netflix, and other subscriptions when they have the ability to pirate? Further, ads are often sold as a way to keep access "free".
- 1y ago
amadeuspagel 1y ago
This is one of the many cases where the dishonest rationalization of a selfish act is worse then the act itself. I block ads because it's convenient, but I don't deny that I'm free-riding on websites that only exist because other people view ads, I don't pollute our shared understanding of ethics, economics and the web with some bullshit rationalization of something I only do because it's convenient.
- ndriscoll 1y ago
  The FBI literally suggested people block ads to avoid being defrauded. My understanding of the web was that it was first and foremost a non-commercial space, and spammers have always been impinging on that. Blocking their nonsense has always been the correct course of action. In the case of children, I actually strongly believe it is immoral to allow then to be inundated with ads. It runs completely counter to teaching them virtues like temperance. It is not just "convenient" but an actual moral imperative to keep them away from those who would push consumerism onto them. This has only become more obvious as climate change worsens as the top problem they will inherit, or as we see 70% of adults in the US now destroying their bodies with disordered eating while still ubiquitous ads encourage them to continue. Ads are a blight. Allowing them to reach the next generation is somewhere between neglect and abuse. So no, your idea of these things is not "our shared understanding".
  - amadeuspagel 1y ago
    The web is not one space, it's a protocol for everyone to have their own space. Someone putting ads on their own website is not spamming.
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      In the sense that someone sending you a surprise crypto miner with their webpage or bundling a botnet trojan into a program they give you is just them putting it on their own space, sure. If they send it to me though, my security software will promptly filter it out or otherwise not allow it to run. My firewall will block connections to their known-dodgey payload hosts from all computers on my network. My computer is not for running someone's miner, and that's not the intended purpose of allowing scripting. Likewise, my screen is not for displaying ads; it's an abuse of scriptable documents that gets filtered out. Opening a web page doesn't create some obligation to run malware. fwiw making an offline analogy, I also live in a city where outdoor advertising signs are generally banned (with some exceptions like saying the land is for sale, or small ground-level signs with height/width restrictions at an entrance indicating which businesses are on a lot), so even on their own land/their own space, businesses putting up things like billboards would be spam and disallowed.

118 points by hvenev 1y ago

[flagged]

For me, it is a straight forward proposition. There is literally nothing online so far that has ever interested me enough to pay money or with my eyeballs. I either see it without ads or move on without even a moment of thought.

roscas 1y ago
It very very sad that some people will even say "I like to see ads, it might have something I want...". They are not just dumb, they are dangerous. This ads companies have been online for too much time. It is time to bring them down. Fast. And with them all those parasites of ads associations and marketing. We do need to bring the level of ads to 0. Then start new.
- dkdcio 1y ago
  every hackernews thread on this topic has like 10 of those people and it genuinely baffles me. like in the year 2025 the idea that you need to see an ad to know to buy something you were otherwise unaware of is genuinely insane to me
- al_borland 1y ago
  To take this a step further, I have had people argue with me that tracking and profiling online is a good thing, because it provides more relevant ads for things they want to buy. There are people who actively want ads that can better target and manipulate them into giving up their money. I would like to say I've only run into one person like this, but no. I've lost count of how many of these people I've run into. I like to think I'm pretty good at understand other people's point of view, even if I don't agree with it. This is one I have a lot of trouble with. I'm fine with relevant ads, but I think they should be relevant based on the context around them, not on the viewer. If I go to a website about trout fishing, show me ads that would be useful to a trout fisherman. There is no need to track anyone to do that.
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    It’s because they view the world with a consumerist mindset and buying things gives them pleasure.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    People paying money for things is a win win situation. People are not just "manipulated into giving up their money", they get something they value more than money in return.
    - al_borland 1y ago
      The advertisements convince them it is something they value. Most of what people buy becomes clutter and trash almost instantly. A lot of this stuff is being purchased with debt. People aren’t happy about their debt, their inability to buy a house, or all the clutter that consumes their home. Yet, in the moment, they are led to believe that a Labubu is what they really desire. It’s not.
    - immibis 1y ago
      Correction: People think they get more something they value more than the money. It's easier to trick someone into thinking they're receiving value from you, than to actually provide that value. But I've had this argument before, so I know the reply will be that value is defined as the feeling of receiving value, therefore they are delivering real value.
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    They're imagining a benevolent system that will match them to the personal best deals for them despite all evidence that megacorporations are not in fact benevolent, and will in fact use that knowledge to find the worst possible (i.e. most profitable) deals that they'll still accept, or abuse their psychology to get them to buy things they shouldn't, etc. They think the system is thinking "ohh! I bet X will like this pair of shoes! And this is a great deal on them!" when in fact a more accurate model is "Who is willing to pay the most to put a message in front of someone with the following detailed list of characteristics?" and then people bid for the right to manipulate you, so even if 2 companies are trying to sell you the exact same thing that you do want, the one that thinks they can extract more from you will pay more and win the spot.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  Ads would be ok if they were non-personalized. Just buy ads for places that show similar content. Put ads for videogames on twitch streams, that sort of thing. These tracking system: it’s just stalking, but done on such a massive scale that, unfortunately, law enforcement and politicians don’t see it that way.
- DanielHB 1y ago
  My mom has been getting some supplement ads and asking me to buy them (she can't do online shopping, too computer illiterate). Man just yesterday she wanted to buy a supplement that was basically a redbull in pill form...
maximus_01 1y ago
How much do you value your time? A lot of people think like this and I'm not judging you or saying this applies to you. But I find it kind of odd when people I know who earn hundreds to thousands of dollars an hour won't pay even $0.10 for something that took them say 15 minutes to read. If their own time is worth $200 / hr, they thought it was valuable enough to use up $50 of their time. If they refuse to pay anything for the content, then in their mind the content was worth exactly $50, not a cent more to spare to the author of said content (eg $50.10, if you paid the author $0.10 and paid $50 of your time).
- Dfiesl 1y ago
  Its a neat and rational way of looking at things but does it always make sense to give your time a monetary value?
  - moritzwarhier 1y ago
    Also, when I'm.. ehm.. accidentally reading blogspam in my spare time, who's reimbursing me? And if I'm actually reading instead of working, isn't the time I spend more of a debt than a declaration that I want to donate as much money as I wasted by not working for X minutes? Employers haven't paid me for spending a lot of time with them so far. But let's stick with the argument and claim that our time is worth the hourly rate of whoever creates what we consume. That also doesn't make sense, no matter how charitably I view it, for media. Even if I want to live in a radically equal society where everyone's time is worth the same amount of money, it would only make sense when trading 1:1 - for example, I can compare my hourly rate to that of my barber, if I pretend there are no corporations, no taxes etc. But yeah, to be brief, no, it doesn't make sense to give all of your time a monterary value. And when it comes to non-working time, I even find it to be a deeply gross way of thinking. Not regarding the willingness to pay, it's fair to think about your own income and how other workers have to make ends meet and to put it into perspective.
    - maximus_01 1y ago
      If you invert it, though, money is really compensation for time (directly or indirectly). Most of the things you pay money for are compensating someone for time spent (whether that time was spent in the past, present or future). Why is it so hard to go in the other direction? It doesn't mean that you think money is more important than time or anything. It's just that people trade one for the other. Even if you remove the money element altogether, you have a finite amount of time and should value it as such. I also never said anything about equality or that an engineer or a scientists time is necessarily worth the same as other occupations. I was pointing to a very large disparity (paying a very small amount for content that one clearly values, if they value their time). You can put whatever numbers you want in my original comment and my point would stand.
carlosjobim 1y ago
You know that you are lying, in the defense of your precious precious wallet. There is plenty of stuff online which is worth the money, just YouTube premium alone is a great bargain with the highest quality content conceivable inside. Or if you prefer empirical evidence, millions of people pay for Spotify.

alphazard 1y ago

I remember reading this closer to 2015. I'm convinced that these sorts of mental gymnastics and philosophizing are an info-hazard for otherwise smart and thoughtful people. Not a particularly dangerous one, but time that you won't get back. Unless you are a psychopath, your human instincts will alert you to when you need to show respect or gratitude, or reciprocity is expected from you. You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things, especially when the other party is a large corporation bothering you over the internet. The whole premise of the article is just nuts. TLDR: You should blocks ads because they are annoying. Don't overthink it.

themafia 1y ago
I'm not blocking ads. I'm blocking unaccountable third party advertising networks that let random javascript code run in my session. If site operators want to put their ads inline then there really isn't anything I can do about it and I doubt I would even try.
- nosioptar 1y ago
  I would make no effort to block ads if they were either static images or text, required no js, and were clearly marked as ads.
JdeBP 1y ago
When one is (in 2015) a doctoral candidate in ethics at Balliol, there is not really any such thing as overthinking this. (-:
martin-t 1y ago
> You don't need to try to think your way in or out of those things I think the danger is the opposite. Normal (non-psychopathic) people are prone to being manipulated into feeling for inanimate objects, such as corporations, especially if those are driven by exploitative incentives where humanizing _itselves_ is beneficial.

shortrounddev2 1y ago

I work for an adtech company and we recently discovered that we were serving ads to some users using ad blockers, but the impression tracker endpoint had bbeen blocked. We decided the best course of action is to just submit our bidders domain to whatever lists we can (easylist, ublock, whatever). My project manager wanted to try just changing our endpoints periodically to evade the list. I said to him "You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go up against a software pirate or ad blocker when privacy is on the line!'

freeopinion 1y ago
And then you keeled over while your project manager went on about their business?
- moritzwarhier 1y ago
  Maybe they lost sleep over it, thinking Wait, these people are clearly not just saying: Do Not Track me, they're also saying: Don't show me ads! Which is a demand that any ad-tech company must take very seriously! We can't ignore the privacy implications of our ad networks. We better avoid any such privacy concerns and comply with the user's expressed priorities.
  - shortrounddev2 1y ago
    That's exactly how the meeting went. The CTO agreed that the best thing we can do is help comply with user's wishes about ads and privacy as best we can, so we are in the process of adding our domains to the block lists of common ad blockers
    - freeopinion 1y ago
      I'm beginning to suspect there isn't even a princess in your version of the story.
1y ago

ilvez 1y ago

Just for the context, in 2015 world's most used browser still had a sophisticated adblocking.

JdeBP 1y ago
And a year or so later, the article's author went on to write this: * https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108453004 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108453004
- busymom0 1y ago
  What is it? The website doesn't say much other than the name of the book.
  - waste_monk 1y ago
    It's an open access book, you should have a "open full book pdf" button (a couple down from the blue "export citation" button). I haven't the time to read it myself at the moment, but the gist appears to be about "attention economy" and how technology affects our lives. There's a blurb and some discussion on goodreads [1]. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38364667-stand-out-of-our-light https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38364667-stand-out-of-ou...

tjpnz 1y ago

There's no good argument for not blocking ads with so many of them pushing literal malware for criminals.

Ms-J 1y ago

Yes, it is not only OK to block ads, but should be done.

yen223 1y ago

> In the 1970’s, Herbert Simon pointed out that when information becomes abundant, attention becomes the scarce resource. Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable?

andsoitis 1y ago
> Attention is scarce, but what makes it valuable? Attention's value lies in its scarcity and its ability to drive action, connection, and influence. Every moment you spend focusing on something comes at the cost of not focusing on something else.
globalnode 1y ago
Its fuel for your life goals, lets you think about where, what and how you want to do things for yourself. As opposed to being led along by what other's tell you you want. I'm not a philosopher but this seems like a good reason for why its valuable.
TheBozzCL 1y ago
It’s literally what you experience in your life. I’d say I value my life a lot, in the end it’s all I actually own. On the other hand, others value my attention because they can make fractions of a cent by making me look at stuff, because there’s a minimal chance they’ll convince me to spend money on stuff of probably little value. Seems to me they don’t value my attention a lot, and I don’t get much of value out of it.
akho 1y ago
For a certain definition of information, its net volume and availability on the internet has been declining for quite a while. There is a growth of bytes with zero information content (ai slop, influencer video, ...), worse discovery tools (search is dead), and outright negative information (political disinformation, ads). Net value tends negative. Attention is still being consumed.

12_throw_away 1y ago

I accidentally turned off my adblocker on youtube today, and I immediately got 2 ads, both of which were AI deepfakes of some celebrities selling "supplements" of dubious legality. So, um, is this what internet ads are now? Because even if it weren't "ok" to block these ads, I'm sure as shit going to keep blocking them.

orwin 1y ago
Happenned two days ago for me, the rule to block shorts from appearing in my feed caught a bit too much, and I mistakenly deactivated ublock while trying to refine them. YouTube ads are terrifying. Probably others are to, but my opinion to avoid any product showed on internet if possible is vindicated. How can I trust an Axe ad if it's advertised side by side with an obvious scam?
- DanielHB 1y ago
  I actually use a full blown desktop computer as media center specifically because it can run adblock (and games). I got one of those "fly-mouses" (like a wii-remote pointer to control the mouse cursor), works really well and it is nice to be able to pull a wireless mouse+keyboard when you want to do more complex things. We often use our TV to plan trips using google maps or do some planning using excel sheets with this setup.

Leynos 1y ago

Mate, you've had since 1995 to come up with a functioning micropayments system, and you're unhappy that I am not requesting every image referenced by your web page? I think that we are long past the point where we can safely say that this is a "you" problem.

honeybadger1 1y ago

every website that stops me from viewing it because i am blocking ads will never get a visit from me again. i don't watch television because of unavoidable advertisements. i will never accept advertisements as anything other than deception.

bee_rider 1y ago
I have a lot more respect for pages that block me outright than those that try to circumvent my blocking or whine about it. The standard on the internet is that people send what they want and the recipients render it however they want. That’s how it’s always been, and how it always will be. That includes the possibility that they won’t want to send me anything. But once it is sent, it is my bits in my RAM, to do with what I will.

lelandbatey 1y ago

Applying ads to the real world makes it clear: blocking ads is always ok. If you were given free pizza and a stack of ad flyers, do you have to read the ads? Do you have to even acknowledge them? Can you accept the free food while putting the flyers directly in the trash? Obviously yes you would toss those ads in the garbage, because what fool would give away food and expect you to look at ads in exchange? So it is with ads online: their business model is not your responsibility and you can ignore stuff (even automatically) if you want, they're your eyes.

h4kunamata 1y ago

It isn't just okay but mandatory! 2015, 10 years later things got so much worse, only know some minority are realising all the problems behind an AD. With the rise of privacy being breached by American companies and now AI, the way we deal with technology should change altogether. Basics first, if you only use your PC to access the internet, YouTube, office/excel(LibreOffice) and alike, Mint Cinnamon Linux to replace Windows. No money wasted with licensing and its AI flooding you with ADs Android and iPhone are such major issue with targeted ADs, GrapheneOS running on Pixel phones are the only way to have a phone and life without having all your personal life leaked, plus ADs. At home, I run Pihole + Unbound as recursive DNS, OPNSense to force all the DNS traffic to them, and WireGuard to connect to home when I am out. Pihole blocked traffic goes brrrrrrrrrrr If people knew how much crappy their phones, Windows/Mac PCs are sending out to Microsof, Apple, Meta, Google, etc, to be exchanged into targeted ADs, people would lose their mind lmao

DanielHB 1y ago
I has gotten better security-wise at least, malicious ads can't infect your OS anymore just by being loaded. The browser sandbox is much more secure these days.
- lrvick 1y ago
  If we do not count the multiple sandbox escape vulnerabilities that happen every year, sure. https://issues.chromium.org/issues/405143032 https://issues.chromium.org/issues/405143032
- h4kunamata 1y ago
  I run Linux only at home and all my devices including WiFi6 router. That alone prevents you from getting malicious thing, you only get a Linux system infected if you have zero common sense. The way how the permissions work on Linux prevents that from happening unless an user did an user thing. With Windows, all you need to get malicious crappy is to use Windows. When the system itself is collecting sensitive information aka Microsoft Recall. You cannot access the internet, have VIRTUALLY no problems with virus AND have privacy while using Windows. That is like saying you have an umbrella with a EF5 tornado passing by.

npc_anon 1y ago

People block ads and/or not pay for content because they can. Simply because it's possible. People have been conditioned to consider any and all digital content to be worth zero. Yet continue to consume it for hours on end every day. When not paying at all is an option people will reliably pick that option. They'll even go into extremes to avoid paying. I know somebody that plays a particular mobile game about an hour each day. Every round (taking 90s or so) it's interrupted by 1-3 mins of ads. It's maddening. She suffers through this instead of paying a one-time $4.99. We're talking about somebody firmly upper middle class.

jen20 1y ago
Many things do not give you that option, and the ads are obnoxious and invasive to privacy. If that is the only option, you will get nothing from me, and your ads will be blocked. Furthermore if there is a content subscription involved, I will only ever consider it via Apple because I refuse to risk having to telephone someone to cancel something I signed up for online. The well has been poisoned by an obnoxious industry and that industry is unlikely to ever gain even a modicum of respectability.
- npc_anon 1y ago
  You're just retrofitting reasons to justify the behavior I describe. Forget about those reasons. They don't matter. They can have merit or not, it's irrelevant. Because the behavior takes place regardless. When people can legally avoid paying for something whilst still consuming it, they'll do that. The idea that if only ads were more privacy-friendly people would not block them or start paying for content at any scale is laughable. They won't. When there's a free path, people take that path.
  - jmholla 1y ago
    Then why do people pay for services like Spotify, Netflix, and other subscriptions when they have the ability to pirate? Further, ads are often sold as a way to keep access "free".
1y ago

amadeuspagel 1y ago

This is one of the many cases where the dishonest rationalization of a selfish act is worse then the act itself. I block ads because it's convenient, but I don't deny that I'm free-riding on websites that only exist because other people view ads, I don't pollute our shared understanding of ethics, economics and the web with some bullshit rationalization of something I only do because it's convenient.

ndriscoll 1y ago
The FBI literally suggested people block ads to avoid being defrauded. My understanding of the web was that it was first and foremost a non-commercial space, and spammers have always been impinging on that. Blocking their nonsense has always been the correct course of action. In the case of children, I actually strongly believe it is immoral to allow then to be inundated with ads. It runs completely counter to teaching them virtues like temperance. It is not just "convenient" but an actual moral imperative to keep them away from those who would push consumerism onto them. This has only become more obvious as climate change worsens as the top problem they will inherit, or as we see 70% of adults in the US now destroying their bodies with disordered eating while still ubiquitous ads encourage them to continue. Ads are a blight. Allowing them to reach the next generation is somewhere between neglect and abuse. So no, your idea of these things is not "our shared understanding".
- amadeuspagel 1y ago
  The web is not one space, it's a protocol for everyone to have their own space. Someone putting ads on their own website is not spamming.
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    In the sense that someone sending you a surprise crypto miner with their webpage or bundling a botnet trojan into a program they give you is just them putting it on their own space, sure. If they send it to me though, my security software will promptly filter it out or otherwise not allow it to run. My firewall will block connections to their known-dodgey payload hosts from all computers on my network. My computer is not for running someone's miner, and that's not the intended purpose of allowing scripting. Likewise, my screen is not for displaying ads; it's an abuse of scriptable documents that gets filtered out. Opening a web page doesn't create some obligation to run malware. fwiw making an offline analogy, I also live in a city where outdoor advertising signs are generally banned (with some exceptions like saying the land is for sale, or small ground-level signs with height/width restrictions at an entrance indicating which businesses are on a lot), so even on their own land/their own space, businesses putting up things like billboards would be spam and disallowed.