12 ms·

> this is why I run ad blockers. It's pretty wild that we live in a world where the actual FBI has recommended we use ad blockers to protect ourselves, and if

> this is why I run ad blockers. It's pretty wild that we live in a world where the actual FBI has recommended we use ad blockers to protect ourselves, and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. The FBI is like "you should protect yourself from the way that the third largest company in the world does business", and the average person's response is "nah, that would take at least a couple of minutes of my time, I'll just go ahead and continue to suffer with invasive ads and make sure $GOOG keeps going up".

j45 6mo ago
Ad blockers focus on ads, not fingerprinting.
- mewmewblobcat 6mo ago
  Depends on what lists you use. If you use uBlock Origin, and enable most of the lists, it'll target both.
  - j45 6mo ago
    Go try it with fingerprint.com. Even post-sanitization, pi-hole, you name it, it will be surprising.
    - streetfighter64 6mo ago
      fingerprint.com seems to be some fingerprinting vendor, they don't even offer a demo without logging in. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org https://coveryourtracks.eff.org is EFFs demo site is non-profit and doesn't require login
      - iso1631 6mo ago
        coveryoutracks always tells me I'm unique Which is concerning. Until you realise I do the same thing a few days later and I'm still unique.
        mrguyorama 6mo ago
        It tells you that you have a unique fingerprint. It is not telling you that the test site has never seen you before, because the eff isn't storing your fingerprint for later analysis and tracking It could actually tell you about which real tracking vendors are showing you as "Seen and tracked" so it's pretty annoying they don't do that. If that site shows you as having a unique fingerprint, I guarantee you are being tracked across the web. I've seen the actual systems in usage, not the sales pitch. I've seen how effective these tools are, and I haven't even gotten a look at what Google or Facebook have internally. Even no name vendors that don't own the internet can easily track you across any site that integrates with them. The fingerprint is just a set of signals that tracking providers are using to follow you across the internet. It's per machine for the most part, but if you have ever purchased something on the internet, some of the providers involved will have information like your name. Here is what Google asks ecommerce platforms to send them as part of a Fraud Prevention integration using Recaptcha: https://docs.cloud.google.com/recaptcha/docs/reference/rest/v1/projects.assessments#TransactionData https://docs.cloud.google.com/recaptcha/docs/reference/rest/...
        iso1631 6mo ago
        It must store the fingerprints to determine if I'm unique, otherwise everyone would be unique. If it doesn't store the fingerprints then how does it tell the difference between 5 identical looking browsers connecting from 5 different IPs 1 browser connecting 5 times from 5 different IPs
        streetfighter64 6mo ago
        > the EFF isn't storing your fingerprint for later analysis and tracking Yes they are, quoting that very page: > Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 312,935 tested in the past 45 days So clearly they store the information for at least 45 days. This raises the question what they actually mean by unique. If I change my IP and re-test, I get the same > Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 312,941 tested in the past 45 days So does that mean that my fingerprint changed, and they can't track me anymore? Or do they mean to tell me that they still track me and I'm still as uniquely identified. Their methodology and linked articles does not seem to answer this [0] [1] It's all very complicated, because the fingerprinting needs to be unique enough to identify you while still being "persistent" enough not to identify you as somebody else if you change just one bit of it. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-theory-and-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-the... [1] https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/about https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/about
      - KeshiaRose 6mo ago
        This is the Fingerprint demo page (the page itself is a demo): https://fingerprint.com/demo https://fingerprint.com/demo There's also https://demo.fingerprint.com https://demo.fingerprint.com for use case specific demos and more detail on the API response.
      - Fogest 6mo ago
        I have a lot of browser extensions running and am using Brave as my browser. I have their built in adblocker enabled as well as some of their privacy features turned on in the settings. I am also using a self hosted adblock instance for my DNS servers. I actually appear as random and not unique which is really nice to see. I know Brave does intentionally lean on some of the privacy side of things and it also has options to specifically prevent sites from fingerprinting by blocking things like seeing language preferences. I have to assume it is also doing some things in the backend to try and prevent other fingerprinting methods.
  - Scoundreller 6mo ago
    > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser I thought uBlock Origin was now dead in Chrome? I remember a few hacks to keep it going but have now migrated to Firefox (or sometimes Edge…) to keep using it.
    - ronjouch 6mo ago
      Full uBlock Origin is dead in Chrome, yes, but https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home is the next best thing if you cannot leave Chrome
      - idbnstra 6mo ago
        or Vivaldi is chrome based, and it supports full uBlock Origin. If you don't need CHROME chrome, that's even better imo
    - qilo 6mo ago
      Surprisingly full uBO still works on Chrome 146 if launched with the argument --disable-features=ExtensionManifestV2Unsupported
  - big_toast 6mo ago
    According to the EFF fingerprinting website, Firefox + uBlock Origin didn't really make my browser particularly unique. But turning on privacy.resistfingerprinting in about:config (or was it fingerprintingProtection?) would break things randomly (like 3D maps on google for me. maybe it's related to canvas API stuff?) and made it hard to remember why things weren't working. Not really sure how to strike a balance of broad convenience vs effectiveness these days. Every additional hoop is more attrition.
  - dcdc123 6mo ago
    I use uBlock Origin with basically every filter list enabled on Brave with their default blocker enabled. I just confirmed that this does not prevent the script from loading and scanning extensions. The browser tools network tab on LinkedIn is absolutely frightening.
    - autoexec 6mo ago
      NoScript will prevent that script from loading and scanning extensions. JS is required for almost all fingerprinting and malware spread via websites. Keeping it disabled, at least by default, is the best thing you can do to protect yourself.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- ronjouch 6mo ago
  "Ad blockers" nowadays do much more. From the horse’s mouth, which describes itself as a “wide-spectrum content blocker” [1]: “uBlock Origin (uBO) is a CPU and memory-efficient wide-spectrum content blocker for Chromium and Firefox. It blocks ads, trackers, coin miners, popups, annoying anti-blockers, malware sites, etc., by default using EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's Blocklist, Online Malicious URL Blocklist, and uBO filter lists. There are many other lists available to block even more [...] Ads, "unintrusive" or not, are just the visible portion of the privacy-invading means entering your browser when you visit most sites. uBO's primary goal is to help users neutralize these privacy-invading methods in a way that welcomes those users who do not wish to use more technical means.” [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock?tab=readme-ov-file#ublock-origin-ubo https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock?tab=readme-ov-file#ublock-...
  - newsoftheday 6mo ago
    I'd like to install uBlock Origin, when I try, Chrome warns it needs the permission to, "Read and change all your data on all websites". That seems excessive, to give that much power to one extension. I currently use no extensions to keep my security posture high.
    - garciansmith 6mo ago
      I never get the fear behind extensions, at least not to the level where you wouldn't use an open-source extension that's extremely well vetted. And even if that isn't good enough for you, choosing to browse the web without using a content blocker is a far, far greater security risk.
    - nickburns 6mo ago
      https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Permissions https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Permissions https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Can-you-trust-uBlock-Origin%3F https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Can-you-trust-uBlock-... https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Privacy-policy https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Privacy-policy https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don't-you-accept-donations%3F https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don't-you-accept-...
- throwawayq3423 6mo ago
  https://brave.com/privacy-updates/28-sunsetting-strict-fingerprinting-mode/ https://brave.com/privacy-updates/28-sunsetting-strict-finge...
- autoexec 6mo ago
  Disable JS and you've eliminated the vast majority of fingerprinting (besides "blocks JS")
  - j45 6mo ago
    alternatively, css can script quite a bit... :)
    - autoexec 6mo ago
      No joke, CSS has gotten out of hand!
unmole 6mo ago
> and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. Would it really? It seems to me that most normal users spend most of their time and attention on apps, not in browsers.
fallinditch 6mo ago
I asked an LLM to create a plan for a 'digital rebirth' in order to minimize privacy harms. It's a lot of work, but increasingly: a worthwhile endeavor.
- amlib 6mo ago
  Might as well have asked a bottomless pit to do the same and get a better result from all the reverberations inside your empty head.
nickvec 6mo ago
Majority of people use their mobile devices these days to browse the Internet. Installing an ad blocker on your iPhone is a significantly bigger challenge than on desktop.
- SirHumphrey 6mo ago
  It’s becoming easier on iPhone (even uBlock origini is now available, if only the lite version), which is nice because internet is becoming more and more unusable without them.
- Rychard 6mo ago
  Firefox on Android supports it without any issue. That would cover a significant enough segment of the population that it might encourage actual change in the industry if people started moving to that platform.
  - Xirdus 6mo ago
    Firefox on Android has approximately 0.5% market share on mobile, less than Opera. I really doubt it's enough to spark any sort of industry-wide change.
    - Rychard 6mo ago
      I'm not saying that Firefox on Android has significant market share; rather that Android has significant market share, and those users could be served by switching to Firefox solely for the purpose of using an adblocker. If all Android users did this, something would change.
      - account42 5mo ago
        > something would change Google would make it harder to install Firefox? Like they are already doing with anything not on their approved list?
    - Forgeties79 6mo ago
i_love_retros 6mo ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 6mo ago
  Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- pluralmonad 6mo ago
  When has infantilizing adults resulted in positive outcomes? What if the group of idiots decide you're the idiot and start making decisions for your own good?
- lstodd 6mo ago
  > the state is a corrupt cesspool. Exactly because no one in his right mind is going to work in "state". So the "state" is more like 95% "fucking idiots" as you put it, and that is self-reinforcing.
- throwawayq3423 6mo ago
  I'm curious what protection by the state do you think Americans receive?
  - i_love_retros 6mo ago
    None because it's a corrupt cesspool?
- IAmBroom 6mo ago
  Nihilist blathering sounds cool.
surajrmal 6mo ago
Don't worry, soon you'll need to pay every website 5.99 a month because AI is destroying click through rates. The internet will likely be far worse without ads than with ads. Solving the tracking problem doesn't need to be mixed up with blocking ads outright. What's funny is that tracking isn't nearly as meaningful for click through rates on ads as relevance to what's on the page, and yet so much effort is placed onto tracking for the slim improvement it provides.
- mrkeen 6mo ago
  No company would treat it as either-or. If websites could charge 5.99/month, they would. If a website was charging 5.99/month, they would not stop spying on you.
- toomuchtodo 6mo ago
  I would rather pay people and websites for content. I already do this today for journalism orgs and a handful of high value substacks, I'm happy to pay for more. I'd pay for HN. Free does not scale (with the caveat being orgs like Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, and others who have an endowment behind them and can self fund alongside donations; this, of course, is a model others can adopt), people need to eat, pay for rent, etc, and ads are ineffective when everyone can block them. Ads are a symptom of the problem that people want human generated content for free; they either do not value the content enough to pay for it, or cannot afford it. Ads do not solve for those problems.
  - jamespo 6mo ago
    Sadly you are atypical and the vast majority are freeloaders, who even without ads or tracking will try and find another way not to pay.
    - account42 5mo ago
      Freeloaders like all the ad-supported platforms that rely on free "content" created by the users?
    - deleted 6mo ago
phplovesong 6mo ago
YT made sure adblockers ruin the experience. We really need a good YT alternative, as it has become AI slop (shorts) and most new videos are of real poor quality.
- Gagarin1917 6mo ago
  You’re not going to get a YT alternative if it can’t make money with ads.
  - jditu 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - hackable_sand 6mo ago
    Ooh this one's easy Nebula
meroes 6mo ago
It’s worse than that. My mom wants to see ads. I thought I was doing her a favor adding her to my pihole but she really likes ads, especially Facebook ads.
xboxnolifes 6mo ago
The crazier part is that its an official government position, and we (people at large / the government) aren't immediately slapping down the actions of these companies.
integralid 6mo ago
>the average person's response is "nah, that would take at least a couple of minutes of my time, As a data point I, a technical person who tweaks his computer a lot, was against adblocking for moral reasons (as a part of perceived social contract, where internet is free because of ads). Only later I changed mi mind on this because I became more privacy aware.
- whynotmaybe 6mo ago
  Duckduckgo is free and with ads.
- ACow_Adonis 6mo ago
  You mean the internet you pay to access and which was around before the ads were even on it? That internet? I'm not trying to be mean I'm just trying to historically parse your sentence/belief. Because for me this is a simplified analogy of what happened on the internet: a) we opened a club house called the internet in the early 1990s, just after the time of BBSs b) a few years later a new guy called commercial business turned up and started using our club house and fucking around with our stuff c) commercial business started going around our club house rearranging the furniture and putting graffiti everywhere saying the internet is here and free because of it. We're pretty sure it might have even pissed in the hallway rather than use the toilet and the whole place is smelling awful. d) the rest of us started breaking out the scrubbing brushes and mops (ad blockers, extensions, VPNs, etc) trying to clean up after it e) some of its friends turned up and started repeating something about social contracts and how business and ads built this internet place f) the rest of us keep crying into our hands just trying to meet up, break out the slop buckets to clean up the vomit in the kitchen and some of us now have to wear gloves and condoms just to share things with our friends and stop the whole place collapsing
  - brokencode 6mo ago
    I mean yeah, you pay for the internet. But many sites are free to use only due to ads. Such as news and magazine sites, many of which are actively dying due to a lack of revenue. I personally wish these sites could all switch to paid models, because I also don’t like ads. But absent that, I’d like to support the sites I use so that they don’t go out of business.
mcmcmc 6mo ago
The FBI also recommended people use commercial VPNs… coincidentally they don’t need a warrant to spy on communications that leave the country
- autoexec 6mo ago
  It's probably better to let them spy on your highly encrypted traffic going overseas than use a US based service considering that they can march into any US company and start collecting every bit of data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)
SoftTalker 6mo ago
Every browser should have ad blocking technology included and enabled by default. I do not understand why Apple in particular has not pushed this with Safari, as they like to portray that they care about privacy. I get why Chrome doesn't, and that's why you should not use it. But Netscape? Edge? What is stopping them? Browsing the web without an ad blocker is a miserable experience. Users who have never tried or don't know how to set one up would be delighted.
- MidnightRider39 6mo ago
  At least with Chrome i can use ublock - not so with safari. The best browser is ofc Firefox but everyone seems to have forgotten that bc of bad publicity or whatever
  - gzread 6mo ago
    The best browser is either Waterfox or Librewolf since they're Firefox-based but don't steal your data or claim copyright on it.
    - MidnightRider39 6mo ago
      It would be news to me that Firefox steals data or claims copyright on my data - do you have anything concrete to back that up?
      - gzread 6mo ago
        It was their terms of service change at the start of 2025. It caused quite a shitstorm.
        MidnightRider39 6mo ago
        So essentially a bunch of noise that didnt really mean anything concrete?
stronglikedan 6mo ago
> the average person's response is ... I'll just go ahead and continue to suffer with invasive ads The real reason is that the average person neither suffers with ads nor finds ads invasive, despite what a vocal online minority would have you believe. We just ignore them and get on with life. ::shrug::
- chickensong 6mo ago
  Ignoring (post-impact) and moving on is the natural thing to do, but it seems like a stretch to imply that the average person neither suffers or finds ads invasive. The suffering isn't acute, it's death by a thousand cuts as your mind erodes into a twitchy mess. Look at the comment section of a nice youtube video and see people outraged at getting blasted with an ad at the wrong moment. Most people don't like ads, but we love the stimulation of the screen more so we suffer them, regardless of the damage done.
  - bookofjoe 6mo ago
    >... it seems like a stretch to imply that the average person neither suffers or finds ads invasive. The average person has never heard of HN. It isn't the case that the average person's experience with today's internet ads is that of having their "... mind erode[s] into a twitchy mess." The average person doesn't look at the comment section of a nice YouTube video. >Most [HN] people don't like ads.... Most people don't suffer — at least not consciously — as a result of ads.
    - chickensong 6mo ago
      I don't know why you're inserting HN into it? We're talking about average people, not nerds with ad-blockers. Are you suggesting that the average person enjoys being interrupted with ads? > It isn't the case that the average person's experience with today's internet ads is that of having their "... mind erode[s] into a twitchy mess." Perhaps I was a bit dramatic with my wording, but my point still stands. Since you're flatly denying it, perhaps you have some references? As far as I can tell, all signs are pointing to widespread ADHD increases correlated to computer use, which may not be directly tied to ads exclusively, it stands to reason that they're big offenders given their nature of being short, attention-grabbing, context-breaking, non-interactive engagements. There's plenty of studies that support this. > The average person doesn't look at the comment section of a nice YouTube video. Um, really? > Most people don't suffer — at least not consciously — as a result of ads. My point was it's death by a thousand cuts, boiling the frog, etc. The average attention span has been cut in half over the last 20 years. Also, I'd argue that sensitive people who may already be mentally stressed, which seems to be a growing group, might actually suffer in the short term or immediately. You've made some strong statements, but I'm having a hard time buying them.

j45 6mo ago

Ad blockers focus on ads, not fingerprinting.

mewmewblobcat 6mo ago
Depends on what lists you use. If you use uBlock Origin, and enable most of the lists, it'll target both.
- j45 6mo ago
  Go try it with fingerprint.com. Even post-sanitization, pi-hole, you name it, it will be surprising.
  - streetfighter64 6mo ago
    fingerprint.com seems to be some fingerprinting vendor, they don't even offer a demo without logging in. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org https://coveryourtracks.eff.org is EFFs demo site is non-profit and doesn't require login
    - iso1631 6mo ago
      coveryoutracks always tells me I'm unique Which is concerning. Until you realise I do the same thing a few days later and I'm still unique.
      - mrguyorama 6mo ago
        It tells you that you have a unique fingerprint. It is not telling you that the test site has never seen you before, because the eff isn't storing your fingerprint for later analysis and tracking It could actually tell you about which real tracking vendors are showing you as "Seen and tracked" so it's pretty annoying they don't do that. If that site shows you as having a unique fingerprint, I guarantee you are being tracked across the web. I've seen the actual systems in usage, not the sales pitch. I've seen how effective these tools are, and I haven't even gotten a look at what Google or Facebook have internally. Even no name vendors that don't own the internet can easily track you across any site that integrates with them. The fingerprint is just a set of signals that tracking providers are using to follow you across the internet. It's per machine for the most part, but if you have ever purchased something on the internet, some of the providers involved will have information like your name. Here is what Google asks ecommerce platforms to send them as part of a Fraud Prevention integration using Recaptcha: https://docs.cloud.google.com/recaptcha/docs/reference/rest/v1/projects.assessments#TransactionData https://docs.cloud.google.com/recaptcha/docs/reference/rest/...
        iso1631 6mo ago
        It must store the fingerprints to determine if I'm unique, otherwise everyone would be unique. If it doesn't store the fingerprints then how does it tell the difference between 5 identical looking browsers connecting from 5 different IPs 1 browser connecting 5 times from 5 different IPs
        streetfighter64 6mo ago
        > the EFF isn't storing your fingerprint for later analysis and tracking Yes they are, quoting that very page: > Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 312,935 tested in the past 45 days So clearly they store the information for at least 45 days. This raises the question what they actually mean by unique. If I change my IP and re-test, I get the same > Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 312,941 tested in the past 45 days So does that mean that my fingerprint changed, and they can't track me anymore? Or do they mean to tell me that they still track me and I'm still as uniquely identified. Their methodology and linked articles does not seem to answer this [0] [1] It's all very complicated, because the fingerprinting needs to be unique enough to identify you while still being "persistent" enough not to identify you as somebody else if you change just one bit of it. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-theory-and-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-the... [1] https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/about https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/about
    - KeshiaRose 6mo ago
      This is the Fingerprint demo page (the page itself is a demo): https://fingerprint.com/demo https://fingerprint.com/demo There's also https://demo.fingerprint.com https://demo.fingerprint.com for use case specific demos and more detail on the API response.
    - Fogest 6mo ago
      I have a lot of browser extensions running and am using Brave as my browser. I have their built in adblocker enabled as well as some of their privacy features turned on in the settings. I am also using a self hosted adblock instance for my DNS servers. I actually appear as random and not unique which is really nice to see. I know Brave does intentionally lean on some of the privacy side of things and it also has options to specifically prevent sites from fingerprinting by blocking things like seeing language preferences. I have to assume it is also doing some things in the backend to try and prevent other fingerprinting methods.
- Scoundreller 6mo ago
  > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser I thought uBlock Origin was now dead in Chrome? I remember a few hacks to keep it going but have now migrated to Firefox (or sometimes Edge…) to keep using it.
  - ronjouch 6mo ago
    Full uBlock Origin is dead in Chrome, yes, but https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home is the next best thing if you cannot leave Chrome
    - idbnstra 6mo ago
      or Vivaldi is chrome based, and it supports full uBlock Origin. If you don't need CHROME chrome, that's even better imo
  - qilo 6mo ago
    Surprisingly full uBO still works on Chrome 146 if launched with the argument --disable-features=ExtensionManifestV2Unsupported
- big_toast 6mo ago
  According to the EFF fingerprinting website, Firefox + uBlock Origin didn't really make my browser particularly unique. But turning on privacy.resistfingerprinting in about:config (or was it fingerprintingProtection?) would break things randomly (like 3D maps on google for me. maybe it's related to canvas API stuff?) and made it hard to remember why things weren't working. Not really sure how to strike a balance of broad convenience vs effectiveness these days. Every additional hoop is more attrition.
- dcdc123 6mo ago
  I use uBlock Origin with basically every filter list enabled on Brave with their default blocker enabled. I just confirmed that this does not prevent the script from loading and scanning extensions. The browser tools network tab on LinkedIn is absolutely frightening.
  - autoexec 6mo ago
    NoScript will prevent that script from loading and scanning extensions. JS is required for almost all fingerprinting and malware spread via websites. Keeping it disabled, at least by default, is the best thing you can do to protect yourself.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
ronjouch 6mo ago
"Ad blockers" nowadays do much more. From the horse’s mouth, which describes itself as a “wide-spectrum content blocker” [1]: “uBlock Origin (uBO) is a CPU and memory-efficient wide-spectrum content blocker for Chromium and Firefox. It blocks ads, trackers, coin miners, popups, annoying anti-blockers, malware sites, etc., by default using EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's Blocklist, Online Malicious URL Blocklist, and uBO filter lists. There are many other lists available to block even more [...] Ads, "unintrusive" or not, are just the visible portion of the privacy-invading means entering your browser when you visit most sites. uBO's primary goal is to help users neutralize these privacy-invading methods in a way that welcomes those users who do not wish to use more technical means.” [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock?tab=readme-ov-file#ublock-origin-ubo https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock?tab=readme-ov-file#ublock-...
- newsoftheday 6mo ago
  I'd like to install uBlock Origin, when I try, Chrome warns it needs the permission to, "Read and change all your data on all websites". That seems excessive, to give that much power to one extension. I currently use no extensions to keep my security posture high.
  - garciansmith 6mo ago
    I never get the fear behind extensions, at least not to the level where you wouldn't use an open-source extension that's extremely well vetted. And even if that isn't good enough for you, choosing to browse the web without using a content blocker is a far, far greater security risk.
  - nickburns 6mo ago
    https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Permissions https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Permissions https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Can-you-trust-uBlock-Origin%3F https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Can-you-trust-uBlock-... https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Privacy-policy https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Privacy-policy https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don't-you-accept-donations%3F https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don't-you-accept-...
throwawayq3423 6mo ago
https://brave.com/privacy-updates/28-sunsetting-strict-fingerprinting-mode/ https://brave.com/privacy-updates/28-sunsetting-strict-finge...
autoexec 6mo ago
Disable JS and you've eliminated the vast majority of fingerprinting (besides "blocks JS")
- j45 6mo ago
  alternatively, css can script quite a bit... :)
  - autoexec 6mo ago
    No joke, CSS has gotten out of hand!

unmole 6mo ago

> and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. Would it really? It seems to me that most normal users spend most of their time and attention on apps, not in browsers.

fallinditch 6mo ago

I asked an LLM to create a plan for a 'digital rebirth' in order to minimize privacy harms. It's a lot of work, but increasingly: a worthwhile endeavor.

amlib 6mo ago
Might as well have asked a bottomless pit to do the same and get a better result from all the reverberations inside your empty head.

nickvec 6mo ago

Majority of people use their mobile devices these days to browse the Internet. Installing an ad blocker on your iPhone is a significantly bigger challenge than on desktop.

SirHumphrey 6mo ago
It’s becoming easier on iPhone (even uBlock origini is now available, if only the lite version), which is nice because internet is becoming more and more unusable without them.
Rychard 6mo ago
Firefox on Android supports it without any issue. That would cover a significant enough segment of the population that it might encourage actual change in the industry if people started moving to that platform.
- Xirdus 6mo ago
  Firefox on Android has approximately 0.5% market share on mobile, less than Opera. I really doubt it's enough to spark any sort of industry-wide change.
  - Rychard 6mo ago
    I'm not saying that Firefox on Android has significant market share; rather that Android has significant market share, and those users could be served by switching to Firefox solely for the purpose of using an adblocker. If all Android users did this, something would change.
    - account42 5mo ago
      > something would change Google would make it harder to install Firefox? Like they are already doing with anything not on their approved list?
  - Forgeties79 6mo ago

i_love_retros 6mo ago

[flagged]

tomhow 6mo ago
Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
pluralmonad 6mo ago
When has infantilizing adults resulted in positive outcomes? What if the group of idiots decide you're the idiot and start making decisions for your own good?
lstodd 6mo ago
> the state is a corrupt cesspool. Exactly because no one in his right mind is going to work in "state". So the "state" is more like 95% "fucking idiots" as you put it, and that is self-reinforcing.
throwawayq3423 6mo ago
I'm curious what protection by the state do you think Americans receive?
- i_love_retros 6mo ago
  None because it's a corrupt cesspool?
IAmBroom 6mo ago
Nihilist blathering sounds cool.

surajrmal 6mo ago

Don't worry, soon you'll need to pay every website 5.99 a month because AI is destroying click through rates. The internet will likely be far worse without ads than with ads. Solving the tracking problem doesn't need to be mixed up with blocking ads outright. What's funny is that tracking isn't nearly as meaningful for click through rates on ads as relevance to what's on the page, and yet so much effort is placed onto tracking for the slim improvement it provides.

mrkeen 6mo ago
No company would treat it as either-or. If websites could charge 5.99/month, they would. If a website was charging 5.99/month, they would not stop spying on you.
toomuchtodo 6mo ago
I would rather pay people and websites for content. I already do this today for journalism orgs and a handful of high value substacks, I'm happy to pay for more. I'd pay for HN. Free does not scale (with the caveat being orgs like Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, and others who have an endowment behind them and can self fund alongside donations; this, of course, is a model others can adopt), people need to eat, pay for rent, etc, and ads are ineffective when everyone can block them. Ads are a symptom of the problem that people want human generated content for free; they either do not value the content enough to pay for it, or cannot afford it. Ads do not solve for those problems.
- jamespo 6mo ago
  Sadly you are atypical and the vast majority are freeloaders, who even without ads or tracking will try and find another way not to pay.
  - account42 5mo ago
    Freeloaders like all the ad-supported platforms that rely on free "content" created by the users?
  - deleted 6mo ago

phplovesong 6mo ago

YT made sure adblockers ruin the experience. We really need a good YT alternative, as it has become AI slop (shorts) and most new videos are of real poor quality.

Gagarin1917 6mo ago
You’re not going to get a YT alternative if it can’t make money with ads.
- jditu 6mo ago
  [dead]
- hackable_sand 6mo ago
  Ooh this one's easy Nebula

meroes 6mo ago

It’s worse than that. My mom wants to see ads. I thought I was doing her a favor adding her to my pihole but she really likes ads, especially Facebook ads.

xboxnolifes 6mo ago

The crazier part is that its an official government position, and we (people at large / the government) aren't immediately slapping down the actions of these companies.

integralid 6mo ago

>the average person's response is "nah, that would take at least a couple of minutes of my time, As a data point I, a technical person who tweaks his computer a lot, was against adblocking for moral reasons (as a part of perceived social contract, where internet is free because of ads). Only later I changed mi mind on this because I became more privacy aware.

whynotmaybe 6mo ago
Duckduckgo is free and with ads.
ACow_Adonis 6mo ago
You mean the internet you pay to access and which was around before the ads were even on it? That internet? I'm not trying to be mean I'm just trying to historically parse your sentence/belief. Because for me this is a simplified analogy of what happened on the internet: a) we opened a club house called the internet in the early 1990s, just after the time of BBSs b) a few years later a new guy called commercial business turned up and started using our club house and fucking around with our stuff c) commercial business started going around our club house rearranging the furniture and putting graffiti everywhere saying the internet is here and free because of it. We're pretty sure it might have even pissed in the hallway rather than use the toilet and the whole place is smelling awful. d) the rest of us started breaking out the scrubbing brushes and mops (ad blockers, extensions, VPNs, etc) trying to clean up after it e) some of its friends turned up and started repeating something about social contracts and how business and ads built this internet place f) the rest of us keep crying into our hands just trying to meet up, break out the slop buckets to clean up the vomit in the kitchen and some of us now have to wear gloves and condoms just to share things with our friends and stop the whole place collapsing
- brokencode 6mo ago
  I mean yeah, you pay for the internet. But many sites are free to use only due to ads. Such as news and magazine sites, many of which are actively dying due to a lack of revenue. I personally wish these sites could all switch to paid models, because I also don’t like ads. But absent that, I’d like to support the sites I use so that they don’t go out of business.

mcmcmc 6mo ago

The FBI also recommended people use commercial VPNs… coincidentally they don’t need a warrant to spy on communications that leave the country

autoexec 6mo ago
It's probably better to let them spy on your highly encrypted traffic going overseas than use a US based service considering that they can march into any US company and start collecting every bit of data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

SoftTalker 6mo ago

Every browser should have ad blocking technology included and enabled by default. I do not understand why Apple in particular has not pushed this with Safari, as they like to portray that they care about privacy. I get why Chrome doesn't, and that's why you should not use it. But Netscape? Edge? What is stopping them? Browsing the web without an ad blocker is a miserable experience. Users who have never tried or don't know how to set one up would be delighted.

MidnightRider39 6mo ago
At least with Chrome i can use ublock - not so with safari. The best browser is ofc Firefox but everyone seems to have forgotten that bc of bad publicity or whatever
- gzread 6mo ago
  The best browser is either Waterfox or Librewolf since they're Firefox-based but don't steal your data or claim copyright on it.
  - MidnightRider39 6mo ago
    It would be news to me that Firefox steals data or claims copyright on my data - do you have anything concrete to back that up?
    - gzread 6mo ago
      It was their terms of service change at the start of 2025. It caused quite a shitstorm.
      - MidnightRider39 6mo ago
        So essentially a bunch of noise that didnt really mean anything concrete?

stronglikedan 6mo ago

> the average person's response is ... I'll just go ahead and continue to suffer with invasive ads The real reason is that the average person neither suffers with ads nor finds ads invasive, despite what a vocal online minority would have you believe. We just ignore them and get on with life. ::shrug::

chickensong 6mo ago
Ignoring (post-impact) and moving on is the natural thing to do, but it seems like a stretch to imply that the average person neither suffers or finds ads invasive. The suffering isn't acute, it's death by a thousand cuts as your mind erodes into a twitchy mess. Look at the comment section of a nice youtube video and see people outraged at getting blasted with an ad at the wrong moment. Most people don't like ads, but we love the stimulation of the screen more so we suffer them, regardless of the damage done.
- bookofjoe 6mo ago
  >... it seems like a stretch to imply that the average person neither suffers or finds ads invasive. The average person has never heard of HN. It isn't the case that the average person's experience with today's internet ads is that of having their "... mind erode[s] into a twitchy mess." The average person doesn't look at the comment section of a nice YouTube video. >Most [HN] people don't like ads.... Most people don't suffer — at least not consciously — as a result of ads.
  - chickensong 6mo ago
    I don't know why you're inserting HN into it? We're talking about average people, not nerds with ad-blockers. Are you suggesting that the average person enjoys being interrupted with ads? > It isn't the case that the average person's experience with today's internet ads is that of having their "... mind erode[s] into a twitchy mess." Perhaps I was a bit dramatic with my wording, but my point still stands. Since you're flatly denying it, perhaps you have some references? As far as I can tell, all signs are pointing to widespread ADHD increases correlated to computer use, which may not be directly tied to ads exclusively, it stands to reason that they're big offenders given their nature of being short, attention-grabbing, context-breaking, non-interactive engagements. There's plenty of studies that support this. > The average person doesn't look at the comment section of a nice YouTube video. Um, really? > Most people don't suffer — at least not consciously — as a result of ads. My point was it's death by a thousand cuts, boiling the frog, etc. The average attention span has been cut in half over the last 20 years. Also, I'd argue that sensitive people who may already be mentally stressed, which seems to be a growing group, might actually suffer in the short term or immediately. You've made some strong statements, but I'm having a hard time buying them.