6 ms·

I use an adblocker and I have for a while now. Every so often I hear a moral argument about why adblockers are bad (ads support free internet, etc) but to be co

by Shuang1 4mo ago

I use an adblocker and I have for a while now. Every so often I hear a moral argument about why adblockers are bad (ads support free internet, etc) but to be completely honest, I simply don't care anymore. Advertising is in such a malicious state that yes, I'm going to put my own experience quality over whatever collective good there is in watching ads.

matheusmoreira 4mo ago
[flagged]
- bheadmaster 4mo ago
  What would constitute "consent" to being communicated information to? With physical contact, speech can signal consent or lack thereof. How would you consent to speech itself?
  - fsflover 4mo ago
    If I intentionally search for a "new car" or go to a page reviewing cars, then I give my consent to receive new information about it.
  - matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    People actively seek information. People don't seek out advertising noise. They avoid such audiovisual pollution quite actively, so much so that corporations get paid in order to force the noise in front of people's eyeballs. It's that forceful nature that violates consent. I came to HN to see comments from technologists on random stories as well as cool Show HN posts. So someone showing off a project here isn't advertising, it's just the exact information I asked for. It's when that person pays money to put his project in front of me while I'm browsing news or something that it turns into a massive problem. The key is to differentiate noise from signal, advertising from information. Advertising is always noise they add to signal in order to get paid. Our brains aren't supposed to be sinks for their noise. Our cognitive functions are absolutely sacred.
- ligne 4mo ago
  I hate ads as much as anyone but they are not in any way comparable to rape. Please have some sense of proportion.
  - _doctor_love 4mo ago
    Please don't post comments like this. The only thing it can trigger is a flame war. It won't go anywhere productive. Friends, ignore this thread. Move on. Don't engage.
    - decremental 4mo ago
      [dead]
- pibaker 4mo ago
  How far would you push this argument? Is it mind rape to hold up a political sign in a public square, because they are forcing their opinions into other people who happen to be there?
  - matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    My extreme arguments are generally reserved for businesses who are profiting off the abuse. People demonstrating could definitely fall into the unwanted noise category depending on what you believe, but I'm not going to go extreme on them for it. Besides, demonstrations are easily avoided and ignored. They go to the public square to demonstrate. They don't generally go to your house. Advertisers absolutely would go to your house. They are the sort of people who would calculate the exact viewing angle you have when you look out the window of your home and then set up a billboard covering that exact area so as to mine out every last dime your eyeballs can possibly give. They're the sort of people who'd set up hidden cameras in the house across the street purely so they can monitor you to estimate the number of times you look out your windows every day, all so they can sell the chance to be seen by you to some highest bidder.
    - card_zero 4mo ago
      It's possible that annoyed people are less economically active, with the result that intrusive ads reduce GDP.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
  - ianmarcinkowski 4mo ago
    You-know-it-when-you-see-it might be a good boundary. It's different for everyone, surely. Personally I find the Protect The Children charity workers and anti-abortion protesters in large city squares to be right on the line of "mind mild-assault." TBH the charity people are worse than the anti-abortion protesters because they force images of unfortunate kids into my mind and makes me feel bad. The anti-abortion people are almost quaint to me.
- ctrlkctrls 4mo ago
  "mind rape". How absurd and inflammatory. The notion of consent here is just ridiculous. Nobody is forcing you to use the Internet, you're happy enough to consume free online services, but then melt down when you see an ad.
  - matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    > you're happy enough to consume free online services Of course. If HTTP servers want to send me free web pages, I'm only too happy to consume them. If they send me ads alongside those pages, the ads will be deleted. If they don't like it, they can return 402 Payment Required instead. Just because somebody handed me a free magazine filled with ads doesn't mean I can't rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash. I'm allowed to keep only the pages I want and discard the rest. > melt down when you see an ad I don't see ads, uBlock Origin does a really good job at filtering them out. Highly recommended.
MrWiffles 4mo ago
“[…] moral argument […]” I mean, that’s pretty rich coming from the folks willfully engaging in human rights violating surveillance to overwhelm you with obscure useless nonsense that is literally an assault on your time, attention and mental health all for the 0.00001% chance of a vague hope you’ll click or tap their lie of an ad for snake oil that doesn’t work and is designed to steal your credit card number anyway, all just to make them rich so they won’t have to get a real job in the first place. Moral argument. Right.
- jfengel 4mo ago
  The moral argument is less absurd from the people who actually run the web site and are just looking for a way to be compensated for their effort. It still doesn't quite hold, and the fact that it's being handed to them by the companies who get most of the profit is a big red flag. But it's at least understandable why the site owners don't see themselves nearly as badly as we see the ad companies.
blaze33 4mo ago
I understand the moral argument, yes tell me about your product or company from time to time, can be interesting or even funny sometimes but it should stop there. I always use an adblock where possible. 1. I've seen too much ads trying to straight up serve malware. 2. I'm definitely not okay with the ad-industry data aggregation tracking my every move online. Plus the algorithm is kinda dumb: I see you bought a mattress, how about another one, every day, for the next months? I was curious once about a product I would never buy but now, weeks later, I still have ten companies paying ads for the same product, each one claiming to be the real deal. I still use google news on mobile, no adblock there, some publications are okay, others are, well... I take a screenshot when there's 0% of content on the screen → OnlyAds/NoContent folder.
rchaud 4mo ago
There is no moral argument anymore. Every ad peddler online has broken every TOS imaginable to feed its AI training models, at a scale a human couldn't accomplish in a million years.
- ffsm8 4mo ago
  > There is no moral argument anymore. There never was. There were just a few people profiting from ads trying to gaslight you into believing there was.
- RattlesnakeJake 4mo ago
  That's where I've landed as well. The current state of things is entirely the fault of the advertising industry. They've acted like users' banner blindness is an obstacle to be defeated, rather than a constraint to build around. Faced with something the users cannot change, they continue to pile up increasingly hostile techniques that only work for a short while before users start to automatically ignore them. I'm curious where the one-sided arms race ends. Probably a return to subscriptions that frustrate users but are at least sustainably funded.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago
What if the advertising services company (Google) and/or its partner (Mozilla) that produce the source code for popular "browsers" remove the ability for users to run "adblockers" What then These entities often claim the code is "open source" Perhaps users will start compiling the browser themselves and keep the code to run user extensions/add-ons Maybe they will let "AI" agents compile Firefox for them The www was designed for its users to send "requests" for resources to destinations, i.e., IP addresses, where the resources are served. The requests are very specific, identifying exactly what was requested. The user specifies the destination It's possible to automate some requests to destinations the user is not aware of, e.g., by letting the specified destination "trigger" them automatically without any input from the user. This can be useful but naturally it requires trust Unfortunately, so-called "tech" companies have co-opted this design to support a "business model" of data collection, surveillance and advertising services. Users do not send requests for ads. Software from so-called "tech" companies does this automatically "on their behalf" and it _sends requests to destinations that the user never speficied_ When using software created by these companies (and their partners, like Mozilla) the user sends a single (HTTP) request to a single destination and other parties, e.g., browser developers, the website developers, adtech companies, etc., make more requests for resources the user never requested, e.g., ads This is only possible when using software that designed to do this There are various tactics these commercial parties use to coax users into using this software that facilitates unwanted advertising and tracking. In theory it's still a choice to use their software. HTTP servers ggenerally do not require specific HTTP clients. For example, I rarely use the software from so-called "tech" companies or their partners for making HTTP requests. I prefer non-graphical software similar to what was released when the www first went public. It gives me more control. I'm not giving up agency to third parties, I'm not allowing software to load arbitrary resources or run arbitrary Javascript, I'm not delegating authority to so-called "tech" companies by using their software Eventually, these companies might use tactics such as "attestation" to force users to use their software, (pre)installed after company approval on company-controlled hardware
- M95D 4mo ago
  > What then Same as today. 99% of users won't even know about it, or care. 1% of users will complain and get ignored, or called Luddites.
ikidd 4mo ago
The thing is, and the article said it, I'm not going to click your ad. Period. That's why I have an ad blocker. So there's no lost revenue, because you'll never, ever get a clickthrough from me.

by Shuang1 4mo ago

matheusmoreira 4mo ago

[flagged]

bheadmaster 4mo ago
What would constitute "consent" to being communicated information to? With physical contact, speech can signal consent or lack thereof. How would you consent to speech itself?
- fsflover 4mo ago
  If I intentionally search for a "new car" or go to a page reviewing cars, then I give my consent to receive new information about it.
- matheusmoreira 4mo ago
  People actively seek information. People don't seek out advertising noise. They avoid such audiovisual pollution quite actively, so much so that corporations get paid in order to force the noise in front of people's eyeballs. It's that forceful nature that violates consent. I came to HN to see comments from technologists on random stories as well as cool Show HN posts. So someone showing off a project here isn't advertising, it's just the exact information I asked for. It's when that person pays money to put his project in front of me while I'm browsing news or something that it turns into a massive problem. The key is to differentiate noise from signal, advertising from information. Advertising is always noise they add to signal in order to get paid. Our brains aren't supposed to be sinks for their noise. Our cognitive functions are absolutely sacred.
ligne 4mo ago
I hate ads as much as anyone but they are not in any way comparable to rape. Please have some sense of proportion.
- _doctor_love 4mo ago
  Please don't post comments like this. The only thing it can trigger is a flame war. It won't go anywhere productive. Friends, ignore this thread. Move on. Don't engage.
  - decremental 4mo ago
    [dead]
pibaker 4mo ago
How far would you push this argument? Is it mind rape to hold up a political sign in a public square, because they are forcing their opinions into other people who happen to be there?
- matheusmoreira 4mo ago
  My extreme arguments are generally reserved for businesses who are profiting off the abuse. People demonstrating could definitely fall into the unwanted noise category depending on what you believe, but I'm not going to go extreme on them for it. Besides, demonstrations are easily avoided and ignored. They go to the public square to demonstrate. They don't generally go to your house. Advertisers absolutely would go to your house. They are the sort of people who would calculate the exact viewing angle you have when you look out the window of your home and then set up a billboard covering that exact area so as to mine out every last dime your eyeballs can possibly give. They're the sort of people who'd set up hidden cameras in the house across the street purely so they can monitor you to estimate the number of times you look out your windows every day, all so they can sell the chance to be seen by you to some highest bidder.
  - card_zero 4mo ago
    It's possible that annoyed people are less economically active, with the result that intrusive ads reduce GDP.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
- ianmarcinkowski 4mo ago
  You-know-it-when-you-see-it might be a good boundary. It's different for everyone, surely. Personally I find the Protect The Children charity workers and anti-abortion protesters in large city squares to be right on the line of "mind mild-assault." TBH the charity people are worse than the anti-abortion protesters because they force images of unfortunate kids into my mind and makes me feel bad. The anti-abortion people are almost quaint to me.
ctrlkctrls 4mo ago
"mind rape". How absurd and inflammatory. The notion of consent here is just ridiculous. Nobody is forcing you to use the Internet, you're happy enough to consume free online services, but then melt down when you see an ad.
- matheusmoreira 4mo ago
  > you're happy enough to consume free online services Of course. If HTTP servers want to send me free web pages, I'm only too happy to consume them. If they send me ads alongside those pages, the ads will be deleted. If they don't like it, they can return 402 Payment Required instead. Just because somebody handed me a free magazine filled with ads doesn't mean I can't rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash. I'm allowed to keep only the pages I want and discard the rest. > melt down when you see an ad I don't see ads, uBlock Origin does a really good job at filtering them out. Highly recommended.

MrWiffles 4mo ago

“[…] moral argument […]” I mean, that’s pretty rich coming from the folks willfully engaging in human rights violating surveillance to overwhelm you with obscure useless nonsense that is literally an assault on your time, attention and mental health all for the 0.00001% chance of a vague hope you’ll click or tap their lie of an ad for snake oil that doesn’t work and is designed to steal your credit card number anyway, all just to make them rich so they won’t have to get a real job in the first place. Moral argument. Right.

jfengel 4mo ago
The moral argument is less absurd from the people who actually run the web site and are just looking for a way to be compensated for their effort. It still doesn't quite hold, and the fact that it's being handed to them by the companies who get most of the profit is a big red flag. But it's at least understandable why the site owners don't see themselves nearly as badly as we see the ad companies.

blaze33 4mo ago

I understand the moral argument, yes tell me about your product or company from time to time, can be interesting or even funny sometimes but it should stop there. I always use an adblock where possible. 1. I've seen too much ads trying to straight up serve malware. 2. I'm definitely not okay with the ad-industry data aggregation tracking my every move online. Plus the algorithm is kinda dumb: I see you bought a mattress, how about another one, every day, for the next months? I was curious once about a product I would never buy but now, weeks later, I still have ten companies paying ads for the same product, each one claiming to be the real deal. I still use google news on mobile, no adblock there, some publications are okay, others are, well... I take a screenshot when there's 0% of content on the screen → OnlyAds/NoContent folder.

rchaud 4mo ago

There is no moral argument anymore. Every ad peddler online has broken every TOS imaginable to feed its AI training models, at a scale a human couldn't accomplish in a million years.

ffsm8 4mo ago
> There is no moral argument anymore. There never was. There were just a few people profiting from ads trying to gaslight you into believing there was.
RattlesnakeJake 4mo ago
That's where I've landed as well. The current state of things is entirely the fault of the advertising industry. They've acted like users' banner blindness is an obstacle to be defeated, rather than a constraint to build around. Faced with something the users cannot change, they continue to pile up increasingly hostile techniques that only work for a short while before users start to automatically ignore them. I'm curious where the one-sided arms race ends. Probably a return to subscriptions that frustrate users but are at least sustainably funded.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago

What if the advertising services company (Google) and/or its partner (Mozilla) that produce the source code for popular "browsers" remove the ability for users to run "adblockers" What then These entities often claim the code is "open source" Perhaps users will start compiling the browser themselves and keep the code to run user extensions/add-ons Maybe they will let "AI" agents compile Firefox for them The www was designed for its users to send "requests" for resources to destinations, i.e., IP addresses, where the resources are served. The requests are very specific, identifying exactly what was requested. The user specifies the destination It's possible to automate some requests to destinations the user is not aware of, e.g., by letting the specified destination "trigger" them automatically without any input from the user. This can be useful but naturally it requires trust Unfortunately, so-called "tech" companies have co-opted this design to support a "business model" of data collection, surveillance and advertising services. Users do not send requests for ads. Software from so-called "tech" companies does this automatically "on their behalf" and it _sends requests to destinations that the user never speficied_ When using software created by these companies (and their partners, like Mozilla) the user sends a single (HTTP) request to a single destination and other parties, e.g., browser developers, the website developers, adtech companies, etc., make more requests for resources the user never requested, e.g., ads This is only possible when using software that designed to do this There are various tactics these commercial parties use to coax users into using this software that facilitates unwanted advertising and tracking. In theory it's still a choice to use their software. HTTP servers ggenerally do not require specific HTTP clients. For example, I rarely use the software from so-called "tech" companies or their partners for making HTTP requests. I prefer non-graphical software similar to what was released when the www first went public. It gives me more control. I'm not giving up agency to third parties, I'm not allowing software to load arbitrary resources or run arbitrary Javascript, I'm not delegating authority to so-called "tech" companies by using their software Eventually, these companies might use tactics such as "attestation" to force users to use their software, (pre)installed after company approval on company-controlled hardware

M95D 4mo ago
> What then Same as today. 99% of users won't even know about it, or care. 1% of users will complain and get ignored, or called Luddites.

ikidd 4mo ago

The thing is, and the article said it, I'm not going to click your ad. Period. That's why I have an ad blocker. So there's no lost revenue, because you'll never, ever get a clickthrough from me.