Comment by jelv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jelv | Hacker News Reader

Good options for real privacy:

Privacy Badger from EFF The extension is designed to automatically protect your privacy from third party trackers that load invisibly when you browse the web. We send the Do Not Track header with each request, and our extension evaluates the likelihood that you are still being tracked. If the algorithm deems the likelihood is too high, we automatically block your request from being sent to the domain. Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-badger/pke... Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/privacy-badger-f...

or

Ghostery from Ghostery, Inc Block over 2300 request from Advertising, Analytics, Beacons, Privacy and Widgets lists. Quick, easy to use and configure. There business model isn't all that great, it's selling data to advertisers if you want to optin for that. Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghostery/mlomiejdf... Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/ghostery/?src=se...

There are others but they all have a downside. AdBlock (Plus) but has terrible business model which let advertisers buy back adds, uBlock (Origin) super quick AdBlock fork but with terrible interface and Disconnect which also has a terrible interface.

It takes a bit of learning upfront, but uBlock's Advanced User interface[0] is actually quite good if you're looking for NoScript-style site-by-site configuration. It's certainly not going to work for all users, but it's worth a look if you can grok the interface.

[0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-user-feature...

> uBlock (Origin) super quick AdBlock fork

uBlock Origin was written from scratch, it's not a fork of AdBlock.

> with terrible interface

I disagree. Out of the box, the UI is mostly a big button to toggle it on/off on a per-site basis, suitable for all users.

Advanced users can have access to a point-and-click firewall (including with per-site rules), I can't think of anyway to make it simpler, and this is a feature that most other "blockers" do not even have.

> AdBlock (Plus) but has terrible business model which let advertisers buy back adds

How is that terrible? (this is not their business model in reality) Do you not agree that by using these features you deprive sites of revenue? Adblock believe that unintrusive ads should be permitted to allow free sites to remain free.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take and it is unfair of you to attack them.

Adblock is unfair because the "unintrusive ads" aren't that - they are just "companies who have paid more to have their ads shown - ads". I would say that's both unfair and terrible because a) it disavantages smaller players in the ad market (decrease in choice is bad). b) Who determines which ads are "unintrusive"? - that's a qualitative property. But then again it has become a product that does not do that - it's not actually blocking ads now.

> a) it disavantages smaller players in the ad market

How?

> b) Who determines which ads are "unintrusive"?

Adblock

Adblock was recently sold to an undisclosed buyer[1]. They told users of the switch the same day they started the "Acceptable Ads" program. I don't want someone I don't know controlling which ads bypass my ad blocker..

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/adblock-gets-sold-acceptable-...

> I don't want someone I don't know controlling which ads bypass my ad blocker..

Then I think your only option to remain logically consistent is to not install any ad blocker.

I think there is a big difference here between distinguishing "is this an ad? y/n" vs "is this an allowed ad? y/n"

Because what people want from an ad-blocker is an affirmation of their logical consistency, and not "blocked ads". Uh huh.

To be precise, you don't want someone whose interests oppose your own controlling the ads. I don't use ABP, but paid "acceptable" ads make them a straightforward protection racket, beholden to advertisers who can pay. Google and the other big players can buy them off for pocket change, so they're useless.

> Google and the other big players can buy them off for pocket change, so they're useless.

Why do people post this nonsense. Their use is to block intrusive ads. They are very clear about it and every argument against this has been incredibly misleading.

Whether payment is required or not isn't even clear, because it is mentioned only as a potential.

Like many others, I use an ad blocker at least as much to protect privacy as to reduce annoyances and malware. ABP's criteria for "acceptable" say nothing about tracking, so while they're a step in the right direction, they're mostly irrelevant to me.

The obvious conflict of interest from making payments even optional for advertisers makes them clearly untrustworthy.

Answer to "How": (Copied from another comment of mine) a) The smaller company would have lower margins because they invest much more in superior materials, QA, R&D, etc. Where the larger company has an advantage because they invest more of their margin on ads

Regarding Adblock: b) I posted another comment elsewhere about how choosing which ads are "acceptable" or not presents challenges. There is a lack of objectivity. It should be a choice between ads or no ads.

It's terrible in the same way that selling vegetarian food which allows "unobtrusive meats" in the ingredients if a farm pays them enough money, would be terrible.

If Adblock Plus believes that sites should be able to make money from advertising, they shouldn't make an Adblock product. It's a total conflict of interest.

It's like a bank vault company allowing selected criminals through the vault doors because they believe the poorest in society have a moral right to take from the rich if their situation is bad enough, as defined by the vault company.

It's sleazy.

I'm using RequestPolicy. No downsides I'm aware of?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com