Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dunofrey | Hacker News Reader

I still won't use ad blockers, I find them akin to stealing from content creators, but I'm getting close.

After several incidents where malware was distributed through ads, I think it is fair to call it self defence.

"The fact that you can tell I'm using an ad-blocker makes me feel justified in using one."

This is a valid argument only for people who disable javascript wholesale. The lion's share of malware distribution is done by hacked sites where the attacker configured to deliver a payload only in 5-10% of pageviews in order to delay detection.

This is a valid argument only for people who disable javascript wholesale"

Not only. My older relatives happily click on "Congratulations, you won a million!!!" ads and end up with yet another browser bar or worse. No JavaScript required.

Parent talks about distribution of malware...

I use an ad blocker. I also pay for content. Content creators have the ultimate choice in how they monetise their work.

I use an ad blocker and don't pay for content and really don't feel bad about it.

I'm doing everyone a favor by saving them bandwidth and not counting me and lowering their click-through rates. I was never going to click your ad, or buy anything that started from an ad on the banner of a web page in the first place.

Installing an Adblocker is the first thing i do on every browser i come along. Even on computers which are not mine and i have to use for 5 minutes. It is just an automatism for years now. Is that uBlock Button missing? I will install it.

I did not even now that youtube serves adds until someone told me a couple of months ago...

This makes posts like this even more weird. It is like staring into an unknown abyss or standing in front of a lake which glows in the dark because someone dumped a ton of radioactive waste.

I also consume a lot of free/ad supported content. I also don't feel bad about it. I suppose my point was that if a content creator feels that their content/product is worth charging for they should charge for it rather than trying to get a third party to pay for it.

I'd really like to pay for more content. But publishers always resort to dark patterns like forcing you to call to cancel when you can sign up online, or promo prices for a few months only to jack up the price later with little warning. I makes me very hesitant to hand over my credit card.

I can agree that in almost all cases these days I will only pay online with a couple of trusted payment processors. If I can't pay using my preferred method I will often forgo the content/item.

I don't know why you feel that way, do you feel bad about tearing an ad out of a magazine?

you bought the magazine

I did? How do you know? Stores give away magazines all the time, do you feel like it's stealing to rip the ads out of those?

Yes. So why does it have ads?

You can use Adblock Plus. The default settings will allow non-intrusive ads [1]. The company has been criticized for their monetization scheme ('large' entities pay for consideration, while 'smaller' entities are considered for free, with no indication where the line is drawn) but it's the best compromise we got.

[1] https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads

They consider non-intrustive Outbrain, Taboola etc, mindless clickbait trying their very best to look native without breaking any laws. I don't, I loathe those things.

But they won't let me override to block those, they insist I allow everything they've approved, or nothing.

Considering getting back on Flattr (which I used before) with the new Flattr plus option - as long as I still get to review the sites it auto-flattered at end of month, and ideally have a blacklist there as well ("never support this, no matter how many times they manage to draw my clicks"). But I've only got so much money. I will have to go away from individually supporting stuff if I do that.

Adblock whitelist only serves the interest of big publishers with money. It's basically racket.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com