Hacker News Reader

Comment by gorhill | Hacker News Reader

Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of their user agent.

[1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280 (visually, a page with no ads) => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large

View on HN

For you it's 'out of control'. For me it's 'the price I'm happy to pay to get what I want'.

I'm glad you understand what that price is and are happy to pay it. I personally have a hard time evaluating the price because the _whats_ and _hows_ of a site's tracking seldom are disclosed in a clear and concise manner that I can review ad understand before the tracking occurs. And even if it was, that would be a lot of friction to do for every site I might visit.

I find it much easier to control by deciding on a policy up front and letting my browser help me enforce it.

The problem with that approach is that you are going against the wishes of the person who produced the website. To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. If I don't agree to the terms of use for a website I simply won't use it.

>the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed.

The creator can have input, they have no say in a public environment.

>To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty.

The permission has already been granted. If it's on the web I can download it and use it for whatever dirty personal uses I can imagine.

> To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty.

I agree. That's why I want a say in how my data is consumed.

Person A: "I created a web page. I'll let you view it if you also look at this advertisement"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just view the page without the advertisement"

-------------------

Person A: "I've built this car. I'll let you drive it if you keep the speed under 60 miles per hour"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just drive your car and go at whatever speed I like"

-------------------

Person A: "I baked a cake. I'll let you eat it if you give me $5"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just eat the cake and give you nothing"

Privacy really isn't transactional, it's a ecological issue. There's no way for you to make that decision without (as a group) impacting others. A choice to not use Google or Facebook can now be crippling for some people, and fairly bothersome for most.

Some web users think they have a "right" to say how websites work.

Big sites take countless man hours to produce and maintain.

For the site I've worked on for almost a decade 95 of 100 user comments are totally off base and they don't understand the basics of how things work.

BTW, this person is the creator of Ublock Origin.

To Grandparent Poster: (gorhill)

Thank you for creating Ublock Origin! :)

If we stop out of control tracking and the ads model, how do we stop all content from going behind a paywall? Asking because at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free but uBlock Origin seems to go for a scorched earth approach that doesn't seem sustainable.

The problem is that so many sites have absolutely no shame about how many or what kind of ads they will jam into a page. LA Times is a great example - https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/la-times-and-ads...

If a site is willing to treat their consumers that badly then fuck them. I have no respect and will not feel bad about using an ad blocker there.

On the flip side, a number of sites have started asking to turn off ad blockers (e.g. Wired), and if it's a site I visit frequently I'm willing to give it a try. If the page is filled with video ads or blinky shit, the ad blocker gets turned on again.

> at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free

All blockers allow you to whitelist whatever site you want -- if allowing a site to fund itself through advertising is fine with you. I personally prefer the "user decides" approach than the "yet another 3rd-party decides" approach when it comes to whitelisting.

Fair enough. I just wish it were true that users were deciding. All my research and data shows that the majority of users don't know how to whitelist a site or even that they have adblock installed. A friend told them to install it or a family member etc. Which is why Google controlling what is acceptable without user input may not be that bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com