I do use adblockers, so much so that I basically only use android because of all the system-wide adblocking capabilities, including youtube ads.

I occasionally switch off adblockers to see what the rest of the world sees. Within seconds I am shocked every single time. Some sites I use are unusable without adblockers. The youtube experience is attrocious without adblockers. Amazon products are impossible to find without being flooded with sponsored products. Google results are ads until pages later.

Its like a whole other internet. I cannot imagine how small of a portion of the internet I'd need to use if I could not use adblockers.

Can you outline how you're doing system-wide as blocking? That's news to me!

There's a few notable differences between android and iOS as far as adblocking is concerned:

1) Android lets you install other browsers and use them as default. Some of these, like Firefox or Brave or Vivaldi, include adblocking software that works everywhere, even YouTube. Whereas on iOS, even if you install chrome, it's just a reskinned safari because Apple refuses third parties proper access to the system. https://www.howtogeek.com/184283/why-third-party-browsers-wi...

2) Android allows you root access without too much trouble, and you can install system wide ad blocking tools that way. Such as AdLock.

3) There are other system wide blocking options, such as anti-ad VPN solutions, that works on system wide data traffic.

1) iOS let’s let’s you use a different browser as default. Safari also allows extensions which provide excellent adblocking.

3) this can also be done on iOS.

1) No it doesn't. Any other browser on iOS is just a reskinned safari, because Apple doesn't allow other render engines.

3) Cool.

AdAway on F-Droid is FOSS and works with or without root, big fan of that one.

Without root it consumes more battery. Using DNS adblocking is more efficient. Like NextDNS or pi-hole.

## If you are rooted:

Install AdAway and use the root method; this will modify the system hosts file and redirect the requests to domains that are used to serve ads to 127.0.0.1.

Some apps refuse to function if they can't fetch ads, so AdAway has a webserver that listens on 127.0.0.1 that serves a blank webpage to those apps. Follow the directions in AdAway to install the CA certificate in your device.

## If you aren't rooted:

Go to Settings and search "Private DNS", set this to dns.adguard.com, this is AdGuard's DNS, and it blocks requests to ad sites (not sure how, but it may not return an IP address or return a bogus one). This method will work on any device as long as you can change the DNS that the device uses (including iPhones).

I just changed the DNS on my unrooted Android to AdGuard's, went into the YouTube and I still saw the ads. What am I missing?

You need NewPipe for unbloated, distraction free YouTube on Android.

Or you could also install the Fennec browser, install the ublock extension, go to the desktop version of youtube and click on the install PWA button to install the mobile youtube PWA, which will be affected by ublock.

That's just a shortcut to youtube.com on Firefox/Fennec, ReVanced (revanced(dot)app) is a much better solution.

Yeah but I really don't want to install any GMS-related stuff on my phone, not even microg, I don't want to have services hanging in the background wasting RAM just because I sometimes watch YouTube :)

Fair

The DNS can't block YouTube ads because then the whole of YouTube would be blocked. You should use ReVanced instead for this. (Or uBlock Origin in Firefox)

I think adguard works by running a local VPN on your phone. This way it can filter unencrypted connections while integrating properly in Android. Can also filter HTTPS by installing an (app-generated I assume) root certificate but I don't feel very good about doing that.

One issue is that it cannot work when using another VPN.

I'm using unlock on Firefox on android, it blocks ads on YouTube. Genuine question, what would ad guard do that is better?

AdGuard as the DNS for your router + Tailscale blocks trackers and ads on all your devices in all apps, not just browsers with ad block installed. Mobile games, embedded WebViews, etc. If you are an iOS user that hates safari, you can use Firefox without ads. Something like 30 percent of what it blocks in my logs comes from trackers being blocked on my Roku and Android TV. With Tailscale it will also block ads when you are mobile.

The one caveat is that it does not block ads served natively, so you will still need a specialized app for native YouTube, Instagram, and others, but those are readily available now.

Without HTTPS filtering, I would believe uBlock Origin to be better as it should be able to operate on secure connections. But it's limited to the browser.

On my side I use both: AdGuard on the system side to help with apps and Chrome, and uBlock Origin in Firefox for HTTPS or when another VPN is being used.

Note: for applications/services, buying the no-ad option or using an open-source application from F-Droid is the better way when possible. Even when doing so, AdGuard can be helpful for in-app web browsers that don't have ad blockers.

Both android and iOS natively let you set a custom DNS server and there are several that include adblocking (or you can host your own). It's not as good as application level blocking but it's quite effective.

I recommend NextDNS as a hosted, paid, custom DNS provider.

I moved away from NextDNS due to how slowly it picked up DNS changes, it would take hours for changes to propagate - and there wasn't any way to force it to update without manually creating DNS entries. I installed PiHole on one of my servers and Tailscale makes it available on all my devices - I couldn't be happier.

How's the latency with pihole over tailscale? I have a feeling it would make a noticeable difference for me

I haven't had any issues with latency personally.

Pi-Hole + VPN usually works without issue for me.

This is the way.

I have a PiHole running in EC2 and I just VPN into it. The VPN is configured so that only DNS goes through it, so I don't tunnel all my traffic through it and pay for lots of egress.

Could easily run the VPN through something local, of course, but I prefer to expose as little as possible on my home network.

How expensive is this?

~$7.20/month for a t3.micro instance + $1.60/month for 20 GB of block storage, plus a penny or two for the bandwidth usage.

But you could do it cheaper than that. A t3.nano is ~$3.60/month and could easily handle running the PiHole, and you could probably get away with only 10 GB of block storage, possibly even less. I choose to use a t3.micro and 20 gig because I do other stuff with my instance.

Thanks

Not my solution, but a t2.micro is probably $7/mo.

I've seen posts about running pihole on an rpi or ubuntu.

Are there any advantages to paying a monthly fee to do this when it can be easily done from inside your LAN?

Some folks dislike exposing parts (or any) part of their internal network.

That's not exactly unique to Android, though ...

Unless rooted, you're basically relegated to two options. 1. You can set your dns to a custom dns (adguard's dns is commonly used) to block ads systemwide. 2. You can use a vpn proxy style adblocker via Blockada, Adaway, or Adguard.

If you're rooted, you can just modify your hosts file manually or use something like adaway to do it for you.

Ah yes, they are likely running at rooted device. I didn't even think of that.

Thank you!

Custom DNS has been available for years in Android and doesnt require root or any additional apps.

DNS blocklists via VPN and modded android apps for things like YouTube video ads (which can't be blocked via dns)

You can use NextDNS on any internet connected device and enable ad-blocking on all connections for the whole device. Works great on MacOS and iPhone and it's easy to setup.

I don't know about the OP but pi-hole gives you amazing url-based ad blocking that works for all your connected devices!

Imagine a world where the advertising billboard you walk past reaches into your head and takes a photo of your shopping list. While it's there it takes note of any deep concerns you may not know you have. And your sleep habits, where you live, random visual memories it may find useful anytime in the future, has a guess at how much you'd like to spend using personal records, what pets you have or would like, family, a bunch more.

It then morphs into a dancing dashboard mannequin, a personal avatar, spouting nonsense, getting on your nerves, while its technoneurons spread, root-like, tapped into you. As you exit the car going into the supermarket, the supermarket is now a construct of the avatar not the bricks and mortar building it was when you were growing up. It exists for the avatar to make your life better, not for you, it robs you of choice and agency it does not agree with.

You go into a small cafe for some splice. It has a touchscreen display to order from, you must pay with a card or ApplePay.

Yes, yes, keep going.

Why? Because I believe they're wrong. I think it's just wrong to engage with any business and disable, sidestep or circumvent their way to make money. It's like shoplifting. It reminds of people who open up a box at the supermarket, eat the food, and then claim that the barcode was on the box so that must be what's for sale.

I want the Internet to have ad supported content. I want the people who create this content to have a chance of making a fair, market-determined income instead of relying upon things like Patreon.

The saddest part for me is that I'm going to get voted down here because the support for this kind of behavior is strong here. Some day all of you will experience a business being undermined by freeloaders and thieves. This is the kind of low-trust world that you're building and it will come for your livelihood too.

While I strongly disagree that using an ad-blocker is a kind of theft, I have sympathy with your underlying point.

The problem is that ads come with so much spying. That's what kills the trust.

I don't use an adblocker per-se, but I do stop JS and various trackers, which have the side-effect of stopping most ads. It's purely a self-defense thing on my part. I'll still see any ads which are just ads and not spying platforms.

If the use of ad blockers threatens the livelihood of web sites, perhaps that would encourage the websites to stop abusing their readers.

The freeloaders and thieves who ruined the trust work in adtech.

They could have simply not abused their position.

Do you also deliberately trigger red light and speed cameras, purchase and maintain a horse and buggy, and rent office space that you don't use?

Saying that ad (aka surveillance) based businesses are "undermined" by adblocking carries a fallacious assertion that those businesses have some inherent right to exist as they want. In reality, nobody is entitled to a business model. From my perspective, "freeloaders and thieves" describes those who have built businesses around attempting to hijack attention spans and create surveillance profiles about users. The fundamental dynamic of the Internet has always been that servers represent the server owners' interests, and my user agent chooses how to interpret what is received in my own interests. The Schelling point of the protocol is what separates the authorities/concerns of two parties with diverging interests.

I never understood this stance either. I am sympathetic that these venues need income generation. However, if they are losing so much money over the loss of advertising then they need to change their business model. The free market is that simple.

I don't think it's that simple. Ads emerged because people couldn't connect their wallets to the Internet.

It's a different situation today, but it's still there. Especially teenagers. I would pay $1 for a newspaper easily, but I would never pay for online news. Maybe if it charged me 8 cents and only needed a thumbprint to pay, I would. Maybe if there was a comic section, I would.

We had a business which was basically media ecommerce. Instead of making a site about football and selling ads related to footbl fans, we'd sell shoes. We'd make recipe apps then sell hard to find ingredients.

This worked great. It made money. Good profit margin. But 80% of the work became logistics. We ended up outsourcing content creation and then became a logistics company.

I agree with you, that's why I support any website that uses contextual ads and not profiling/tracking ads deactivating my adblocker for them.

I have zero sympathy for sites that try to profile me, I consider personal data protection an inviolable right and act in that sense

You want supporting content creativity by relying on third party content creativity? Why not just pay directly.

I don't. I think adblocking is a form of petty theft. If something has too much ads, I don't use it or pay for the ad-free version. I pay for YouTube Premium.

Also adblocking does reduce some experiences. Some sites will tell you to disable it, and that's more irritating than the ad banners.

I had conversation with my daughter on how games used to have no ads but now they're chock full of ads, but TV has no ads now but up to a third of TV was ads when I was her age. I think there's a bit of nostalgia to ads, that some shows were designed for it. Even if it's those dodgy Evony ads. I can watch Futurama without ads today, but it feels like something's missing. Netflix shows drag out, maybe because it's missing the "grind" of ads?

I'm nearly 40, which is irrelevant except as to say that I fully remember "the time of ads", and I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think adblocking is a petty form of theft, I think it's prudent, as ads are often security risks - not to mention don't include proper privacy settings but still try to track you against your will. Which is illegal in my part (EU) of the world. I'll try to support in other ways if I think your content is worth it and you provide secondary ways to pay.

I don't see the nostalgia aspect either. Shows were only "designed for it" in such a way that they frequently take breaks from the plot to show ads,. I challenge you to point to any single show where frequent ad breaks actually made the show better.

If you feel like Netflix shows "drag out", that sounds like an attention span issue. The same episode is either much shorter without 30-40% more time being spent on ads, or it's the same air time and just has more actual episode.

Futurama is one examples. Ads usually kick in on a cliffhanger or to emphasize a punchline. This was a popular narrative technique back in the day. It might be why sitcoms worked fine for decades but never really carried over to the VOD era.

Not ads, but the best example of a dramatic interruption are the first two seasons of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, where the hero is screwed and then it cuts out into the Roundabout song. This is a lot less dramatic when you can just binge watch things and don't have to wait a week for the next.

Whereas Netflix shows tend to fill it with fluff, things like side drama, background stories, and redundant plot elements. I know I can skip the ad, but I don't really know if I can skip story details. I end up watching something like Squid Game on 2x speed.

I'm not sure if you read his comments, but he's paying $10 a month for the paid version of Bloomberg and they're still slamming him with ads so I'm not sure how it's considered "petty theft."

It's overpriced, but still the price. Not all theft is illegal, nor unethical. Killing is something that's almost always unethical. But kill a tyrant and it's ethical.

Stealing from a company that has already charged you a subscription fee might be ethical. But I don't enable adblock because it also means I'm stealing on autopilot from other sites that I may want to support.

Advertising is manipulation. The advertisers are literally trying to convince you to buy something you didn’t want to buy. They use every psychological trick available to overcome your resistance.

By this rationale you should also feel obligated to buy everything that everyone advertises to you, since they paid for the ad specifically to get you to buy.

Don't overthink it lol. You're only obligated to ignore the ads. The company gets its ad money. Advertisers paying for views pay for views.

There are models where they pay per download and pay per purchase, but as long as they're not doing that, you're not obligated to do those things.

My favorite analogy here goes back to TV days - where according to this model you're obligated to leave the sound up during the commercial, and remain focused on the screen. Want a snack or to use the bathroom? You owe us your attention.

No, you don't need to pay with attention either. The ad pays out when the ad is displayed. If you stop the playing of the ad, they don't get paid. If you leave the TV on and go to the bathroom, or even if you change the channel, the TV station still gets paid.

You don't owe the advertiser anything unless they're paying you directly. You owe the content creator (a youtube channel) and the content distributor (youtube).

The advertisers are aware of this and it's calculated into their rates. If it's an attentive view, the rates are much, much higher.

For me, advertising is basically proof that product is not good enough to be sold by its quality.

Good product is ad by itself.

https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624 The FBI itself highly suggests you dont use the internet without an adblocker due to security risks and scams.

How it is petty theft when I did not consent to be advertised to in the first place?

The argument is that your consumption of the content is is tacit consent. I find the argument to be specious at best.

It's theft when they do not consent to you using their services with adblock on.

If I switch to another chanell during ad on TV, is it theft?

AdBlockers just saves a lot of your time and keep you sane during content consumption.

Never used an adblocker. Advertising doesn't bother me in principle, only if it gets irritating (like those excruciatingly annoying BK commercials!). If advertising gets to be too annoying, well that's what the back button is for.

I work in digital media and I utterly and entirely recommend EVERYONE use ad/analytics/tracking blockers and browsers which limit user-level data collection and tracking.

As someone who works in the field and actively builds end-arounds to systems that thwart our ability to easily track your behaviors online, it's in your best interest to do so.

Sure, you don't have to do any of this, but seeing any particular ad is the least of your problems when one loads.

> seeing any particular ad is the least of your problems

I run a blocker. But for a general user not hitting shadier corners of the web and careful what they click on - What are the larger problems people discuss, and how are they relevant in the day-to-day?

I would say Facebook receiving private health data presents a large problem. https://themarkup.org/pixel-hunt/2022/06/16/facebook-is-rece...

If you disable your ad-blocker, you'll notice that scam and malware/virus ads are everywhere, they're not relegated to the shady corners. Instagram, Facebook and newspapers are for example absolutely infested with pure scam advertising.

If you're located in a non-GDPR (or in a lesser sense CCPA) legislation area, YOU are being tracked cross-site and profiles are being built on your data to better target and sell your behavior for the pleasure of using the Interwebs.

Do EVERYTHING in your power to avoid that.

> Do EVERYTHING in your power to avoid that.

The question was, "Why should I care?" A nebulous 'They' have had profiles on all of us since at least the 50s regardless; what's the difference and harm?

You know that your data are valuable and make profit for others. You know that those data can be used to manipulate your decisions, to shape your thoughts, your wallet, your voting... Yet, you dont care?

Hasn't that been society since the advent of advertising, and 'targeted' since at least the 1950s? Everything (and everyone) around you is shaping who you are; I've always attested that the key was to try and be as self aware as possible.

I do recommend documentary Ceuntury of Self (2001) about this topic. Apparently more consumer citizens are less confrontational. Idea comes from S. Freud and was implemented by propaganda, later renamed to public relations, of individualism by Edward Bernays in US in 30's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self

Yeah, I know. I just don't care. Seriously, I remember this being pointed out literally 20+ years ago. It's gotten far worse since then.

Horses are out, no point worrying about the barn door now.

The only real attack I've heard about is that if your insurance company finds out you participate in risky behaviors, they'll raise your rates. Otherwise why does it matter if Google knows my age and some of my hobbies?

This is a serious concern; it's been getting slightly better (Thanks Obama), but I think it's more of an overarching issue with how insurance and risk is structured than anything. There should never be financial incentive to not seek preventative/diagnostic medical care. That's simply a broken system.

Otherwise when you wife asks why you're getting ads for 'single Muslim women in your area' you'll have no defence.

Or ads at work for BDSM paraphernalia which I look at at home :)

'But they're monetizing you!' 'And I give a crap why?'

I Admire this approach to life. I probably fall in the middle somewhere.

I wish I did not have to[0]

But, quite frankly, most sites are effectively impossible to use without one :|

---------

[0] https://antipaucity.com/2016/03/03/on-ads/ (though I am down to just uBlock Origin & Detect Cloudflare)

What "Detect Cloudflare" is for, in terms of privacy?

Cloudflare's operating probably the largest man-in-the-middle data harvesting operation in the world (at least in the commercial world)

If a site's running Cloudflare, and I don't have an amazing overarching reason to hit the site (eg my dr's portal), I add it to my block list

It is not always bad to harvest data. As a developer, I understand that there are often valid reasons for doing so.

I'm not sure where everyone got the idea that tracking and harvesting data is always bad.

In addition, it is essentially impossible to have something harmful happen to you if you refrain from entering your bank password on websites.

Harvesting data is almost always bad

There are a tiny handful of use cases where it is not

I don't understand how people are not more aware of the invasiveness of such activities

I don't use them. I do pay for the version without ads of the services I use them most though (YouTube, Nebula, Reddit, using Kagi instead of Google, etc). I happen to not use sites that don't offer a version without ads enough for them to annoy me OR I've used FB and it's so annoying that I just stopped using it, which is an improvement on my life anyway.

All in all i spend about $30/month to not have ads while supporting the sites I use, which I think it's pretty reasonable.

I have YouTube premium and overall probably spend $100/mo on digital content. What bothers me is that even when paying full price I'm getting giant banner ads on the top and a slower experience.

If paying for content consumption does not mean DRM free experience, I'm not interested. Reason is obvious.

DRM is fine if you're just renting the content ... but yes the consumer needs to know that DRM for buying is an (entrenched) anti-pattern.

I don't, I used to.

These days I tend to use firefox with uMatrix for general browsing, with Javascript and CSS disabled globally. Then enabled on a site by site basis depending upon how I value the content, and if it is even worth following a link.

Ad blockers are rules for thee, but not for me.

As software engineers many of us play a part in creating a world that we wouldn't want to live in and then exempt ourselves from it with ad blockers leaving the ignorant or less technically inclined to fend for themselves.

It unethical to use ad blockers.

I could not imagine using the internet without an ad blocker and despite trying to live an ethical life, that's one thing I can't go without. If for no other reason, raw dogging the internet without an ad blocker is a real and legitimate security risk.

I consider it part of professional ethics not to work for ad based companies, and I have started to pay services, like wikipedia in particular, so they don't have to be supported with ads.

Is it unethical to use accessibility tools that cannot see visual ads?

Is it unethical to use a computer that isn’t associated with you? (And thus have no ad profile?) If I get a untargeted ad, am I stealing?

> Is it unethical to use accessibility tools that cannot see visual ads?

Arguably, in a black and white sense I think so. In a practical sense no. You wouldn't expect someone who's blind to get a free meal at a restaurant just because they are blind. From a practical point of view implementing ads for the visually impaired probably costs more than the ads gain, and therefore a company would rather not, but if a company implemented an accommodation so that the ad could be experienced by the impaired person, then I would argue not experiencing that ad is unethical.

> Is it unethical to use a computer that isn’t associated with you?

The point is applying Kant's categorical imperative. If we took the idea of using ad block and made it a rule that everyone must follow, websites would not be able to fund themselves because they fund themselves by showing ads which creates a contradiction and therefore using adblock is unethical.

You can equivocate to try to justify the behavior, but that doesn't change that for most of the web, you are provided a web page in exchange for ads.

Companies are taking your data and selling it because they can, and you don't know the value of your data, so that is arguably theft and almost certainly unethical too. Poorly specified contracts are also unethical. When you visit a website, you don't know what you are giving up or the price you are paying. That's wrong.

I am a little sad there is no wide spread doxxing of the owners of adtech/data broker companies to force the ethics discussion in congress.

I just don’t agree and that’s ok.

It’s funny that many people paid for newspapers specifically to get ads. Ads were native content and sought out.

If you offer content for free, I don’t understand why I have an ethical obligation to look at or read that content, ads included. Personally, I think many of the low quality ad platforms aren’t ads at all - they are information gathering platforms

Life isn't about what you take, it's about what you give.

If everyone takes without giving, there is nothing left to take. If everyone gives without taking, there is enough to take when you need it.

This is fundamental to how societies operate. This was core christian ethos before it was corrupted by the GOP. This is why the west has higher trust societies, and much of the rest of the world does not.

Reciprocity is an extremely important consideration. Kantian ethics is the foundation of the west. If you take your actions and thoughts and project them onto everyone else, the websites you enjoy wouldn't exist.

If you understand that, you just don't want to feel uncomfortable and are in denial. If you do not understand that you are choosing ignorance.

You don't have to agree, but we are both effectively parasites.

What's worse is the conflict of interest.

On the topic of news papers, if content is not paid for it is that the content itself that becomes an engine of money making. Content becomes ads. If nobody pays for high quality investigative journalism you don't get high quality investigative journalism.

If you don't donate to your politicians, someone else will.

If you don't pay for your news papers, someone else will.

If you don't pay for your social media, someone else will.

You can argue these companies are taking more than they give, and they are, but your position of personal responsibility is worth considering. The sum of everyone's thoughts on their personal responsibility creates culture, and this "next quarters profits" culture that we live in is an extension of the very ideas you have expressed.

When you choose to act in a self interested way, you justify someone else acting in a self interested way. So you justify the selfish acts against you through your actions.

If you think it's ok to not experience ads, you justify people using ads to collect and sell your data.

Using an adblocker is what you can do, just like selling your data is what the company can do. It's "might makes right" in form, which is the opposite of reciprocity. Might makes right is great for the winner, but I don't think we are winning.

- So you justify the selfish acts against you through your actions.

Can you apply this analogy on ad and data harvesting companies?

I don’t.

Reason: I work building ‘internet stuff’ and I want to experience the internet in the same way that the majority of people experience it.

That’s more useful to me because I consequently experience the pain (or delight) of the typical user with greater accuracy.

I fail to see how having your navigation riddled with ads is useful.

Learn the lesson that ads suck, don’t add any to the « internet stuff » you’re building, install an adblocker and move on?

I’m just not finding that ads suck that much. Things like mandatory cookie dialog boxes annoy me a lot more.

You can install extension like "I don't care about cookies". AdBlock I'm using has this as a build in feature you can enable.

Addon was acquired by Avast, another data harvesting company.

I don't.

Some sites are unusable. I don't visit them, or if I do, I'm gone almost immediately.

Some sites are hard. I will persist if I really want to read the article; otherwise, I'm gone.

Most of the sites I visit are still functional. But I mainly just go to HN, some technical sites when I need to, some news sites, actual company sites. I don't go to entertainment sites (they are mostly unusable without an ad blocker). I don't do social media (other than HN).

In general, if you make your site unusable with ads, then I won't be back. I don't need your site. But your site might want me, and if you do, knock it off with the garbage that makes it unusable.

Do you have a search engine or other mechanism to make it easier to find these sites or is it just hunt and peck?

Not the OP, but if I didn't have uBlock Origin installed, I would refer to the number of ads/trackers detected for pages by the Kagi search engine (which I use and highly recommend).

Well, if it's an article on HN, there's a link there. If I'm trying to find a specific company, it's Google. If it's a URL I go to frequently, it's the first couple of letters, or a bookmark. If it's technical info, it's Google.

ok - I thought you might be using one of the newer engines that allows one to add custom dimensions or exclude sites with wildcard lists (basically uBlock Origin 'score' for lack of a better word).

I don't have an adblocker on my machine at work, trying to keep chrome as barebones as possible. On the off chance I click on an article posted in slack its always shocking to see how riddled with ad's the modern web is.

In the past, I used adblock, but now I only allow it on 1% of websites. It's only necessary for 1% of websites.

The reason is that I now have a website and earn money through ad banners, so I understand how challenging it is to optimize ad banners. Meanwhile, we may have 60% of users using adblock in certain fields.

My wife doesn't, simply because Android Chrome doesn't support one and she won't move to Firefox because it doesn't have an extension to translate pages with Google Translate like Chrome does :(

Here's the link https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox-trans...

Get DNS service with ad blocking, like NextDNS. It's pretty easy to set up, I'm using it on my Android phone and iPad. It's free for up to 300,000 queries per month (I've never exceeded this limit, for reference I made 100,000 queries on my phone this month). It also has a lot of configurability (You can select specific blocklists, whitelist sites and etc.). It's not as good as a dedicated AdBlocker like UBlock Origin , it won't be able to block YouTube ads for example, but it's far better than nothing.

In recent Firefox on Android, I can now highlight text and there is a Translate option along with Copy Paste etc. I have the Google Translate app installed, I assume that's doing it.

There are translation add-ons for Firefox actually you can find them on the add-on search: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox-trans...

Vivaldi or Brave are good Chrome-based alternatives with ad blocking and anti-tracking features built-in. Vivaldi has even better translation integration than Chrome, IMO.

Try kiwi browser, it's chrome for android but with extensions

Have you tried Brave?

Isn't it hilarious that you pay money as a subscriber, yet still see ads? To me, that is hilarious . Imagine paying $120 dollars a year for them to still get more out of it's consumers.

It's not any different than paying for newspapers or magazines. People think their subscription price is based on the real costs. Subscriptions pay a small portion of the cost and gaurantee ad revenue. Ad revenue pays for the content. Everybody wants the best content but they would all be screaming if their subscription price bore the full cost of the product.

I don't, but my browsing tends to be somewhat limited, and I tend to ignore the ads. I'm aware, vaguely, that the NY Times, is dumping ads for movies and clothes into its page, but I couldn't tell you which movies and clothes I saw yesterday.

Now, if I do see ads for women's clothing in a deeply technical post, and notice that the clothes include some I bought as a present for my wife, then I'm amused.

I would prefer not to, as I'd like to support the websites I browse. However, the privacy issues that come from invasive tracking that ad networks do is something I can't support.

Same. I'd have no issue with non-tracking ads.

Everyone is crazy about privacy, but I don't understand why. If you're not visiting anything illegal, you shouldn't care. It doesn't affect my life at all.

If you don't have anything to say, it doesn't mean that you don't need a freedom of speech.

I guess you still close doors while making s*it or use curtains at your window.

Going on the internet is going out in public. If AI is allowed to appropriate anything on the internet because it is the public domain and you forfeited privacy when you put it there, then it is all public and you have no right to privacy. Can't have itboth ways.

Then share your password for your bank account, please. It's accesible from internet, then it is public by your statement.

My statement is that you can't have it both ways. You can't lay claim to everything a web crawler can get its hands on but then expect privacy when it suits you.

Why do we have passwords? Or VPN? What are you hiding from us?

I think people who lack understanding about the internet may prioritize privacy because they don't truly comprehend it. Please correct it if I'm wrong.

Highly suggest to use dns-level blocking so the majority of that crap doesn't even reach you.

If you don't want to configure and maintain your own box, nextdns is a pretty solid option.

I use two browsers. In one I have adblocker. In another one I don't use it.

I use it on the browser from where I browse YouTube, news portals, etc. On the browser that I use 99% for work I don't use it since I want to see (yes, strange I know) ads in my Twitter feed or work related portals that I visit. This way I support those portals (at least I hope that they get paid for showing me ads).

I don't use. I don't care about ads, I'm more concerned about 3'rd party requests so I block them via uMatrix extension.

I don't.

(Un)surprisingly a strict mode in Firefox blocks most of the clutter.

Can't say when I stopped bothering (I'm on FF since 2.x) but I have other things to do.

The only exceptjon is what I got some addons to block some obnoxious things, like 'login here with Google!!!' and Google webfonts (which sometimes breaks a carefully curated look of the site made by Internet connosiers, which just gaves me a chuckle).

I do since a long time. At least 15 years.

I was using an add-on for Firefox where I could control to which sites a page could connect. Some years ago this was a pretty good way for browsing ad-free and without being tracked because both relied on resources from external domains.

Now, I’m using a DNS resolver that blocks these domains. It’s probably not as fine-grained but works across many devices.

I don't use any ad blockers. I do however use consent-o-matic as those popups are the worst thing the EU ever did to the internet.

Some sites have annoying ad popups, but most of the time they're just embedded in the sites and I don't even notice them.

I've never used an ad blocker. 98% of the time I immediately press the browser back button.

Me, advertising is fine on most of the sites I like, and I don’t like ripping off sites that are dependent on ad income.

You may not like this answer but you asked and that is my reason.

I think about advertising 50 times less than I think about cookie warnings.

>and I don’t like ripping off sites that are dependent on ad income.

He pays them a monthly fee.

How is that equivalent to they are dependent on ad income?

They also receive massive amounts of money from their data moats on their Bloomberg terminals charging upwards of $20,000 a year

I'm talking about myself, not the OP. That said he's ripping off every other site he doesn't pay for.

One occasion in which I don't use an adblocker is to support the creator of the website. For example, learnopengl.com politely encourages to remove adblock in order for the website to be continued.

No, not me, I don’t not use an adblocker, you’d have to be crazy not to use an adblocker these days. I use Ublock Origin on the browsers I use on my Mac and Wipr for Safari on my iPhone.

I understand your frustration. Some websites prioritize user experience by having fewer or less intrusive ads. It's worth exploring adblocker settings or alternative ad-free news sources.

i don't. ads don't bother me that much unless it is too intrusive. if all of us block ads, it means we need to pay for a lot of sites/apps that we are currently getting for free. I don't think it is a good idea. Not everyone is rich.

I work in adtech so I have to disable it occasionally

Doubt you're going to get very useful answers from the HN community tbh, even though a lot of posters here work for advertising companies.

I don't use an ad blocker and never have. It's fine, I'm used to it. Some sites are pretty horrible (mostly low end news sites). I subscribe to a handful of news sites which don't have any ads and that works out fine, most other sorts of sites have tolerable levels of advertising. If they don't I just go back and do without.

Why: the golden rule, pretty much. Not gonna be popular, but that's how I see it. Treat others how I'd want to be treated myself. If I browse someone's site whilst blocking ads, I'm consuming their financial resources but not allowing them to consume my attention in return, which is the "deal" implicitly entered into when I visited their site. Yes yes, it's not a written deal, you can make legalistic argument about it, but fundamentally the assumption website authors make is that people use browsers that follow the specs and will thus see ads, and ad blockers cause browsers to not follow the specs. If everyone did this those sites either wouldn't exist, or would have paywalls, and I appreciate the fact that they exist and don't have paywalls.

There are a couple of other related reasons.

I've been on the other side of this. I run a company and sell a product to developers (a tool for deploying desktop apps). We have tried ads, mostly text based. They don't work at all, presumably due to high rates of ad blocking. The number one feedback we get from missed sales is that they'd have loved to know about us earlier but it was just too hard to find us at the right time, and by the time they discovered us (often by accident) they were already buried under sunk costs. Targeted advertising is at heart about informing people about a product they might need at the time they need it. Because nobody is seeing ads, devs often end up wrestling with whatever MVP-level projects they found by following links from some project created by Big Tech whether it's any good or not, because they're simply unaware any alternatives exist. In turn this discourages people from just doing ordinary selling of commercial-quality tools, which leads to frustrating developer experiences.

I live in Switzerland where there are many rules that are very lightly enforced, for example, you can just walk on and off public transport with no ticket gates, and inspections are rare (my guess, 5-10 times a year even if you use it every day). My company's product is also done in this spirit: you can download it with no account creation or signups, the code isn't obfuscated, and it's free for open source projects. That policy is basically on the honor system with a bit of manual spot checking: if you declare your project is open source then the app just unlocks without payment unless we notice that you're lying. This sort of flexible trust-but-verify society is nice to live in but for it to work, it requires everyone to follow expectations even when you can get away with not doing so. I feel like ad blocking is similar to that. Likewise I could crack the commercial software I use and use it for free without being caught, but if everyone did that then the software wouldn't exist, so I don't, and I hope others will act the same way (whilst accepting that this isn't going to be true some of the time).

Finally, given the enormous extent to which the software industry is funded by advertising, it feels a bit hypocritical to block it. Consider how much of our collective developer platform is paid for using ad revenues either directly or indirectly (anything by Google or Facebook, even HN). If everyone blocked ads then at minimum Chrome and Android probably wouldn't exist, nor would HN which is justified partly by sponsored posts by YC startups. In fact it seems likely that there'd be no competitive open source browsers or consumer operating systems. I like that there are, and if that means advertising, so be it.

I expect they are all iOS users who don't use ad blockers "in principle".

I thought iOS Safari had built-in ad-blocking functionality (block list filled by extensions)?

I can't block youtube ads on my iPad.

Sure you can, you can run something like Wipr [1] and SponsorBlock [2] in Safari on an iPad for an ad-free YouTube experience, in the browser.

Of course there is a compromise on the video quality (1080p max) and convenience of the official app.

[1]: https://kaylees.site/wipr.html [2]: https://sponsor.ajay.app

I believe you can if you use safari instead of the YouTube app.

what does adblocking have to do with OS?

Safari makes it difficult on non-jailbroken iOS.