this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
146 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

34832 readers
1 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] monobot@lemmy.ml 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

Maybe we should stop calling them adblockers.

I am not blocking ads I am blocking spyware and malicious scripts. I wouldn't have anything against well behaving ads without js.

Also making it illegal is nit necessary, just don't show me your content and exclude it from search results and we are good.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 35 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I am selecting the files I wish to transfer and the ones I do not. It is my bandwidth. I also use reader mode as an accessibility feature.

[–] balancedchaos@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

"Selective file transfer" is a nice way to put it.

[–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

On that note, I wish Firefox had a setting to always load sites in reader mode, when available. Ideally with the ability to set exceptions, though.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 3 points 2 years ago

This seems like a basic accessibility feature. I believe Safari can do it on a per-site basis, but all browsers should have the option as a global preference.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

I'm not blocking ads; I'm exercising my property rights.

That's how we need to be framing this, and the level of outrage we need to have about it: who the flying fuck do these technology companies think they are, to presume to dictate how I am "allowed" to use MY OWN PROPERTY?!

This is nothing less than a war on private property rights. They are trying to subjugate us and turn us into digital serfs. We are justified in defending ourselves and our rights by any means necessary. They are lucky we're merely taking technological countermeasures and not shooting them in the street.

[–] enitoni@beehaw.org 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Meanwhile I just hate ads. I hate how deceptive and manipulative they are, and how the entire point is convincing people to Buy Product™ regardless of if it even works as advertised or will even be useful to the person. It always comes across as antisocial behavior to me, but maybe I'm way too radicalized from my hate of late stage capitalism and overconsumption.

[–] hyorvenn@jlai.lu 1 points 2 years ago

This, some feel the need to balance their use of adblocking by saying how it would be better if ads were less intrusive, less spying.

We would be better without any ad at all.

[–] anothermember@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

I really think that's a separate issue, which needs to be discussed as a completely separated issue. I agree ads by their nature are manipulative, they serve the website and the advertiser not the user. I think that once ads are non user-tracking then we can have a discussion about advertising ethics and deceptive advertising (online ads have always been terrible even before they were privacy invading) but you can't have that discussion when it's mixed in with privacy issues. Only once you take away the privacy issues then we can have the conversation about ad-pollution versus website revenue.

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

I could tolerate well-behaved static image banners, but you know it would all be distracting videos at the least.

[–] anothermember@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

I really wish people would stop calling them adblockers too, they're wide-spectrum content blockers, and they're not blocking ads, they're blocking malicious ad-networks which is necessary for user security. Given the prevalence of online spyware it should be a basic feature built in to all web browsers.

It just gives spyware-promoting sites the ability to say "but you're hurting our revenue" which is a completely separate issue.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 years ago

True. This is why I switched to uBlock origin, because it blocks so much more than ads: trackers, malware, and those stupid autoplaying videos. I really wish there was an "acceptable ad" option (per-site because some don't deserve that but many do) like Adblock Plus though, where it lets through unobtrusive ads.

[–] Deifyed@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The right to use adblockers? This is my device. I bought it. I have ownership. I decide what and who gets to run code on it. Write what you want in lawyerspeak in contracts designed to prevent me from reading and/or understanding it. You can't redefine ownership

[–] fossphi@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

You can't redefine ownership

Sadly, they really are trying to. And by promising comfort and convenience within a walled garden, they are managing quite well to convince the majority of people that it's all good and for our own benefit.
Can't open your devices, can't copy your content. Welcome to DRM hell

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago

My right is to use

  • Adblocker
  • Trackerblocker
  • Clickbait Blocker
  • Fingerprint Randomizer
  • Anti-adblock blocker
  • Cookie Advice Blocker
  • Paywall jumper

This as long Website abuses with these measures, to steal my data, bandwith and browsing speed, annoying me. I'm a user not a tradable matter

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago

Ads are a way for companies to steal your life from you. 60 seconds at a time.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

The way I see it, once the page lands onto your screen, the company/website owner/etcetera should have absolutely no right to tell you how you can or cannot interact with the page so long as you don't load the page to attack their server(s).