No adblocker detected
278 comments
·September 9, 2025ksynwa
Freak_NL
Whenever I open Google's Play Store on Android I get this feeling of walking into some dystopic shopping mall. I hardly ever come there (F-Droid covers all utilities for me, so Google's own app store is really only for official apps from banks, public transport, etc.), so its user hostile design always hits me like a wall of visual noise and clutter.
At these moments that feeling that for most people getting bombarded by ads is normal hits hard. I'm always wondering when the ride will end and uBlock Origin can't protect us any longer.
JoshStrobl
Unless you have a specific reason to use Google Play Store (as in the app, not the distribution medium), I would highly recommend using Aurora Store (which you can handily get via F-droid). I use it on my Sailfish OS phone (C2) to similarly get apps not available via F-Droid.
Freak_NL
That's probably better for the sanity of all concerned. I'll have a look.
mahrain
What always surprises me is the sheer amount of fake, scammy, apps trying to appear as if they're something else. Trying to steal clicks from users looking for Adblock, VLC or other legitimate apps... it's a mess!
MathMonkeyMan
Nevermind the fake stuff, the real stuff is scammy enough.
When you select an app to install on Google Play, it takes you to another screen confirming the install. But that install button on top is not for the app you selected, it's for a different, advertised app. You have to scroll down to find the confirmation button for the app you already instructed the store to install.
This isn't going to ruin any lives, but it's gross.
const_cast
Yes, this is exactly why Google's claims of locking down apps on Android for security are such hot bullshit. Its such an obvious lie.
I don't need alternative app stores to download malware and scams, that play store is full of that. And it's advertised front and center.
ainiriand
If it serves any purpose just today I've published docscandroid.app just because the document scanners out there are really scary and do not really fit my purpose. My app is not perfect but its mine and that is enough.
bambax
I'm in the same boat. I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.)
How people put up with ads is a complete mystery.
Vinnl
> I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.)
Ads in public places, bus stops, etc. are kinda hard to avoid unfortunately.
rancidcrab
But those are ok. They (usually) don't have sound, auto playing videos, shock content or cover something I want to look at.
Theodores
Get a bicycle and learn the car free routes into town and to your work. Nobody puts up adverts on cycle paths. It isn't against the law, it just makes no commercial sense to do so.
By making the bicycle however you get about, you cut down on seeing ads.
reify
Hey Vinni
Ditto
I dont see any ads online.
I dont have a TV either, I stopped watching that ad infested garbage in 2005.
too old to walk to the bus stop, too much of an introvert to hang out near pulblic places with other people
vbezhenar
I don't use adblock. That's not a problem for me. May be I don't visit those ad-ridden websites often enough.
rcxdude
You do also get used to it. Banner blindness is absolutely a thing (and something that still trips me up where I miss the most important information on a page, despite using adblock most of the time)
brador
Flick the bean once a month to see which products and services you’re missing out on.
Picked up a nice cleaner and hiking boots that my ad blockers were denying me last month.
Life changing.
Y_Y
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flick%20the%...
Interesting choice of phrase
Diti
Equally life-changing would be to keep the ads blocked, and visit the “Buy it for life” subreddit, which has recommendations for the best products and services that will last you a lifetime.
nemomarx
If you really needed those things, you would have thought of getting them on your own time. Being tempted into it is consumerism and kinda why we're in this mess
spaqin
Are you sure you needed them? What was stopping you from doing the research without a third party shoving whatever they will make money on?
cammikebrown
Dropship instagram ad products are famously high quality and not a scam!
moolcool
The quality control of even mainline ad platforms is abysmal as well. Like on YouTube, I used to get deep-fakes of the Canadian prime minister trying to sell some crypto scam. You'd literally click through to a phishing site disguised as a Canada Revenue Agency page.
rs186
I have DNS based adblocking on home router, plus adblock extension.
Every time I use the web using 5G data or public wifi, I regret the experience. Then I immediately turn on an adblocking VPN.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF
Mullvad has a free DoH service, FYI. It can potentially replace your self-hosted service, at least for your phone, so you don't forget to set it up when you leave home.
pea
I wonder if you could spend a few million on promoting adblockers to justify a short position on Google or Meta.
jbstack
You'd have to be very careful not to run afoul of insider trading and/or market manipulation laws. Whether you would or not would depend on all the details and the jurisdiction.
loeg
Not in the US. There's no insider trading angle at all, and it's not fraudulent market manipulation to attempt to persuade consumers to cease supporting a business you're shorting as long as you're not lying about it.
kelvinjps10
Brave did this they ran ads on Facebook and YouTube where they would show ads telling you how to install brave to stop receiving them. Also they criticized because brave themselves was showing ads
port11
People love a good black-or-white purity attack on companies that try to do better. Yes, they show ads, but at what cost for your personal privacy? We have to be able to handle nuance rather than absolutist positions.
sidrag22
eh, thats tough to critique imo, it might be an end, but the end result is considerably less ads in the future. only thing that makes it a little odd of a spot is that its THEIR product, but i think a nice person randomly trying to spread the word of ublock or something through ads is more than justified.
i guess its also a bummer they are financially supporting facebook/youtube, but maybe the end result would be break even if they get enough people to utilize adblocking. thats pretty crazy compound interest over time for even just like 3 people
jollyllama
Yeah. I use brave on all my devices. When somebody shows me a YouTube video on their device and three ads play before the video, or loads a local news page with all the ads, my reaction is "Wow! They sure are bombarding you guys to make up for us free-riders!"
jdprgm
I really can't comprehend how aggressive ad blocking isn't the norm and at 90%+ at this point. Whenever someone just doesn't seem to care i'm concerned something is wrong with them. Youtube ad blocking was briefly not working for me recently and the volume of ads just while doing some chores which forced interrupting flow to go manually skip was astounding and enraging. It's like if I was at a quiet library and every 30 seconds someone randomly started screaming yet half the people have a reaction of "meh, doesn't bother me".
ryandrake
I think people are just hopelessly used to their lives being saturated with ads. On TV, on the Internet, on radio, on billboards, at restaurants, at the airport, at the gas station, in stores, out of stores, almost every surface that could have an ad on it either does now or will one day. This saturation has been so complete and normalized that people are blind to it.
BLKNSLVR
Indignant Fry: But not in dreams! No siree.
timw4mail
Ugghh, gas stations. I remember being able to use a pump without ads :(
kelvinjps10
I wonder if they're effective at all at this point
const_cast
> I really can't comprehend how aggressive ad blocking isn't the norm and at 90%+ at this point
Mr Krabs voice: money!
No but seriously, if the FBI is telling you to use an ad blocker, use a fucking ad blocker.
My workplace doesn't allow ad blockers for security. Except ads are a MUCH bigger security concern and everyone knows it.
I'm so sick and tired of everyone playing dumb and acting like it's fine. No, it's not fine. Its not okay that Google is serving you a phishing ad that drains your bank account. They should be held liable. Why is everyone acting like their balls have been chopped off?
Do something about it. Minimum is run an aggressive ad blocker. MINIMUM!
nananana9
Most people don't use the internet at a whole - if you just stick to the 10 biggest apps/websites, the experience is acceptable without an adblocker.
As for YouTube, blocking their ads is basically a part-time job at this point. On the desktop it breaks once a month, on Android NewPipe stopped working recently, and soon you won't be even able to install third party clients.
ahofmann
I hear this often. My experience is totally different. I've installed ublock origin and I'm using Vivaldi as my blink engine wrapper. I've never seen a YouTube ad since years. I wonder why anyone has to fight for an ad free YouTube.
happymellon
Firefox and UBlock Origin has never broken for me and works effectively.
nyarlathotep_
> On the desktop it breaks once a month, on Android NewPipe stopped working recently, and soon you won't be even able to install third party clients.
yeah, I often download things via yt-dlp to watch later and I'm encountering frequent failures that I assume are related to the whack-a-mole yt has been doing for the last two years or so.
NewPipe has been working for me as of late though, and I've not updated it in some time (although my use is infrequent)
bambax
This isn't really true. Firefox + uBlock origin works fine on the desktop and on mobile. You don't need to use the official YT app. (It is true thought that NewPipe is often broken).
kelvinjps10
I have stopped ads in everywhere for YouTube and they haven't broke: Mobile revanced so far good new pipe it broke but I only use it for downloading videos. On Firefox I use ublock and it has never failed me. Then on tv I'm using smartube
baud147258
On mobile I use Youtube with Firefox and Ublock Origin never had any issue with it.
VTimofeenko
Consider using dedicated NewPipe repo in F-droid, fixes land much quicker
froglets
I hate ads and avoid them, but haven’t had to install an ad blocker yet. I only really notice them when searching for recipes, and if I had to go through that multiple times a day I probably would get an ad blocker. I do pay for YouTube to avoid ads, and don’t watch much user generated content because it’s too ad-like imo. I quit podcasts 3 years ago, because those ads made them become unlistenable just like terrestrial radio and I just can’t go back to that kind of listening experience. I started listening to audiobooks instead and don’t miss podcasts at all.
port11
It's a tragedy, when it comes to digital and specifically web literacy, but most people don't know they can.
I sat on calls with teachers at my previous job and they had no extensions installed. My own sister (a milennial) wasn't aware. Before that, I was at a place where devs could join UX interviews; it was even worse given the generational divide: older folks couldn't even tell when a link was obviously malicious.
We either install good browsers/extensions for our relatives, or let them be easy prey to the current state of affairs.
tonyedgecombe
The solution for me was to not watch YouTube anymore, no ad-blocker required.
sidrag22
i took the route of only allowing myself the youtube search bar, everything else is not displayed. if i want to watch a video its because im seeking it out, i dont get fed anything. hearing friends and family discuss youtube now, it sounds like they are being held prisoner. its snuck up on a lot of people, the slow push of shorts is what really made me realize youtube was becoming a major issue in my life, despite not seeing ads or anything.
EbNar
A wise man.
pjc50
It can't survive as the norm. That would cause the economics of sites to collapse. We have to accept that the people clicking on the ads (and sometimes getting scammed) are funding the sites for the rest of us. Like gatcha games are F2P because of whales.
ozgrakkurt
Change is good, maybe it will be better if there is no ads and sites monetize in a sensible way
Kiro
The fact that you don't just pay for YouTube Premium makes me think something is wrong with you. A Premium view gives much more money to the creator but I guess "just let me pay" is only relevant when you can't.
soganess
> ...something is wrong with you.
Are ad hominems back in vogue? (that is partially snide and partially serious. I feel like I've also/unconsciously been doing more of them recently.)Regardless, your argument surrounding the insult was well worn 20 years ago. And so was the first response; why would I pay into some nebulous system where I don't know how much is really going to whom?
One of the nicer things about the hellscape that is the modern internet is the low-friction ability to pay creators directly.
...oh, I know why! Because if I pay Google, then Sundar pinky swears not to mercilessly track and monetize everything I do on youtube. \s
darkwater
With uBlock Origin you can actually click on the first Google results for any search, scroll down a bit the initial yadda yadda and find the actual answer to your search even in those webSEOtes that are usually just ads over ads.
neilv
> No adblocker detected. Consider using an extension like uBlock Origin to save time and bandwidth.
And attention and privacy.
This notice is a great idea.
I might remove the "like" from the notice, since "uBlock Origin" is good, but some others are questionable or even outright malware.
BTW, note that the `ublockorigin.com` Web site that is linked to isn't by Raymond Hill, leader of uBlock Origin. It looks well-intended, and is nicely polished UX, but good practice would be to be careful (since it doesn't appear to be under Hill's control, and is an additional point of potential compromise in what would be very valuable malware). Hill seems to operate from <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock>. One link that isn't too bad to view <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/README.md>. Another that isn't great but OK is <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki>.
shiomiru
> It looks well-intended
The recent PuTTY domain squatting debacle has made me suspicious, and indeed... if you look closer, you'll notice that the owner of ublockorigin.com is also advertising his completely unrelated products in a "my other tools" section.
latexr
> The recent PuTTY domain squatting debacle
I knew they recently added a new official page under https://putty.software but was unaware of any squatting debacle. For those wanting to know more: https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/17/puttyorg_website_cont...
kelnos
Your average internet user is not going to have any idea what to do with a link to GitHub. It's a shame there's no official website with easy install instructions. (But I agree with you that it's not a great idea to link to a website not under control of the author.)
balamatom
Underappreciated comment. But yeah, even on the README, way too much GitHub header. UBO really needs an official landing page.
Vortigaunt
The FBI also makes a good argument that adblockers prevent scammers from directing people to malicious sites.
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/22/fbi-ad-blocker/
https://web.archive.org/web/20230219020056/https://www.ic3.g...
nicce
I have said it years that adblocker is the best anti-virus these days.
caminante
I get miffed when corporations manage employee browsers and disable adblocker extensions.
BLKNSLVR
I don't understand why DNS ad blockers (Ad Guard, Pi-Hole, other) aren't frequently used across corporates. Especially given the regular-ish training on cybersecurity and related.
bb88
For some industries, it's critical their employees are not spied upon. The CISO should prioritize this for those companies.
Banks, Defense, etc.
mordae
When I've worked in the public sector IT dept, I've made sure that the installed browser is Firefox and uBlock Origin is set up.
Do your part.
keb_
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).
If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.
rchaud
> However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
No it isn't. Free websites exist: Wordpress, Blogger, Wix, Weebly etc. The only "ad" they show is a static banner for their own platform, not the giant scripts Google loads for Google Ads. Neocities and Digital Ocean are $5/mo for a custom domain and hosting, theme it anyway you like.
Most "content"-focused websites like Buzzfeed, The Verge, Gizmodo etc simply embed third party content (Youtube, Vimeo, Giphy, random poll generators) instead of hosting them on their domain. Much of their content is rehashing news articles with a paper-thin layer of "analysis" on top. Then they add metric tons of ads, and throw in affilliate link garbage "product reviews" on top.
This is the dropship-ification of the web and it pretty much killed the free website culture of the Geocities/Anglefire era.
Terr_
My view is that core bargain was fine, but advertisers have broken the agreement with other offenses, like:
* Autoplay videos that preemptively take my bandwidth.
* Autoplay audio that takes over my speakers unexpectedly and interrupts other things.
* Forms of pop-ups that clutter or disrupt my tab/window control.
* Being spied-on by a system that tries to aggregate and track all of my browsing habits.
* A mostly unaccountable vector for malware and phishing sites.
* Just a genuinely horrible experience whenever a page is one part content to three parts blinking blooping ever shifting ads that would make Idiocracy blush.
They try to pretend customer resistance is just over the most innocent and uncontroversial display of ads, but it's not true, and it hasn't been for decades.
NicuCalcea
I wish there was a middle ground where I could block ads like the ones you mention, while allowing privacy-respecting ads that don't ruin my browsing experience. I know Adblock Plus have their "Acceptable Ads" policy [1], but that just meant letting through ads from companies that paid them, like Google [2].
[1] https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2013/7/5/4496852/adblock-plus-eye-g...
monegator
Yeah, no thanks. I used to think like this, and i remember exactly what happened the day i installed my first adblocker: i was already annoyed that some sites i visited employed very annoying ads, on both sides of the window, occupying about 20% of the screen, each. And they were serving an animation with _very_ loud music.
That day instead, when i opened the page 3-4 other pages opened as soon as the website loaded, all serving loud and obnoxious virus alerts, porn and some other crap. But how? I disabled popups a long time ago.
That day i found out about self-clicking ads. That day i installed an ad blocker.
It is THEM that have broken the social contract. Screw them and screw ads.
(good thing that i wasn't on dialup anymore. Anybody remember that? scam sites that would make your dialup bill go up crazy, as if you were calling a courier's help line)
safety1st
Well, hang on. Your comment is fair minded, but to be fair we have to consider the context.
The context is that the courts have found Google holds two illegal monopolies within the online adtech market [1], the remedy for which has yet to be determined. Furthermore the DoJ has sued Meta for holding one as well and that trial is now underway. [2]
I don't know about you, but to me, if the counterparty breaches a contract, that contract is now null and void. Same goes for a social contract, and if someone tries to kill me or rob me, whatever social contract we may have had, is now null and void.
Fortunately Google and Meta aren't actually taking hits out on anyone as far as I know, but the fact remains that the market makers for these online ads, are either outright convicted criminals, or being sued by the government for such. I don't see that we have any social contract to respect or allow any of this. It is right, just and moral to oppose the very existence of online advertising in my opinion, until the illegal abuses are corrected.
If the court has resolved that Google's breaking the law, how about we get an injunction ordering them to halt their ad tech business until the remedies are implemented. Why are we going so easy on them?
You don't owe crooks anything, neither do I.
This isn't about being cheap or breaking a fair deal. It's about asking that law and order be restored within American business and society. What's the point of this society, what moral justification does it have to exist as it is, if it keeps on breaking its own laws to protect the most powerful?
Now it's unfortunate that publishers (websites) get caught in the crossfire of this, they might not agree with me when I say you should oppose all online ads full stop until the problem is corrected, but they are getting screwed by Google and Meta and they would be more than happy to see justice done.
[1] https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/04/18/court-ruling-agains... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Meta
streptomycin
You could block only ads from Google and Meta. Most large sites use header bidding, where Google's ads are a fallback only if no other ad company bids higher, so most ad revenue come from those other companies. And IIRC Meta doesn't participate in that at all, so for them you'd just have to block ads on their own sites.
MaxikCZ
This is the best counterargument I have hard so far. Saving it and using it next time someone brings that up, hope you dont mind I stole it without generating $0.000000001 of ad revenue in compensation.
safety1st
Dang I'll just have to pay for 0.00000001ml of my morning coffee some other way! Thanks and please share by all means. One of my siblings rightly points out how terrible modern online ads are: autoplay, clutter, surveillance, intrusion, malware, etc.
They're totally right of course and my question is - how bad would all this be if the biggest ad market maker wasn't an actual literal convicted-by-multiple-courts criminal with the second biggest market maker not far behind? What if these guys had just followed the existing laws that are on the books?
Well I don't know but I bet it would be better somehow and the only way to find out is to finally start enforcing the law.
I'm sure ads would be better somehow if there were fewer criminals involved. One obvious theory is that Google is underpaying the publishers and the publishers have resorted to dirtier tricks in response. Another is that Google implements stuff everyone else hates because hello monopoly, where else are you going to go? Maybe the lawbreakers cause the slop.
throwawaygmbno
This is a fine social contract for the independent blogger just sharing their thoughts on the Internet and maybe hoping to get a few dollars for their server cost.
Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people. There is no social contract with them. They just sell your data.
If you know what they are doing, know how to block it, and refuse to, you are complicit in making the world a worse place. Corporations are not people that should be treated with the respect you are talking about.
specproc
For so many arguments, I'm also thinking copyright here, the framing is always about the little guy. These laws/practices are there to protect/enable small businesses and content creators.
The reality is very much the opposite, they're about maximising revenue for monopolies. I see no social contract here.
tonyedgecombe
>This is a fine social contract for the independent blogger just sharing their thoughts on the Internet and maybe hoping to get a few dollars for their server cost.
The trouble is the ad-blockers will block their ads as well. Visit somewhere like John Gruber's Daring Fireball site which has the least offensive ad placement possible yet his adverts are still blocked.
luckys
With Ublock Origin at least, you can whitelist websites that you want to see ads on.
pmontra
> Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people.
IMHO this is a very wrong take. Mega corporations are people. Demonstration: nobody goes to work at Google for a while. Everything stops, technical stuff and non technical stuff. No people, no corporations, small ones and large ones.
asdewqqwer
Sure, then governments are also just people. How about we restore Monarchy now so someone can actually be held responsible? Also we should completely abandon Nulla poena sine lege since evidently the imbalanced power does not exist between people and also people (government).
ragequittah
Easy bet that most of those people disagree with the corporation's ad (and other) practices also. I'd even bet the ones working directly in ad tech are probably the most likely to always use an ad blocker.
randunel
The websites you speak of don't get to decide what my hardware and my software does when running in my hands. Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.
nobody9999
>Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.
Alternatively, they can also refuse to serve you their content unless you turn off your ad blocker. Which would be fine. It is their content they're hosting after all.
And it's also fine for you to decide not to turn off your ad blocker and not view their content.
freehorse
There are some that do this and I also think it is fair. I just close the website and do not view the content. Nobody is forced to either serve or be served so I do not see what is the problem to be discussed here.
I wonder why not many websites do this """adblocking freeloaders""" is such a big issue?
charcircuit
That's why the parent said it was a social contact based on the honor system. Just because you can technically block ads, it doesn't meant it's the right thing to do.
kergonath
It is not a social contract. They track me whether I use their services or not, on websites that are completely unrelated. I do not get a choice, not to mention the monopolies they built (yeah, fuck YouTube). These ads eat up my resources and affect my battery life.
There is no more honour involved as when someone pays the mob for protection. I strongly reject this argument. I am bound by honour but they can do anything and change the contract unilaterally? Fuck them, that’s no contract at all.
ryandrake
It's not any kind of contract. A contract (even an unwritten "social" one) implies at the very least some kind of agreement, some meeting of the minds. There is no meeting of the minds on the web: Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content," then the server says, "Here's what I'd like you to show," and finally the browser decides what out of that stream of bytes gets shown. There's no agreement by the user in that conversation, not even an implied one. The site can decide whether or not to reply, whether or not to send anything, and the user agent then decides what to show. There's no contract.
ffsm8
The social contract was broken by the website owner by including ads.
kelnos
There has never in the history of the internet been a social contract that says to be a good netizen you have to look at the ads a website displays.
Attempting to normalize such a thing is disgusting.
sexeriy237
no ads = no malware
pwdisswordfishz
If I am allowed not to look at the screen when an advert is playing, then I should be allowed not to play it in the first place. There is no moral obligation on the part of the viewer here.
An advert is an investment: someone pays money to broadcast something and hopes that will generate awareness. Any investment is allowed to fail.
Dban1
Wait till they roll out advert quizzes. Answer the 3 questions correctly about the advert you watched before you're allowed to continue.
strken
The problem is that commercial ad-supported websites force themselves into all available online spaces: search results, discords, social media, affiliate links on blogs. The only way to stop them doing so is to take away their source of revenue.
If ads weren't profitable, you wouldn't find no results for your search about which kitchen knife to buy, you would would find better, less weaponised, more relevant results. If you don't block ads then you are directly contributing to a world with more ads and less content.
jwr
I love it. But in the spirit of today's Internet, you should make this message an obnoxious pop-up that requires dismissal with a tiny "X" button that is dark-grey-on-black and placed tactically so as to be the least accessible. The touch target on touch devices should be tiny and slightly off. The pop-up should also fail completely on iPads, covering all the content with a dark overlay but giving the user no way to proceed.
coldpie
FYI you can nuke all that crap with a simple browser bookmark: https://www.smokingonabike.com/2024/01/20/take-back-your-web...
teekert
Big tech has slowly convinced us that it is their right to violate us. Because they give us so much for free. But they also take things away from us, without our knowledge and consent, they manipulate us, they make barriers between us en the information we need. They change the human condition for the worse.
We do not have to feel guilty to act against them.
Btw, yesterday Chromium told me Ublock Origin is no longer supported. Well, thank you, now I know why I wasn't using Chromium for anything other than MS365 stuff. It's working just fine on Firefox.
dspillett
> Unfortunately, I have no way to detect DNS based blocking short of loading an actual ad.
Before that point I'd already spotted that limitation, but there might be an easy solution: get a domain added to a common block list used by DNS based blockers. If you get the right content from a resource on a host with that name (or the other test passes, so we test for both forms of blocker) show the message.
Of course there will be false positives if the page goes down or if they're is some other network issue, but no test like this will be perfect.
Anyone want to save me the research to find out the easiest way to get a domain on the lists? I have no objection to sacrificing a few £ per year on a name to use and I've got spare resource to serve the pile of tiny requests that'll go through because people aren't running a blocker.
EDIT: as a secondary note, I wouldn't just flip between “display:none” and “display:block” on one element upon detection result. That might cause visual disturbance in many page layouts as things load. I would leave a block of the same positioning and size properties in the flow in either case, either blank or with a message like “You'll be pleased to know that your ad blocker seems to be working.”, perhaps leaving the space blank (but still in the flow with the same dimensions) initially so an incorrect message isn't displayed if something (scripting being disabled client-side for instance) stops the tests running at all.
crazygringo
> If you want to support your favorite authors: send then money. A dollar helps more then viewing ads ever would.
This isn't really true. I ran an ad-supported site at one point with my content, just a small banner at the top of each page. The ads paid for a significant portion of my monthly rent. Getting a few dollars from the occasional viewer would not, since 99.99+% of people are not going to do that.
I don't like viewing ads, but let's not pretend like they don't make money for content creators. They absolutely do.
neogodless
Reread the statement though. Does one person viewing ads pay you more than one dollar?
crazygringo
But it's not one person viewing ads on just your site. It's across all the sites they visit.
A person viewing ads over the course of a year is generating much, much more than a dollar in revenue.
And in a parallel universe without ads, they're definitely not sending a dollar to every site they visit.
You can't compare one person who sends a dollar to a site with one person's ad revenue to a site, because as I said, 99.99+% of people are never going to send you a dollar.
The author is implying ads don't generate meaningful revenue but paying a dollar does. That's just false.
elashri
Even CERN would advice everyone to use ad-blocker [1] for a safer internet experience. I am sure ads as it is today wasn't part of the web plan when it started.
[1] https://home.cern/news/news/computing/computer-security-bloc...
diggan
Guess nowadays they recommend everyone to use Firefox or some other non-crippling browser then also?
I helped my wife with something the other day, noticed the ads everywhere, while I was sure I had installed uBlock for her in the past. Went to the Chrome's addons page, and Google apparently is automatically disabling uBlock and calling it unsupported, yet you can enable it until next time you restart Chrome. But seems Chrome is actively trying to get rid of adblockers lately.
est
I wish browsers could just provide a way to disable javascript after page `onload`.
Perhaps only enables js when user clicks something.
landgenoot
Tried to browse a while with NoScript addon. But barely any page loads, so you need to whitelist almost every page you visit, which defeats the purpose.
I have been thinking about some kind of render proxy that runs all the JS for you somewhere else in a sandbox and sends you the screenshot or rendered HTML instead. Or maybe we could leverage an LLM to turn the Bloated JS garbage into the actual information you are looking for.
coldpie
> Tried to browse a while with NoScript addon. But barely any page loads, so you need to whitelist almost every page you visit, which defeats the purpose.
Nah, this is just straight up false. Many pages work fine with NoScript blocking all scripts. For those that don't, you usually only have to allowlist the root domain, but you can still leave the other 32 domains they are importing blocked. It's actually surprisingly common for blocking JS to result in a better experience than leaving it enabled (eg no popups, no videos, getting rid of fade-ins and other stupid animations).
I won't argue if you think that is too much work, and I definitely wouldn't recommend it for a non-technical user, but it's not nearly as bad as you described.
MaxikCZ
I am still running the NoScript, whitelisting the page I am on. It has benefits of not whitelisting other domains it tries to pull stuff from, which 90% is enough to get working site that is way cleaner than with all the bullshit loaded.
pmontra
UMatrix has a better interface. The problem is the same, one has to find the minimum set of scripts that does not break the core functionality of the site. It's an ability that can be trained but it's the reason for I don't install it on the browsers of my friends. However I considered installing it, keeping it disabled and using it as a tool to show how much stuff each site loads from so many different sources. Many domain names are very telling even for the uninitiated.
anticristi
That's what I love most about using ChatGPT vs Google for finding information: less bloat, just what I asked for.
flomo
Maybe this has changed, but ad scripts used document.write(), which runs immediately (before onLoad or etc). A big reason they are slow.
userbinator
Old Opera (before it became another Chromium-shell) had an easy JS on/off toggle in the menu, but I don't remember if it only took effect on load or immediately.
rkagerer
Amen to that. I used to think the Stop button in IE did this.
dheera
setTimeout(() => {
// fuck up all future javascripts
setTimeout = setInterval = requestAnimationFrame = () => {};
Element.prototype.appendChild = () => { throw new Error("Blocked"); };
document.addEventListener = () => {};
window.addEventListener = () => {};
Object.defineProperty(document, "readyState", { get: () => { throw new Error("No JS"); } });
document.write = () => {};
// fuck up canvas
if(window.HTMLCanvasElement) HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.getContext=()=>null;
// fuck up webgl
if(window.WebGLRenderingContext) window.WebGLRenderingContext.prototype.getParameter=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}};
// fuck up webgl2
if(window.WebGL2RenderingContext) window.WebGL2RenderingContext.prototype.getParameter=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}};
// fuck up websockets
window.WebSocket=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}}; window.EventSource=function(){e=>{throw new Error("Blocked")}};
// fuck up popups
window.open=()=>null;
// ...
}, 500);
vhcr
const iframe = document.createElement("iframe");
document.body.append(iframe);
iframe.contentWindow...
cookiengineer
Is there a Browser extension that farbles all these APIs on purpose instead of blocking them?
By farbling I mean making the data look like it's the most common Windows configuration, for example.
landgenoot
I don't think that will work, because that will also provide false information to the logic.
You will have messed up layouts and unneeded quirks. Moreover, banks are using fingerprinting to detect fraud so you will have a hard time on those websites as well.
And more importantly.
tapete2
AdNauseam does something like this.
bb88
or mouseover.
unwind
This is a very nice idea, nicely presented too.
Bug report: There's a typo in the actual popup as shown to me, it says "extention". Consistently enough, the typo is present in the code snippet in the article:
if (!document.cookie.includes("notice-shown")) {
document.getElementById("ad-note-hidden").id = 'ad-note';
document.getElementById("ad-note-content-wrapper").innerHTML = "No adblocker detected. " +
"Consider using an extention like <a href=https://ublockorigin.com/>uBlock Origin</a> to save time and bandwidth." +
" <u onclick=hide()>Click here to close.</u>";
}
nntwozz
The ads themselves are one thing, the more sinister part is that they eat battery life and cause extra network activity.
It's like a leech, and they want you to think it's a symbiotic relationship.
I am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade. Once in a while I have to browse on a device that does not have an ad blocker or most of the times does not even let you install one. Seeing a website that is SEoptimised and heavily ad supported feels like walking into a crack den. That this is the normal experience for the vast majority of users is sad.