I literally haven’t seen anyone even mention it anywhere on the internet as if it never existed, when it comes to Ad blockers I always see uBO recommended with absolutely no mention whatsoever of ABP why? What makes it better than ABP? What happened to it? or maybe I’m wrong and ABP is not as well known as I think it is.

I have been using ABP for many years until someday don’t remember when I switched to uBO because I read that it is “the best ad blocker”.

I maybe need a history lesson as everything on the matter seems so vague to me and the whole situation is super weird

  • immibis
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    @Doug @LinkOpensChest_wav I used to think this way but so much advertising today is malware. I’m happy for sites to write simple text or image ads that won’t even be detected by adblockers, much less actually blocked. It’s the pile of JavaScript that’s the problem, and it’s the pile of JavaScript that adblockers block.

        • LinkOpensChest.wav
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          That seems reasonable. Conversely, most subscription prices are asking disproportionately large sums of money, $10/month or more. I get that capitalism sucks and trying to survive, but I resent people who want to become a millionaire at my expense.

    • Doug [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      I’m totally with you there. JavaScript ads are not ok. But that’s not what the quoted statement said. It said “all ads”.

      I see this a lot with the ad blocking crowd. Especially the ones that will run over to tell you how you’re doing things wrong if you’re not using their preferred method (usually ubo). It’s not enough to block problematic ads because all ads, simply be existing, are problematic.

      But then they won’t offer anything else either. They want all the content of the internet served up to them for free.

      I’d love to live in a utopia where we can all freely share everything. Until that happens I’ve got a family to feed and bills to pay. So does everyone else.

      • immibis
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        @Doug another perspective is that there’s nothing wrong with wanting everything for free.

        • Doug [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          There’s absolutely something wrong with taking steps to get everything for free as it’s going to come at the expense of someone. Companies and the rich are unwilling to absorb any costs when they can get away without, and they usually can.

          Who are you willing to pass the cost of your consumption on to?

          • immibis
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            @Doug would you like to play at a handicap against the rich? Or are you willing to copy their tactics and play even?

            • Doug [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              We’re all playing at a handicap against them all the time.

              I grew up beyond poor. I don’t need a reminder of how big that gap is.

              No, I’m not willing to employ their tactics. I’d rather help those worse off than me succeed than elevate myself on their backs.

      • immibis
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        @Doug do you think that Nintendo has a right to lock down its consoles so you can only play licensed Nintendo games? This is basically the same thing.

        In the usual situation, Nintendo has a right to try to lock down my console and I also have a right to try to unlock it. This is also the situation we have today with adblockers.

        • Doug [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          That’s not at all the same situation. To even get close to similar we’d need to assume that we’re getting either the console or the games for free. Even then it’s still quite a road to even imperfect analogy.

          In the current situation we buy every piece of that puzzle and are still locked out of modifications through obfuscation, proprietary knowledge, and security measures. So that makes the analogy even harder to sell.

          It’s more like ordering a package and being upset about the company’s name appearing on the box/label/receipt.

              • immibis
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                @Doug the right of a provider of a thing to lock it down vs the right of a consumer of a thing to unlock it

                • Doug [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  It’s not a matter of locked vs unlocked. It’s a matter of payment.

                  A website also isn’t really a product. When you go to a store you see the things they want you to see. If you go to a restaurant you’re greeted in the way they choose to greet you and are exposed to how they choose to decorate.

                  But at the core someone has to pay the bills. If you buy a product you pay for it. If you visit a website that serves ads instead of charging that’s what pays those bills. If you’re refusing to even see them you’re handing that cost to someone else

                  • immibis
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    @Doug This concern has no bearing on what happens downstream of you. The question is whether you can lock your product to gather more money to pay your bills with, and whether the person who consumes your product can unlock it meaning you don’t get as much money but they get an unlocked product.