FBI Recomends Adblock

[StDragon]

10 hours ago, williamcll said:

Awful idea, they have their own ads and shills about crypto.

It blocks ad, and the crypto crap on the home page can be ignored. It's a non-issue. 

[WereCat]

Another nice ad... 

 

 

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, WereCat said:

Another nice ad... 

 

 

 

Don't use an Adblocker though. You'll steal the ad revenue from the hard working malware developers, lol.

[WereCat]

13 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Don't use an Adblocker though. You'll steal the ad revenue from the hard working malware developers, lol.

I wish you could pay the Malware developers monthly fee to not see their ads. I don't want to use adblocker. 

[MageTank]

27 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I wish you could pay the Malware developers monthly fee to not see their ads. I don't want to use adblocker. 

You and me both, lol. The less extensions I have, the better. I feel like we are going to reach a point where websites turn into cable companies and start bundling website access together as a "network" that you can subscribe to for an ad-free experience. Pay $15 a month and you'll get to visit all of Microsoft's websites and some of their partners without seeing ads. But, you'll also need to pay for Google's web bundle, and the "Gamer Bundle" to get access to an ad free Steam, Epic, Battle.net, Ubisoft and EA experience.

 

Kind of like how now you have to pay for a dozen different streaming services because everyone wants their own subscription model, but this time, for ad-free web access.

[WereCat]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

You and me both, lol. The less extensions I have, the better. I feel like we are going to reach a point where websites turn into cable companies and start bundling website access together as a "network" that you can subscribe to for an ad-free experience. Pay $15 a month and you'll get to visit all of Microsoft's websites and some of their partners without seeing ads. But, you'll also need to pay for Google's web bundle, and the "Gamer Bundle" to get access to an ad free Steam, Epic, Battle.net, Ubisoft and EA experience.

 

Kind of like how now you have to pay for a dozen different streaming services because everyone wants their own subscription model, but this time, for ad-free web access.

Ah yes, I can't wait to pirate a website with some box like a TV.

[linkviii]

Since this thread is still going:

https://twitter.com/OBSProject/status/1615033901809913856

 

 

 

[Bitter]

3 hours ago, WereCat said:

I wish you could pay the Malware developers monthly fee to not see their ads. I don't want to use adblocker. 

I don't think that would work like how you think it would work. You want to pay the criminals not to be criminals but you're forgetting that they're criminals so they'll just still do crimes while you're paying them not to do crimes because they're criminals. They will literally have their cake and eat it too.

[vertigo220]

1 minute ago, Bitter said:

I don't think that would work like how you think it would work. You want to pay the criminals not to be criminals but you're forgetting that they're criminals so they'll just still do crimes while you're paying them not to do crimes because they're criminals. They will literally have their cake and eat it too.

Not necessarily. It could be like paying for "protection," which to my understanding mostly works as long as you pay. I agree it's not a good idea, not because it won't work, but out of principle. Not sure if they were being sarcastic or not. The other problem with this is that you'd have to pay every bad actor out there, which would add up real fast.

[WereCat]

12 hours ago, Bitter said:

I don't think that would work like how you think it would work. You want to pay the criminals not to be criminals but you're forgetting that they're criminals so they'll just still do crimes while you're paying them not to do crimes because they're criminals. They will literally have their cake and eat it too.

Well, that's the punchline of the joke.

[Vishera]

On 1/9/2023 at 11:34 PM, linkviii said:

adblock

Ablock? - I am using 5 different script blockers to cover my bases.

I recommend to start with uBlock Origin, then NoScript to block http, WebGL, Ping requests, Unrestricted CSS and LAN access.

And if you are willing to sacrifice usability for security i would recommend blocking JavaScript altogether.

[Vishera]

On 1/16/2023 at 6:30 PM, linkviii said:

Since this thread is still going:

https://twitter.com/OBSProject/status/1615033901809913856

 

 

 

I just tried entering one of those scam ads (got the address from one of the videos in the Twitter thread),

My script blockers freaked out and the browser crashed

There was probably a conflict between some of the 5 script blockers that i have installed - Which is the first time that it has happened to me.

Each and every one of those script blockers specialize in blocking particular kinds of scripts but they can also block other kinds of scripts.

And since all of them block malicious scripts a conflict between them makes sense in this case.

[JMJ]

On 1/9/2023 at 11:34 PM, linkviii said:

The FBI wants YOU to be a privateer!

Privateer reporting for duty.

Bad sailor jokes aside.

A serious issue on the evolution of the internet.

I see covering pages on the internet in ads that have hidden iframes overlapped or similar behavior to be against the purpose of the internet.

That the FBI would recommend the use of ad blockers speaks to the volume of this issue.

 

From a accessibility point if a site is not serving the client the information requested its not serving its purpose on the internet. If you take the early interpreters (software used for blind people) that would utilize OS based text to speech or text to output on braille keyboards. The interpreter would read the content of the page from top to bottom and this often included ads. They read out or print what the users mouse is hovering over and try to translate that to the end user. An ad obscuring the close ad X in the corner or overlapping the frame with another frame so all the ads get their full playtime is not what i would consider to be the intended purpose.

Blind people a side as others have pointed out the generation that didn't grow up with the internet and or those not as "techy" are easily overwhelmed when going online since it can be an overwhelming experience from the sheer number of ads.

 

Aside from the debate of ads i think some misconceptions have formed.

So lets use the page user: kumicota accessed

link: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3632142/how-docker-broke-in-half.html

 

You can view a page on the internet without ads or without ad functionality. This does not mean i have broken any laws it just means I am running in a limited environment.

On the top part of the page the google iframe is visible even though nothing is running since it is not supported.

 

All I'm doing here is using Lynx a text based browser. It might not be the prettiest, but if all you are going to do is read some news articles than this will serve that purpose.

 

User: SignatureSigner said pi hole. It just means i don't want traffic from certain domain names.

So lets try that in a bare bones browser like chromium.

 

DNS sinkholes or similar methods are widely used. I am still not breaking any laws since the content is served as intended and all i am doing is limiting the viewing experience on the client side.

 

"Most" ad blockers take a similar approach where a block list would limit what is served, as this is considered unwanted content.

 

IMHO : What is deemed unwanted content is up to the end user.

 

The misconception that ad blockers break web functionality comes from user error or badly formed block lists. 

 

But i don't think anyone can argue that this is the intended purpose for a news site.

On 1/10/2023 at 4:01 PM, kumicota said:

How can this become more broken with an adblock?