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

  • lemmyuser30@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes we know of it. That’s why we actively avoid it. It doesn’t take many searches to figure out its downfalls. AdBlock, AdBlock Plus, and the non Origin uBlock are all owned by the same company and they allow corporations to pay to let ads through.

  • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    Adblock Plus is not recommended as by default it allows certain promoted ads to show if it deems them unobtrusive. I think they actually receive profits from ads, which is asinine for an adblocking entity.

    On the other hand, uBlock does much more than just block ads. First of all, it blocks all ads, and it blocks other trackers and annoyances from Facebook, Google, as well as having the ability to add custom rules for bypassing certain types of popovers, and to clean up tracking data that often gets appended when you click a URL.

    • Kit Sorens@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ublock doesn’t freeze my YT videos when it rolls over a midroll ad. I’ll never use anything else (maybe a Pi-Hole)

    • Doug [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      it blocks all ads

      Am I the only one that has a problem with this? Unless you’re paying for use of a site then aren’t you basically being entitled to someone else’s labor?

      Someone made the site, created the content, and hosted it for consumption. Until money isn’t necessary for survival it seems reasonable to make sure they’re compensated for it.

        • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, back when most normal sites just had banner ads, I wasn’t too concerned.

          It was only when they started intruding inside actual videos and making every news site look like the sites we were warned never to visit back in the 90s that I ever considered using an ad blocker.

        • Doug [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re blocking them all how do you know how obtrusive or obnoxious they are?

          Secondarily, why do you think that is? Have they gotten more or less instant since ad blockers have been an option?

          I’m not at all against ad blockers. I’ve got a Pi-hole myself. I just think blocking every ad ever is doing a lot more for the problem than it is to help

          • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you’re blocking them all how do you know how obtrusive or obnoxious they are?

            Every now and then, I deactivate my blocker because I’m curious to see, and I almost throw up

            • Doug [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sounds like a pretty weak constitution if you can’t stomach looking at something so mundane. I hope you don’t drive.

              And great job ignoring the other part.

                • Doug [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nice enough to be considerate of the low level employees who only have jobs because the company they work for has ads on their site.

      • gullible@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do feel bad about it on occasion. But then. I remember getting the ol’ rootkit/worm combo from gamefaqs and forgive myself. These sites have long since lost my trust.

        • Doug [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you got screwed once and that’s it for everyone ever? How do you not live in a hut in the mountains?

          • gullible@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are right, I’m sequestering myself by avoiding malvertising on my expensive electronics. If you have any additional tips to aid in sequestering further, I’ll listen to those.

            • Doug [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              We’re obviously not on the same page here.

              I object to blocking “all ads”.

              You responded to that by stating you lost trust for, presumably, everyone after a specific incident.

              To extend that it seems implausible that you could trust anyone, about anything, ever. If one instance of a thing can break your trust for everything like it, what other possibility could exist.

              On the other hand, if you’re blocking malicious ads, which is to say not every ad across the whole of the Internet, that’s a very different thing which I do not object to.

              Are we more clear now?

              • gullible@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                If there were an assurance of safety in advertising then I’d be fine with accepting ads. Insurance or somesuch. Credit card stolen by a pickpocket in a crowded street? Cancel, reverse charges, out an hour, a card replacement fee, and a few weeks of fuming as police do nothing. Multiple compromised devices on your network? Tough luck, buddy. Shouldn’t have used a well trusted site. Enjoy your months of confusion and hundreds spent.

                I lose nothing from blocking ads. Ads aren’t an experience to try out, as if pusillanimity has something to do with it. When sites go back to stock banner ads, I’m back in.

                • Doug [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You think no one has ever had to spend time and money dealing with a picked pocket or a pothole on a road they drive every day? It’s not always as easy as you make it sound. Just like a lot of times you run an antivirus and it takes care of everything. Not always but sometimes your whole identity is stolen and it can be years later and you’re still dealing with problems. Guess you shouldn’t have gone to the gas station you always go to.

                  Why would sites go back to stock banner ads when they’re so easily blocked. Why do you think they stopped? The same culture you’re now defending pushed them out. Now it’s an arms race with stronger measures on both sides all the time.

                  You lose nothing by blocking ads today. At some point the bill comes due and either you can’t block them so easily or you lose access to the content you want to see. You’re pulling pebbles away from a levee and telling everyone it’s safe because nothing has happened.

      • BitSound@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ve got yourself mixed up. They’re not entitled to my compute, or my eyeballs. They handed my browser a pile of HTML, and I’ll do what I want with it.

        • Doug [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you cut all the advertisements out of magazines and newspapers before reading them?

          What about the billboards on the side of the road?

          You are not entitled to their hosting or their content. They provide them to you in exchange for ad revenue they receive from showing them to you. You’re refusing to engage in the exchange.

          • teuto@lemmy.teuto.icu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Am I obligated to look at every billboard by the road or can I not get up and leave or at least mute commercials on TV? Why should I have my computer use my bandwidth against my data cap so that a company paying someone other than me can show me an ad?

            The way I see it is that the host is getting paid for giving the opportunity to show an ad. The exchange is between the company hosting the content and the company advertising the product, not the end user.

            • Doug [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Am I obligated to look at every billboard by the road or can I not get up and leave or at least mute commercials on TV?

              Just as easily as you can scroll past an ad on a page

              Why should I have my computer use my bandwidth against my data cap so that a company paying someone other than me can show me an ad?

              Why should someone have to pay for your ability to access that data? Your isp isn’t sending that site money for you to be able to access it. Someone has to cover costs.

              Frankly data caps are bullshit but that doesn’t help the current situation.

              The way I see it is that the host is getting paid for giving the opportunity to show an ad.

              Except you are denying them that opportunity.

              The exchange is between the company hosting the content and the company advertising the product, not the end user.

              So an advertiser should pay for functionally nothing?

              Let’s go on a hypothetical journey. Tomorrow a switch is flipped and everyone in the world is blocking ads the same as you. How are the web designers and content creators getting paid now? Ad revenue dries up because it’s pointless to pay for a thing you’ll never get. Those employees are not going to continue to get paychecks because the site is just an expense now. This should not be difficult to understand.

              • teuto@lemmy.teuto.icu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The main difference is that my computer takes an active roll in the process of showing me an ad. Traditional advertising is there whether I look at it or not. Websites not making money on their content is their problem not mine. If they can’t make money on traditional advertising then they’ll go bankrupt or find a new way to generate income. I didn’t sign a contract to agree to be served ads and have no obligation to not block them.

                • Doug [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In the same way your TV does, sure.

                  It becomes your problem when the thing you want to see is not available because it shut down.

                  Whether or not they can make money on traditional advertising is a complex thing when I’m not sure what you mean by traditional advertising. Can a website offer traditional advertising? If so how do you think the existence of ad blockers has contributed to its decline? I remember when TiVo was a big thing we started seeing banners at the bottom of shows advertising other shows. Seems like a pretty clear correlation to me.

                  And they didn’t sign a contract and are under no obligation to serve you content. That road goes both ways. Is a contractual obligation the only way you deal with something you don’t like to get to something you do?

          • BitSound@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re missing the point, but your example is perfect. If I have a magazine or newspaper, I’ll cut the advertisements out of them if I damn well please, and they can’t stop me. Sure, I’m not entitled to their hosting or their content, but that’s what paywalls or logins are for. When you hand off a document to someone, expect that they’ll do what they want with it, because that’s the way the world works, and also the way it should work.

            Also, fuck billboards. They should be banned, like several states already do.

            • Doug [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right. How do you cut the ads out? Do you just snip around blindly and hope for the best?

              that’s what paywalls or logins are for

              And how do you react to those when you encounter them? More often than not the people I see blocking everything flip out.

              • BitSound@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The analogy would be that I get a robot to identify the ads in the magazine and cut them out before I have to see them. That’s what ad blockers do, but on a computer instead of IRL.

                I don’t know why I’d flip out when encountering a paywall or login. It works out great, and as a society we don’t have to end up with ads enshittifying everything they touch.

                • Doug [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Go take a look at nearly any conversation about streaming services, for example. It won’t take long to find someone upset about how “it’s as expensive as cable now”. Then extend that same logic to the entirety of the Internet and how do you think it would go over.

                  My issue is that blocking all ads indescriminantly is costing someone and the rich won’t allow it to be them.

                  The analogy would still break down because the robot would need parts or maintenance. There would still be a cost and someone would still be getting their money. Instead you’ve just got a lot of people proud of themselves for sneaking their hand into someone else’s pocket.

      • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not in a position nor pay grade to subsidize someone else’s income with my time or attention

        I try to find freely contributed materials when I can; for instance, I try to watch non-monetized YouTube channels and visit sites that are freely made and shared, but I’m not so high on my horse that I’m above clicking a link to a news article on a site like this one and using an ad blocker

        • Doug [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you have so little attention to spare that an ad along side or even within content is too far for you how did you find the time to comment?

          Good on you for looking for free options. On the other hand that furthers the question about how much attention would really cost you…

          • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            how did you find the time to comment?

            I enjoy commenting. I don’t enjoy ads.

            Good on you for looking for free options

            Yeah, like YouTube for instance – that was the cool part: It was free.

            how much attention would really cost you

            I imagine that is up to each person. Fortunately, no one is mandating that you use an adblocker, so you are free to do as you please. Far be it from me to condescend to you for something so inconsequential to me.

            I’ve donated to keep this server running because I’m willing to do so. If the admin asked me to watch ads instead, I’d decline.

            • Doug [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Another argument against not my position.

              If someone who does something for a living does that thing for you, do you pay them or scamper off beforehand? Why?

              Great. I’m glad you think it’s inconsequential. I think people being able to pay their bills is very consequential, so I raise my concerns where I see a problem.

              Though you’d think inconsequential would go along with how you don’t enjoy ads. Curious, no?

              If donating weren’t an option and there was, occasionally, an easily missed ad somewhere off to the side, what then?

              • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Obviously, I would pay someone for services rendered, but my accessing content that I wouldn’t pay for anyway is completely different than paying the guy who helped fix my toilet. Again, it is not my duty to subsidize your income just because you posted content online, so it is not my concern to ensure you get paid by ad revenue. When I choose to support someone who I think deserves it, I do things like donate or buy a bunch of records I don’t even need from an independent record label owned by a real person who’s not a rich suburbanit, or I buy a t-shirt or sticker from a small book publisher to show support. I don’t watch ads on behalf of some dumb millionaire with half-assed “content” when the free stuff from randos (which are the only content creators I even enjoy) is far superior.

                And I put my money where my mouth is. You can go to my profile and find my Skyrim mods, book reviews, and decklists, and you have my blessing to use them for free, without watching ads. You can even reshare or remix them, or not give me credit, idgaf, because that’s the world I want to create.

                I’ve got to go now. I’m at the public library and about to unethically steal content from authors by checking out books for free and without watching ads. I really hope Haruki Murakami can eat tonight, but ultimately it’s not my responsibility. Hasta luego!

                • Doug [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So it’s only a possibility for millionaires to serve ads and get paid from them? Someone should alert the podcasters and independent app developers.

                  It’s your moral responsibility to “subsidize income” when you’re consuming the content someone created in order to afford to live, no?

                  I’m with you, that’s the world I want to create and live in along side with everyone else. That’s not the world we live in today and a whole lot of people need to be able to survive before we can get to that point.

                  A whole lot of people seem to think I’m out here trying to encourage everyone to give up their time and bandwidth to donate to the rich. Not at all. But the idea that they’re the only ones who might be getting any money from ads is absurd.

                  Interestingly enough the library is possibly the analogy I needed. It’s funded by your taxes. Tiny little amounts that won’t make a difference to you at all but it’s still there. I would absolutely object to someone looking through everything I checked out on my way out the door (trackers) as well as salesmen lurking around the whole place (obtrusive ads). I don’t mind them setting up displays or flyers on community boards (unobtrusive ads) or late fees (payments). It’s also great that the writers and publishers (creators and hosts) are still getting paid since the library still bought the books. It may be tiny amounts per reader, but so are ads.

                  On the other hand I’m pretty sure most people agree that if you spend the day in a local coffee house using their free Wi-Fi and not buying anything that you’d be an asshole and it would be reasonable for them to kick you out.

      • Cambionn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        My issue is more with trackers than ads anyways, altrough ads that block so much that using the site normally becomes a pain in the ass are the other extend which is sadly also getting more and more common. But sadly most websites and services that let you pay to get rid of ads will still put everything full of trackers…

        Also, there are quite some sites that just copy content or or have an AI write content, made to rank high in searches, then is putbfull of adds to make money. Those are automated money-farms, and deserve blockers.

        I block everything, ads and trackers alike. Somewhat regularily I’m on the web without and it’s always a great reminder why I normally do use them.

        But I also pay for multiple websites and services I use regularily despite them working fine without paying or having “free” alternatives. After all, nothing is free and I rather pay with money than with data. And I also want to be paid for my work, and I can only imagine so do others. So I do agree with you there, and I highly encourage people to pay for stuff.

        But I won’t feel bad for blocking that shit, also not on the websites I don’t financially support. Because most of the time they are the ones that made it impossible to use their website privacy-friendly without blocking stuff anyways, even if I’m willing to pay.

        • Doug [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My issue is more with trackers than ads anyways

          Agreed. I have no issues with this.

          Also, there are quite some sites that just copy content or or have an AI write content, made to rank high in searches, then is putbfull of adds to make money. Those are automated money-farms, and deserve blockers.

          I agree here as well. Though the simplest solution is to avoid them altogether I don’t have an objection to working against deliberately malicious sites like this.

          But I also pay for multiple websites and services I use regularily despite them working fine without paying or having “free” alternatives. After all, nothing is free and I rather pay with money than with data.

          And with this I have no objections to anything else. My issue is specifically with the mindset of neither viewing any ad regardless of anything besides it being an ad combined with refusal to offer any sort of recompense. You’re supporting at least a few sites that you feel are worth supporting and that’s plenty for me.

      • immibis@social.immibis.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 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
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 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.

            • Doug [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 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?

                • Doug [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 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@social.immibis.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 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
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 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.

  • SyJ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was recommended until they changed their business model to charging advertisers to be allowed through the blocking because they were “the good type of advert”

  • The Doctor@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Other folks who’ve commented on Adblock Plus have hit the important stuff. I just want to follow up with the comment that it also tends to bog down the browser after a certain point; browsing just got painfully slow on Firefox with it. I didn’t bother troubleshooting it because that was around the same time they started allowing ads, so I bailed and didn’t look back.