I install ad blockers because I don't want to get auto redirected to a porn site which some unscrupulous ad vendors make possible. I tried going blocker free at work for 6 months. uBO got installed the day I was sent to a porn site by malicious JavaScript after clicking on an innocuous link.

Google won't address the JavaScript problem with their ad network so I cut them off.

Sample bias here. But this hasn't happened to me since the early 2000's. I do not have any ad blocker, no ad bothers me, unless its an adult site, they've gone really crazy there.

I got forcibly redirected on a baseball statistics site multiple times while not using Adblock (my mobile phone which didn't have it). It happens all the time.

Then I guess you are a lucky person. Read up on one of the many ad based exploit toolkits[1].

It took a crypto malware to convince a company I was working with to install uBlock. No more ads, no more flash, no more ransomware.

[1] https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/ultimate-guide-angler-explo...

Just stating: I do think they attempt to address this, they have a great malvertising team, but the problem is huge. If the attack is broad enough it absolutely gets addressed... it’s just such a logistical challenge, and malvertisers are exceedingly clever about their wares

The Internet for people who don't know about ad blockers must be a horrible place, it's no wonder everybody started using apps for everything.

Aren't apps also crippled by ads?

Yes. Apps are a step backwards because they are in a much less user-controlled space. App adoption is more correlated with mobile platform adoption as opposed to demand for ad blocking.

Not nearly as much as mobile web.

Some have ads, but they are definitely not crippled by ads and malware.

Not that horrible. I don't use an adblock at work, even if what I'm browsing is limited to the register and HN with the linked pages and it's usable.

I'm not aware of any evidence that shows that directly. But there a good number of surveys that show that people don't want advertising to target them based on their interests.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1478214

"Contrary to what many marketers claim, most adult Americans (66%) do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interests. Moreover, when Americans are informed of three common ways that marketers gather data about people in order to tailor ads, even higher percentages - between 73% and 86% - say they would not want such advertising. Even among young adults, whom advertisers often portray as caring little about information privacy, more than half (55%) of 18-24 years-old do not want tailored advertising. And contrary to consistent assertions of marketers, young adults have as strong an aversion to being followed across websites and offline (for example, in stores) as do older adults."

Also see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1989092 (64% find the idea of ad targeting to be invasive, most participants would prefer random ads to targeted ads) https://news.gallup.com/poll/145337/internet-users-ready-lim... (67% of those polled said advertisers shouldn't be able to "match ads to your specific interests based on websites you have visited")

References all came from a paper by Jonathan Mayer. Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology which I'd heartily recommend to anyone who is interested enough to be this deep into the comments (https://jonathanmayer.org/publications/trackingsurvey12.pdf)

I'm going to second this.

My usage of ad-blockers is to make webpages _readiable_. When ever the privacy aspect of it comes up its like, "well that's nice." Just the bandwidth overhead of ads alone makes it worth it.

Absolutely. I went to the New York Times on a low res machine (1366x768 or so) and there was one visible line of text after the ads

I do both, fwiw. I'd definitely be curious to see the privacy numbers, but yea I'd wager most everyone I know blocks ads purely because the ads are obtrusive.

I run Adblock software for privacy, primarily.

Ad blocking just makes the internet better in every way.

Even an asshole like me will remove ublock origin if websites start to self-host ads. But they won't.

I use it because the web becomes usable and fast again, and also because I don't want ad companies making money from my activity and privacy.

When they pay me, they can get some of my data. I'm just waiting for their call.

This is an unpopular opinion I also hold. There is no right to advertising to me. If you want me to use your product, pay me.

I don't understand. Is there a certain context you are referring to, or is this how you feel about all online advertising? I'll accept one's claim to rights to browse without advertising if it's accepted that one doesn't have a right to consume ad-supported content without consuming advertisements. It seems only fair to me.

Don't send me the content if you don't want me to render it as I see fit, I make no promises about how I will consume that data.

That seems like an overly rigid and adversarial perspective. I don't think online advertising is always done well or ethically, but in general, I support the notion that having access to good content requires a way to compensate content creators.

> That seems like an overly rigid and adversarial perspective

It's the truth. You don't get to control how I render the page, on what device, whether I've decided to use links (or lynx) today, or any of that. It's my computing device, I'll render data as I please.

> I support the notion that having access to good content requires a way to compensate content creators.

Sure, but again if you send me the data, I'll render it as I see fit. Let's find another way that doesn't involve stalking, and trying to shove commercial messages in my face every few seconds.

That's a design consequence, not a design consideration. Local TV stations can't control the way you consume their signals either, but it's not as easy to for you to filter out the content and disregard the pulp, i.e., inline advertisements.

That's entirely true. But then the tv signal doesn't ask the tv to tell a few dozen other entities its deepest secrets.

That I know of. With smart TVs I guess it could well.

So can I ask, how would I as a website developer do that? If I don't want you blocking my ads, costing me money for servers and hosting, and removing my income stream, how do is signal to you or enforce that I will only send you content on the stipulation that you make a few promises on what you will display?

Because in my experience, offering paid options to remove all ads and tracking if you want doesn't stop or even put a dent in the adblocking crouds. Trying to not send content to those blocking ads only increases anger and often reduces the performance of the page for everyone, and gating all content behind paywalls is not only opposite to how I feel information should flow and impacts some users more than others (someone making minimum wage has to give up a lot more for a $1/month subscription than someone making $150k/yr), but also destroys the ability for many to discover my content, and makes discussion and interaction significantly harder.

And other approaches like closed off apps or alternate formats like video can be a much worse experience for the user, and can hurt those who need accessibility considerations.

So I genuinely want to know if there is a better way that I'm missing, because if I can't, then my options are to "sell my soul" and just try and for you to be tracked as much as I can, or just close down my service entirely (which if you ask my users, would be a bad thing and would negatively impact them)

You could statically serve ads from your servers, bypassing all targeting and user data collection but I understand that's not so lucrative.

Honestly at this point I don't feel like it's my problem. The web's not short of content but it is too rammed with advertising. It's gone too far and I'm not interested in seeing any of it, ever.

Your best bet is just to block folks like me. Make the deal explicit - turn on ads, get content. I'll probably move on somewhere else at that point.

I'm not going to be unblocking ads anytime soon.

Sounds like you've covered all the bases, including shutting down your service, but you've rejected every option that doesn't involve selling out your users to advertises. It comes off as a sense of entitlement that you have some sort of right to profit off this service when you don't.

I don't sense much entitlement in thoroughly thinking through the options of how to keep a website running.

Actually, the air of entitlement I detect in this entire discussion is around people who strongly believe that everything should be free and magically self-sustaining.

I don't believe that.

But neither do I believe that I'm obligated to render data the way you ask me to.

If you're giving out free widgets with ads engraved on them, I have the right to sand off the advertisement or cover it with something I dislike less.

Some widgets are useful. Most ads are not useful. Bundling your free widget with an advertisement doesn't mean I have an ethical obligation to look at the advertisement or keep it there.

If you want to make money on your widgets I'd recommend selling them rather than trying to sell your consumers to advertisers.

Free and ad-supported are not the same thing. Similarly, advertisements don't require that the provider disregard your privacy entirely. I just don't understand why anyone would think it's ethical to block ads for an online news source that pays its content creators with ad revenue. It's part of the implied contract of consumption.