Re:Adblocking: How about Nah?
by zrm on Saturday July 27, 2019 @01:03PM
(#20542911)
Another possibility would be to create ad blockers that do that, i.e. block third party javascript but not pure text or images. Then you get the same result, simple ads get through but ad scripts don't, so the people who use ads without scripts are the only ones who make money from them.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Adblocking: How about Nah?
by TazeTSchnitzel on Saturday July 27, 2019 @06:10PM
(#20544544)
It's for this sort of reason that I like Privacy Badger. It tries to block tracking and trackers algorithmically, rather than ads per se.
I think it's too late for that. I, for one, wouldn't enable even static ads anymore even if my blocker offered the option. The trust is completely lost and would take a long time to rebuild.
Re:Adblocking: How about Nah?
by galangalalgol on Saturday July 27, 2019 @04:19PM
(#20543931)
umatrix does that, but third party is the problem. so many domains put their js on a separate domain. even if they own it.
There also websites that use CDN like CloudFront and sometimes their subdomains are changing quite often.
Blocking third party JavaScript will have the unwanted consequence of blocking CDNs as well, so at least you need some whitelist that allows those scripts.
Which rather defeats the alleged purpose - you know ever CDN is monetizing your data.
Re:Adblocking: How about Nah?
by a1369209993 on Saturday July 27, 2019 @06:49PM
(#20544733)
Such a ad blocker already exists; it's called NoScript.
Re:Adblocking: How about Nah?
by TheKarateKid on Saturday July 27, 2019 @07:56PM
(#20544997)
Ad blockers block specific things - NoScript blocks all JS. It’s really not an acceptable alternative.