I use AdBlock and Ghostery. Ghostery is super useful. It throws out so much crap that I am not interested in. On sites like techcrunch, engadget or thenextweb it usually cuts the number of requests in half.
Rant:
It is sure getting out of hand in a big way: it is not uncommon for tech news sites to send you 1.5 MB of crap surrounding a simple 200 word story.
I am getting so tired of that. Specially on mobile. My iPad has a 250 MB data limit, so with 10 pages like that I am already on 50% of my cap. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe it is time for some serious server-side proxy filtering. Like moving things like AdBlock and Ghostery to the server side?
Hey thanks for mentioning Ghostery -- I never heard of it before, and it looks neat. I'm using ABP, NoScript and FlashBlock myself, and I think Ghostery will make a nice addition to my line of defense.
(minor nitpick: it would take roughly 83 pages, not 10, to reach 50% of your 250MB limit)
Their parent company - Evidon - is suspicious. The FAQ on the site is choke-full of weasel words and wishy-washy statements on how they are not an "ad company" but rather an "ad assurance company". Skimpy on actual details too. They have changed their About summary now, but not long ago it basically said that they are in business of delivering better advertisement experience to the advertisers. Just ask yourself if instead of being tracked by multiple entities, you are OK with being tracked by one that gets your data resold to others. They are not a non-profit, so - as cliche as it sounds - you are their product.
Privoxy is pretty good. I run it (usually a single centralised instance) on any LAN I am allowed to. Any network installs for people (e.g. family/friends) I set up a Linux server and Privoxy is in there (with judicious bypassing because it IS too aggressive for some sites out of the box).
See, this is what happens when your ads are just that wrong side of obnoxious and you piss off the 1% - they might just have the power to make sure ANOTHER 10% don't see your crappy ad, either. And that 10% thank me for it. Every so often they get to see what a festering cesspool the internet is without a filtering proxy between them and it, and by God they thank me.
Adblock never gets turned off and hasn't since I discovered it. When I'm shopping, I'm shopping - the rest of the time, I'm actually doing something and since it's my computer I feel that I can edit the heck out of whatever it is which is served up to me - they're giving it away, I'm letting something censor out the garbage, of which ads are a huge part.
I also use NoScript, FlashBlock, RefControl, RequestPolicy plugins for precisely the same reason: I'm not visiting a page to read some garbage hosted somewhere else (i.e., the pretty pictures and styling you've hosted elsewhere, for some reason), nor for you to do fun things with scripts, nor to see anything move (and, incidentally, spy on me).
The web has become increasingly about hawking wares and doing so based upon observing behavior. I don't like the idea, even if it _could_ tell me about something which I would like to buy: if I _need_ something, I'll hunt for it. If I don't actually _need_ something, though, I don't want to have the equivalent of a dirty-old-man offering me candy from the back of his van if only I'd step inside for awhile. And I certainly don't want that dirty-old-man following me around, observing me, to find out what my favorite kinds of candy are, so that he can entice me into being a statistic.
My thought is: If you can't afford me blocking ads then do one of two things:
1) No flashing ads. No flash ads (cpu time is mine!) No ads that blur content with ads. And I will turn off ad blocking on your site. If ads have sound and I can't block it I will never visit the site. This is why arstechnica has ads turned off for me, autoplaying video and sound.
BTW I will not turn off blocking of the +1 button or Like or whatever. I just don't wanna be tracked.
2) Don't give free content. Make me pay for it. If I like it I would.
> It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads.
So you do block ads, only with your brain ;) Fair enough, but can I ask why this is more courteous than blocking them in the browser? Are ad loads generally causing money to flow? I was under the impression that click-throughs cause revenue, rather than ad loads?
Problem for me is not seeing ads, it's that they take too long to load and block the rest of the page. Perhaps strictly a browser problem, but until a better solution I just use
vi /etc/hosts
I block flash and popups which prevents a lot of advertising. IMO, professional courtesy only goes so far, and the fact I clicked on a link does not mean you can do whatever you want.
A compromise position for those who don't mind ads is "Fanboy's Annoyance Block List" (for Adblock Plus). It blocks annoying social media buttons without blocking ads.
Used to be the first thing I install, but no more. There was a transition period where I would not install it but had a flashblock; my reasoning being that the flashblocker took away most of the really annoying ones. My new policy is a clean install. So many advantages: I rather like experiencing sites as intended (as well as supporting sites) rather than trying to force my will onto sites. I used to run into so many edge cases where the adblocker/flashblocker would break my experience. And if sites truly offend me with their ads, it is no skin off my nose. I just don't visit anymore.
Agreed on "experiencing as intended" and "supporting" - also, on tech news sites it's of interest to me to know what adverts such sites' advertisers believe their users want.
Plus I've found an extensionless firefox is much less crashy than one with any number installed (and yes, I know chrome exists, but I prefer the way firefox interacts with the high contrast bright-colours-on-black type desktop colour schemes I prefer to use)
It has occurred to me before that those of us who use adblockers might prefer that they remain unpopular, because it's not clear who would win if the adblocker arms race really heated up. Might be that some of the "no" answerers are actually just concealing their true nature as adblocking zealots.
I hate ads with a passion. If I had the power, I'd make unsolicited advertising illegal. If I hear or see an ad, I often make a mental note not to buy that product.
I don't use adblock either. If I find a site that is so eggregiously ad-heavy that it hampers my browsing experience I'll generally just not go there. For the most part such sites don't have much to offer anyway so it's not a big loss.
"Sort of". I use Ghostery (http://www.ghostery.com/), but mainly use it to block 'like' buttons and various analytics/tracking services. I also block a few ad networks that are either consistently obnoxious or really slow-loading, but I don't use it mainly as an ad blocker.
I'm using ghostery to block pretty much everything, but I'm not happy with that solution. Blocking all advertising isn't what I really want to do. Yes ads are annoying, but I consider them payment for the service.
What I cannot accept is ad networks, social networks and anlytics tools tracking me all across the internet. Unfortunately tracking, advertising and analytics are too intertwined to be more selective. At least I haven't found a way yet...
It breaks a lot of sites at first but once you've used it for a while, allowing connections to CDN's and such, it isn't that bad. It's probably a case of paranoia, but now I feel "exposed" without it.
The next major version of Ghostery will come with an expanded "bug"/page element browser that will break down Ghostery's database by category. The goal is to offer the most granular and usable selective blocker, and this will be a big step in that direction.
Opera comes with a "content blocker" that I use. If I see an annoying ad, I block its origin. I count all animated ads as annoying, because they distract me from the content.
In blocking only a few sources, this takes care of nearly all ads on the Internet, with the notable exceptions of Google's and Facebook's ads. These I don't mind. I don't interact with them either, but I see no obligation to.
Ghostery, Disconnect, FlashBlock, AdBlock, and in some browser profile: NoScript & RequestPolicy. I whitelist trusted sites.
The online ad ecosystem is out of control with surveillance: data collection, tracking, device fingerprinting, aggregation, de-anonymization, etc. (and data volumes).
You don't need Disconnect if you're using Ghostery. I too was using Disconnect first, but Ghostery (at least the most recent version) does its job and then some.
Then I stopped using AdBlock. What a shock that was. NoScript would still catch the nasty stuff and block those talking Flash ads, but it was much less noticeable.
I don't use an adblocker now because it makes me feel out of touch with the reality of the regular user. I've been reconsidering lately, due to the proliferation of web crapware like Facebook like and Tweet buttons.
Ideally, I'd like something that blocks the incessant tracking of my web usage, uses aggressive caching and placeholders to boost performance but still lets me see the web as the regular users see it.
I set up a new Windows machine the other day, using Chrome as my primary browser. Within five minutes of sitting down to do some browsing, I had loaded a page with a Flash video ad, with sound, that started playing automatically.
Sorry internet, but a few obnoxiously bad apples spoil the bunch. Websites I visit frequently I subscribe to (e.g. Ars Technica), but the massive amount of poor, distracting, or annoying ads, the poor layouts that are 60% ads and 40% content, and the pages that take literally 10-20 times longer to load because of all the (slow) external resources? Not worth it.
I voted yes although it's not strictly true since I don't use an adblocker per se. I browse mostly in Opera, with plugins and images turned off. I have toolbar buttons to turn them on in one click when needed, but on 90% of sites that works fine and gets me just the text. Turning off Javascript is also one click away on the F12 menu for difficult sites. I also have a custom style sheet in Opera to force all text to black-on-white at a reasonable size and my choice of font. This makes the web pretty manageable, without depending on browser extensions or addons.
The first thing I install on a new computer / new browser is adblock.
Once the bits leave the server, they're available to rewrite as the user sees fit. And I have no problem with doing so in an automated way, to remove content that I know I will never be needing.
1.) Speeds up the web dramatically
2.) Increases privacy (Ad networks track users across sites)
3.) Improves security (Ad networks have been known to serve malware)
I also dislike looking at them, but if it weren't for the above three problems, I'd probably skip the ad blocker and just ignore them.
Same for me but in the order: Privacy, Speed, Security. I don't mind seeing them too much either. I have zero sympathies for websites that whine about ad-blockers when they don't care about my privacy.
If you were to have asked this about two weeks ago I would have said no. Sadly, performance and memory usage of javascript/flash has gotten to the point where I must use a script blocker. If the ad only contains a picture and does not load via js I will still see it; if the ad is on a page that I have explicitly allowed then yes as well.
[+] [-] st3fan|14 years ago|reply
Rant:
It is sure getting out of hand in a big way: it is not uncommon for tech news sites to send you 1.5 MB of crap surrounding a simple 200 word story.
I am getting so tired of that. Specially on mobile. My iPad has a 250 MB data limit, so with 10 pages like that I am already on 50% of my cap. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe it is time for some serious server-side proxy filtering. Like moving things like AdBlock and Ghostery to the server side?
[+] [-] mirkules|14 years ago|reply
(minor nitpick: it would take roughly 83 pages, not 10, to reach 50% of your 250MB limit)
[edit on my own math. heh]
[+] [-] huhtenberg|14 years ago|reply
Their parent company - Evidon - is suspicious. The FAQ on the site is choke-full of weasel words and wishy-washy statements on how they are not an "ad company" but rather an "ad assurance company". Skimpy on actual details too. They have changed their About summary now, but not long ago it basically said that they are in business of delivering better advertisement experience to the advertisers. Just ask yourself if instead of being tracked by multiple entities, you are OK with being tracked by one that gets your data resold to others. They are not a non-profit, so - as cliche as it sounds - you are their product.
[+] [-] jrabone|14 years ago|reply
See, this is what happens when your ads are just that wrong side of obnoxious and you piss off the 1% - they might just have the power to make sure ANOTHER 10% don't see your crappy ad, either. And that 10% thank me for it. Every so often they get to see what a festering cesspool the internet is without a filtering proxy between them and it, and by God they thank me.
[+] [-] m_myers|14 years ago|reply
Roughly how large is a TechCrunch page with Ghostery?
[+] [-] fixanoid|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davimack|14 years ago|reply
I also use NoScript, FlashBlock, RefControl, RequestPolicy plugins for precisely the same reason: I'm not visiting a page to read some garbage hosted somewhere else (i.e., the pretty pictures and styling you've hosted elsewhere, for some reason), nor for you to do fun things with scripts, nor to see anything move (and, incidentally, spy on me).
The web has become increasingly about hawking wares and doing so based upon observing behavior. I don't like the idea, even if it _could_ tell me about something which I would like to buy: if I _need_ something, I'll hunt for it. If I don't actually _need_ something, though, I don't want to have the equivalent of a dirty-old-man offering me candy from the back of his van if only I'd step inside for awhile. And I certainly don't want that dirty-old-man following me around, observing me, to find out what my favorite kinds of candy are, so that he can entice me into being a statistic.
[+] [-] byrneseyeview|14 years ago|reply
It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads. Plus, if I see something egregious on my employer's site, I can let them know.
I use Ghostery to see who's buying data from whom.
[+] [-] dlikhten|14 years ago|reply
1) No flashing ads. No flash ads (cpu time is mine!) No ads that blur content with ads. And I will turn off ad blocking on your site. If ads have sound and I can't block it I will never visit the site. This is why arstechnica has ads turned off for me, autoplaying video and sound.
BTW I will not turn off blocking of the +1 button or Like or whatever. I just don't wanna be tracked.
2) Don't give free content. Make me pay for it. If I like it I would.
[+] [-] maggit|14 years ago|reply
So you do block ads, only with your brain ;) Fair enough, but can I ask why this is more courteous than blocking them in the browser? Are ad loads generally causing money to flow? I was under the impression that click-throughs cause revenue, rather than ad loads?
[+] [-] pjin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onemoreact|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpeterso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinph|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grecy|14 years ago|reply
Do you mind if I ask which companies are your favorite?
[+] [-] mzuvella|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianobush|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucian1900|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewfelix|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kylekramer|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fluidcruft|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mst|14 years ago|reply
Plus I've found an extensionless firefox is much less crashy than one with any number installed (and yes, I know chrome exists, but I prefer the way firefox interacts with the high contrast bright-colours-on-black type desktop colour schemes I prefer to use)
[+] [-] piguy314|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pingswept|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patio11|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnosis|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bh42222|14 years ago|reply
I would have imagined you visiting every website with at least two browser at the same time, at least one of them blocking all ads and then some.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|14 years ago|reply
What I cannot accept is ad networks, social networks and anlytics tools tracking me all across the internet. Unfortunately tracking, advertising and analytics are too intertwined to be more selective. At least I haven't found a way yet...
[+] [-] Zirro|14 years ago|reply
It breaks a lot of sites at first but once you've used it for a while, allowing connections to CDN's and such, it isn't that bad. It's probably a case of paranoia, but now I feel "exposed" without it.
[+] [-] ghostwords|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jen_h|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjcm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maggit|14 years ago|reply
In blocking only a few sources, this takes care of nearly all ads on the Internet, with the notable exceptions of Google's and Facebook's ads. These I don't mind. I don't interact with them either, but I see no obligation to.
[+] [-] LogEx|14 years ago|reply
The online ad ecosystem is out of control with surveillance: data collection, tracking, device fingerprinting, aggregation, de-anonymization, etc. (and data volumes).
HTTP_DNT=1
[+] [-] LogEx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ComputerGuru|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobds|14 years ago|reply
Then I used AdBlock and NoScript.
Then I stopped using AdBlock. What a shock that was. NoScript would still catch the nasty stuff and block those talking Flash ads, but it was much less noticeable.
I don't use an adblocker now because it makes me feel out of touch with the reality of the regular user. I've been reconsidering lately, due to the proliferation of web crapware like Facebook like and Tweet buttons.
Ideally, I'd like something that blocks the incessant tracking of my web usage, uses aggressive caching and placeholders to boost performance but still lets me see the web as the regular users see it.
[+] [-] Paris_Gun|14 years ago|reply
http://www.ghostery.com/download
[+] [-] danudey|14 years ago|reply
Sorry internet, but a few obnoxiously bad apples spoil the bunch. Websites I visit frequently I subscribe to (e.g. Ars Technica), but the massive amount of poor, distracting, or annoying ads, the poor layouts that are 60% ads and 40% content, and the pages that take literally 10-20 times longer to load because of all the (slow) external resources? Not worth it.
[+] [-] T-hawk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noilly|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theorique|14 years ago|reply
Once the bits leave the server, they're available to rewrite as the user sees fit. And I have no problem with doing so in an automated way, to remove content that I know I will never be needing.
[+] [-] larrik|14 years ago|reply
I don't mind SEEING ads, but I am certainly not going to wait for them.
[+] [-] mike-cardwell|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aw3c2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weaksauce|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|14 years ago|reply
It's my browser, my computer, and my network connection. Damned straight I'm going to exert my preferences over them.
Your crappy business model is your problem.