this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1216 points (95.3% liked)

memes

10183 readers
3695 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1216
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I've been informed that adblock plus sort of sucks now. If you're looking for one, go for UBlock Origin.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 395 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Imagine shilling a closed source, sold out alternative to UBlock Origin

[–] [email protected] 92 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not an expert on these and didn't realize there was a difference. Did this one sell out?

[–] [email protected] 175 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yes, they allow certain "non-obtrusive" ads by default. Some people might be fine with this, but it should absolutely be opt-in, and their deal with an ad company is the only reason it's the default.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I miss non obtrusive adds, remember when add blockers weren't a thing and we were all fine with the adds in the sidebar trying to sell us virus laden glittery custom mouse cursors? Instead we have an arms race where the net is essentially unuseable without an add blocker.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm guessing you missed the time period where opening the wrong page would give you an infinite loop of un-closeable pop-up windows with background music.

Ads were never really non-obtrusive. If advertisers could force you to listen to their slogan at max volume every time you opened your browser, they would do so without hesitation. If you ever saw an easily avoidable ad in the late 90s-early 00s, it wasn't for lack of trying. They simply hadn't personally figured out more annoying methods yet.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

I’m guessing you missed the time period where opening the wrong page would give you an infinite loop of un-closeable pop-up windows with background music.

Now we're graced with its spiritual successor - the full-screen browser tab that looks like an "antivirus" warning designed to freak people out and get them to call the 800 number to grant remote access to "fix" the virus.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or those flash-based "shoot the mosquito" ads that played a buzzing noise, at a time where your browser didn't highlight tabs playing media.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

What magical era is this? Because the before-adblocker time I remember was a hellscape of pop-over popups, sometimes many of them from opening a single web page.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

.... ah, those were the days, of flash player ads that would grind your system to a halt with anti-aliased particle spam, minigames, and perhaps a virus too.

Or the sneaky, stealthy, cpu grinding carpet bomb of the pop-under ads, only visible after you close the browsing window.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

It's become even worse since mobile became dominant.

Now the ads are no longer a bit of text or a gif, but full page shit covering the top half of what you want to see and stubbornly staying in place even as you scroll. The bottom half of the screen is a sea of cookie and data consent forms who's only interest is in making you agree out of sheer frustration.

And this is fuelled by bullshit, clickbait driven sites that use 10 paragraphs of useless AI generated padding with ads in between, to resist telling you what you went there to find out.

Google has destroyed the usability of the internet, and if it wasn't them it would have been some other greedy fuckers.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Some of the first ads on the Internet were pop-ups. Ads always sucked.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago

Well that blows. Thanks for the heads up. This is why we can't have nice things.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unless I heard wrong, I was under the impression that to be considered "non-intrusive" all the ad company had to do was pay adblock Plus.

Ublock Origin is king

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago

Not only did Adblock Plus sell out, the maker of the real program everybody should be using, uBlock Origin, doesn't even accept donations.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

A tale of 3 adblockers

ABP allows "acceptable" ads that are acceptable insofar as they meet certain standards one of which is paying them money effectively renting your eyeballs to advertisers.

Ublock Origin: A powerful and performant ad blocker by its creator

Ublock. After the above dev tried to pass the torch to the loser who now controls this he instantly edited information removing all information about the person who actually created it and fund raise off it to the point where the original dev renamed his fork of his own work Ublock origin after it was taken down on behalf of the scumbag who now runs ublock.

In short there is no reason to use anything but Ublock origin

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 year ago

sold out like 12 friggin years ago too. it's not like it's recent news.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

(btw abp is in fact open source and licensed under GPLv3, but that doesn't make it any less sketchy sith their "Acceptable Ads" program)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

ABP is definitely not closed source.

You can disagree with the whole "acceptable ads" debacle (I did and switched to unlock origin) but ABP is far from a risk to anyone using it. There's just better blockers out there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 172 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Adblock plus has sucked for at least half a decade at this point.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's been a full decade since I chose ublock over abp, it used less ram and let me block specific html elements. It's still the best.

[–] [email protected] 150 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 126 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Specifically, ublock origin. The "origin" part is important.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

uBlock non-Origin sold out and died.

[–] [email protected] 135 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Billy, yes! (But use uBlock Origin instead)

[–] [email protected] 102 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This reminds me to donate to uBlock Origin. The dev does not accept donations though. I can't imagine a fay without uBlock Origin.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah I wish the dev accepted donations. Ublock makes my life so much better and I have a hard time being online without it. That's something I'd gladly donate to. You can donate to the maintainers of the block-lists though

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair play to the dev. At least they are totally upfront so you know you can actually trust the work as being unbiased.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

And his reputation is solid. He passed on the original uBlock and its maintainer sold out so he went back and made uBlock Origin.

Nice of him to mention uBlock Origin is nothing without the maintainers of the block lists it depends on and somewhere else mentions people should donate to those instead. Nice to see some parts of the Internet are resisting the enshitification, or, in this case, actively fighting it.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Honestly I never understood why ads try so hard to be annoying like I just don't see how that is more profitable than making a ad that simply makes your product look good somehow they must be working as they are so prominent but I still just don't get it

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The bane of marketing.

Somewhere, some metric told them that they don't need to make good ads that explain the product. They only need to be as annoying as possible to garner attention, and put their branding on the end to be remembered.

Marketing is about hacking your brain in order to sell you products you do not need. It is horrible and should be banned entirely.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"Marketing" is just a euphemism for "propaganda" and is just as unethical (if not even more so).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, it is propaganda, and to build on the comment you're replying to, one of the tactics they use instead of explaining their product is simply repetitiveness.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. -Joseph Goebbels

Simply repeat your ad often enough in front of enough people, and an amount of those people will stop questioning the ad and take it as gospel.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

A diamond store in Canada has horrible ads with a man screaming in them. (all Canadians know who I am talking about already) I turn their ads off or switch radio stations when I hear them. If I was going to buy diamond jewellery I would go out of my way to buy from the store that is the furthest away from any of there stores even if it cost more. I would buy any mineral other than diamonds though.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There's a fundamental problem within the marketing industry, that almost nothing that's being sold is something you even remotely need. Economics says that consumers are rational. If that's the case we would almost never buy anything. Marketing exists at odds with that principle.

If you won't buy it unless you need it, then they have to create need with their marketing.

If they're selling you a pen, any pen will write, but this pen will change the way you write! It's life changing! You need this pen, it'll be the last pen you ever buy!

If they can't convince you to need it, you won't buy it.

There's another problem, and that's that we, collectively, are losing our attention spans. The constant access to new media means we never have to spend long on anything, something new is always at our fingertips, and we, collectively, aren't really that patient anymore.

Before you comment on this with some anecdote about how you've only gotten more focused, actually. That's missing the point, in general we're getting worse, not better.

So now ads can't take the time to tell you how great this pen is, really, even if it will change your life, they only have about 5 seconds before you've forgotten about it forever. So they have to be louder, more aggressive, and more pervasive. In whatever breed of tiktok style content you choose, you'll stumble across videos that are blatant ads for a product that make no mention of it. Ads disguised as content, in the modern format. "Hi guys so I just got this pen and it's l1t3rally life changing" over the top of a cool looking pen writing smoothly.

Will it work on you? Probably not, advertising gains take place in tenths of percentage points. You're a smart consumer and never fall for such blatant ads, and for you they have a tactic too. Every single piece of content you consume is just full of ads, subtly conditioning you towards every product on the planet. Because if they don't, you'll keep your old shit that still works and never buy anything.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because, in the golden days of ads, your metrics were bullshit. You had a print ad and someone said that they sold this many issues and, because of the papers totally not biased market research the told you that for every paper sold, x more people saw your ad. Same with TV and Radio, most numbers around viewers or listeners are basically made up with some fancy statistics.

With the Internet, suddenly you had hard data - your ad has been requested x times. But, that data was always below the fancy print/tv/radio numbers, so the companies had to either push more or reduce prices. That's how they designed more and more intrusive ads like the ones with the shitty hidden close icon. The longer you need to close it, the longer is the "ad viewed" metric. The more you click on fake X buttons, the higher is the click rate or click through rate. Ad metrics have always been a scam and no one wants to change it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's happy to see this alternative memes community growing

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Having multiple of things is a strength of the fediverse!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'd be really curious how much my internet use "costs" to advertisers and if I could/would pay that amount instead.

Like, the advertiser paid $0.0005 to serve that ad to me so I'll just pay that amount directly to the site and not be served the ad. Just incorporate it into my internet bill and I'd pay just like I do for power or gas. And would my willingness to not see ads make me more or less valuable to advertisers and affect the math?

I don't like the subscription model as it seems like the price point isn't based on actual cost at all and like they're double-dipping by still selling my info. Charge me the actual cost plus a reasonable profit margin of 10%-20%. How much would that be? Is advertising really so valuable that I wouldn't be willing to pay that amount? If so, are advertisers overselling the efficacy of their product?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or we could just block the ads and tell them to fuck off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Go the other way and create anti advertising. Every time an ad invades your time, create your own ad like how you think it tastes like cancer or that you think this podcast broke up your marriage.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Google only had a net profit of 15 billion USD in Q3 :(

70 million USD to stock buybacks

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

You can pry my adblocker from my cold, dead hands

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

TBH I’d give money to a charity that brings fridges to the North Pole before giving them to Google, so well done billy

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Ad-blocking is internet security.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

See I use yt premium but that's because about 5 ish years ago me and 5 friends did a family deal that meant it was $4 per month each, I did rise to $6 per month a while ago but I still think that it's a good deal. It's been grandfathered in so it's not a deal you can get anymore but if I was to loose that deal for any reason I wouldn't pay for premium

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (11 children)

The one creator from reddit I miss. Loved when they would respond to comments with more drawings.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Billy is smart. Why block just Youtube ads when you can avoid ads both in and outside of Youtube.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: next ›