1177
Adblockers stop publishers serving ads to (or even seeing) 1bn web users - Press Gazette
(pressgazette.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
1177 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
73066 readers
2247 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lol. Fuck off.
Say here’s a thought: can we sue ad companies for theft of electricity? They’re using my electricity to display their ads, without my consent.
Not to mention my internet fees.
Once the data enters my network it's my fucking data and I can do with it what I please.
Mildly pedantic, but uBlock blocks the connection before it enters your network
Likewise, I can prevent anything from even entering my network that I don't want on it.
That's more to the point!
Unless it’s intellectual property that belongs to the movie industry. Then you better not touch it. Or that’s illegal.
But if it’s advertisements, then you have to watch it, or that’s illegal.
Yeah. As if hacking into someone's mind is their right. Talk about entitlement...
And this is exactly why Google did away with Manifest v2 (what uBlock runs on) and why they wanted to introduce their “web integrity” standard. At that point the pages would be signed with ads and in the signature didn’t match the page wouldn’t even be shown.
They tried to play it off as “ensuring that you truly get the correct copy of the page and no bad hackers have intercepted it” but really it would have 100% forced ads.
To think that Google once had ads that I considered OK, just a bunch of text and links. How times have changed...
Advertisers will always keep pushing things trying to find the limit where people will just barely tolerate it. Then when they push it too far they cry "no fair!" When people stop putting up with it.
Then I guess I'm not looking at those pages. No skin off my nose. That said, Firefox with Ublock Origin plus a couple of other ad-blockers seems to be working pretty well for me. Anything with a paywall, I just move on.
That works until every website starts doing it.
:shrug: So be it.
Exactly. I'll go back to browsing the web with Lynx before I accept ads. If it breaks, it breaks...
Gladly go back to every site having an animated 'under construction' gif.
I use Mullvad's VPN and DNS on a router level. Every device on my network is blanketed by it. Some services don't work, but I am willing to sacrifice their profits for my integrity. Thus, to them I say 然らば fuckmothers.
The O.G. add blocker.
The concept is close to the same, how could something like this be seen as “illegal circumvention technology”?
It just shows us how disconnected the people in these positions can be that are regulating these things.
They wont be happy until eye tracking technology makes sure we sit and watch their fucking ads before the actual content appears.
I mean, none of this is getting better. Its only going to become worse. I have ads in the fucking pause screen on my streaming tv app. So if I want to take a toilet break, I get an ad in my face. Its just so ridiculous.
What most of these people don't get is if they didn't get so invasive with those ads, people would not have to resort to ad blockers. Be it tho shut up the ads every few seconds on YouTube or having to play whack-a-mole every time I read an article, eventually you run out of patience and say "enough!"
What should be considered illegal circumvention is allowing articles behind a paywall to be included in search results.
Lol they will even say blocking phishing links are unethical
Fuckers want to colonize my property (my computer). that's what's illegal!
That was for 12ft.io Bypassing a pay wall. Not blocking ads.
They can still fuck off.
I actually agree with that but the only other solution is subject yourself to deeply concerning levels of surveillance, not to mention surveillance pricing.
I use AdNauseum and they have a toggle for privacy-conscious ads and I leave that on. That's my best compromise.
All ad networks, even the less intrusive ones, can be abused to distribute malware. In this day and age not having an ad blocker is like rawdogging internet strangers.
You could say the same thing about the webpage itself.
Toggles like that are available in other adblockers too and they pose a problem. They ad a ransom to showing you ads. You don’t want the ads but if the advertisers pay the adblocker company they get whitelisted and you see the ads anyway.
Never use those toggles.
hhwat
sorry, fixed.
Do you have some evidence of this?
Okay, I'm assuming that you are asking for evidence of the paying of adblockers to allow some ads through, and not for evidence that he fixed the typo he thought you were actually posting about?
Do a quick search for why we all now use ublock origin rather than ublock plus, and then for why we were using ublock plus rather than ublock, and then for why we were using ublock instead of adblock. There might be some adblock plus in the middle of that somewhere as well.