815
Ad blocking is alive and well, despite Chrome's attempts to make it harder (www.theregister.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Ads need to be banned. They are inherently harmful, inherently deceptive, and only valuable in competition with other advertising. There is a direct line between the advertising model and the malignant politics that are destroying our world. Ban them all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    I was born in the early 90s, got non-dial up home internet access in 2003, and never ever, in the history of my time being on the internet. I have never ever, never not even once clicked on an ad on purpose. Like the Yahtzee ad thats showing right above your comment, I will never click this shit and follow it all the way up to giving my credit card info over. Why do we even have these nowadays, aside from tracking you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    There are ads on Lemmy? I've never seen one.

    But, like so many things in this world, if you ask 'why is this a thing?' the answer is almost always 'idiots exist.' A handful of idiots DO click on ads and buy the products, download the malware, etc. It's not much but the 30 real people lend legitimacy to the 970 'totally real people' who 'totally clicked on the ad but just didn't buy anything' according to the metrics, and it's seemingly impossible to sell anything without paying rent to the marketers because it's essentially analogous to nuclear arms; if no one had it, everyone would be happier, healthier, and safer, but if they have it and you don't, you lose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child)

    They would be banned in a world where human happiness was the priority, but we live in a world where profits is the priority. I think in 50 years, there are two scenarios. Either humanity has learned to value happiness over profits, or we live in actual dystopia, with robots patrolling against "rebels", implants, surveillance, Ai... Entire package from sci-fi.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I mean, given the problems the world currently faces, both are fairly optimistic. 50 years is a long time now. Nuclear treaties are expiring and the people in charge of the nuclear powers don't seem the kind to decrease their nuclear armament, or make rational decisions regarding their use. A shifting climate could (not necessarily definitely will but certainly could) destroy our ability to feed ourselves at scale, creating a world where people are too concerned about food to worry about building robots or self-actualization. Clean water sources are becoming rarer and harder to access, so people might be too focused on fighting over water to worry too much about anything else. And the fun part is none of these are mutually exclusive. We could have a future where part of the world is a glowing crater, the equator is a sun blasted hell, and the Canadians and Siberians are the only survivors, fighting each other over what's left of the bioaccumulating-poison-laden arctic fish as they shout their battlecries, words with a meaning no one remembers anymore; 'SORRY!' 'BLYAT!'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent