what are these things called ads of which they speak???duh
Imagine reading a newspaper and having someone keep putting another piece of paper in front of what you are reading. Extremely rude. The pop ups are out of control.
I use>>>
Ghostery
U Bock Origin
FlashBlock
I have to use them or Firefox gets really bogged down and memory& CPU use goes through the roof as seen on windows task manager.
I use similar blockers on Chrome.
I rarely use windoze Explorer or Edge
Ghostery is really a tracker blocker not an ad blocker
But who will be laughing when you’ll have to start paying Google to search?
what are these things called ads of which they speak???These ads are getting really annoying, like redirecting you to another website when you click read more.
They csn blame it on the very annoying manner in which ads make it impossible to read pages.
I don’t mind ads and I accept them. But when the page bounces around ro much that I can’t click something or have to continually find my place again as I read, forget it.
I’ve been using the SlimJet browser from Chrome lately and really like it. Streamlined and fast. Has it’s own Ad Block Plus. Javascript can be turned off.
Get a kick out of sites begging for the ad block to be turned off and js to be turned on :)
Many of the ads are full of malware!!!!
An increasing number of Net users have adblockers that were installed by security companies after recovering from a hack.
If Web companies and advertisers work with adblocker makers to design ads that are free of malware and are allowed by the adblocker, all can live in peace. But the Web companies (including the New York Times) are unwilling to do that.
I use ad-block plus and ad-block ultimate. Some websites without them are unreadable as they will not load fast or are constantly refreshing or the ads themselves are distracting winking and blinking.
The site owners and ad content creators have no one to blame but themselves for this. I am totally fine with non-intrusive ads, but that’s not what you get. You get stuff flying around the screen, obscuring content, auto-playing video and audio, unconstrained Javascript and Flash that heats up your device and/or drains the battery. Breitbart.com is a great example of a site like that. I had to enable the Ad Blocker on it as a defensive measure more than anything else.
Web site designers brought it on themselves.
Some web pages are so full of junk that they take forever to load.
On some, it takes a lot of effort to find what you want because of all of the junk stuff.
The Daily Caller is a good example.
NYT is just whining because they have no revenue model. Hey, join the crowd.
I’ve used ad blockers since Flash ads slowed the computer down too much, years ago.
Web pages are too bloated with PHP, Java and other script-y junk, even without the ads.
I use an ad blocker because when ads are so bad you can’t read the page, what is the point?
If a site tells me to turn off the ad blocker in order to read their content, I don’t go back.
ABP +1
” say blocking ads violates the implicit contract that people agree to when viewing online material”
when consumers have to pay for every bit of that data plan, it makes sense to block out costly advertising/spam.
Bookmark
One really has to watch which sites ya visit nowadays. Even Microsoft, who’s critical updates are basically viruses and then they come up with the force fed updates on 10.
Those people are not making any friends.