
Show HN: FuckFuckAdblock - mechazawa
https://github.com/Mechazawa/FuckFuckAdblock
======
jbb555
As far as I'm concerned advertisers had their chance but they totally abused
their chance turning the internet into an ad-laden hellhole and now I just
block everything I possible can. If a site decides it doesn't like this then
it's literally no use to me.

They had their chance, they abused it beyond all possible tolerance. I hate
advertising on the internet now so much that if anything does manage to get
past my blocks I make a conscious attempt to avoid buying anything from the
scumbag organisation that thinks forcing their crap on my is anyway
acceptable.

~~~
owenwil
Enjoy your future of pay walls!

~~~
mahranch
> Enjoy your future of pay walls!

I love how people say "I will!"

For starters, most won't. These are people who tend to be ideological and
naive kids who probably still have their parents paying their bills. Or they
don't really fully understand what the implications are. Also, subscription
models have proven to be poor solutions and don't work very well at best, and
at worst, completely fail taking the website with it.

Another thing, what about poor people? We talk about how people "are happy to
pay for content they like!" Only, there are going to be a massive amount of
people who simply can't afford to use the internet that way. If the entire
internet turned into "pay as you go", the poor & working class are screwed.
They're the ones who are going to be the hardest hit. Not just poor people in
the U.S but what about all that traffic from other countries? And there is a
lot of it... That's a lot of people who used to be able to keep up with
current events, study science, math, history (educate themselves), chat on
forums, make new friends, play games who now can't, because they can't afford
it. To me, that's a shame. A travesty even if you take into account the
educational aspect.

I feel like the people who push for the paywall & a la carte type solutions
don't really consider the full implications of their suggestions. I mean, I
thought about it myself the last time it came up on hackernews for weeks, no,
_months_ and I still have no clue how the internet would evolve as a result.
And what little I did conclude wasn't good. Yet these people seem to be so
certain...

~~~
pdkl95
I've already addressed your claims in this thread, but as for these new
arguments:

> most won't

This is an unsubstantiated claim.

> subscription models have proven to be poor solutions

Really? I guess you haven't seen the people that have moved from youtube to
twitch.tv (because of the subscriptions) and patreon.

> what about poor people?

Not only is this a cheap emotional gambit, it pre-supposes that they are
currently getting content for free. As we have repeatedly discussed on HN, if
it's free, you are the product[1]. Moving to explicit payments - or other
forms of funding - is a huge improvement over taking advantage of the
ignorance most people have about what they are paying for "free" content.

> study science, math, history (educate themselves)

Do academic websites have ads in your world? Does wikipedia?

You seem to have a very inaccurate view of what is available on the internet.

[1]
[https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...](https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html#balkan)

~~~
ry_ry
Wikipedia does have a large, irritating begging banner though, so kinda. I
guess.

~~~
bovermyer
That banner is directly from the service itself, which means the product is
still Wikipedia, not its users. Very important distinction.

------
SCAQTony
I would not mind ads at all but ads are not really ads: they are trackers,
beacons, analytics, and privacy busting cookies with none of the above asking
for permission. I am blocking about 2,000 different versions of all of the
above according to Ghostery. EFF's Privacy Badger is blocking a bunch to. We
are being digitally assaulted. We need this stuff!

~~~
bad_user
Most deep tracking done these days are not by means of ads being served, as
the advertisers themselves lack the means of doing any meaningful analysis and
don't have the reach, but rather tracking is done much more efficiently by
very common utilities, like by Google Analytics, or the Facebook Like,
Twitter's Tweet, or Google's +1 buttons. Heck, any third-party service can be
a very good tracker. Are you also blocking Gravatar and Disqus? Because you
should.

And nowadays you've got an "advertising ID" being exposed by the operating
systems themselves, an ID that all apps can use to track your behavior across
the net. I know of at least Windows 10, iOS and Android that do this. And this
is actually a step up, as before the "advertising ID" apps were using much
more persistent forms of identification.

And I'm all for being privacy conscious, personally I'm downright paranoid.
But lets be honest, ad-blocking isn't about being privacy conscious.

~~~
scintill76
> Heck, any third-party service can be a very good tracker. Are you also
> blocking Gravatar and Disqus?

GP mentioned Ghostery. AFAIK it does block these and many other non-ad third-
party requests in its default configuration.

~~~
bad_user
OK, I wrote that comment and I'm not a Ghostery user, so I don't know what it
does by default. I'm not a Ghostery user because I do not trust it. Don't know
the latest state of affairs, but the company developing Ghostery seemed fishy.
I can trust either projects developed by non-profits committed to my
interests, such as EFF or Mozilla, or projects developed by enthusiasts on
GitHub.

Depending on the device, I am using Privacy Badger from EFF, Mozilla's Focus
for iOS, or uBlock with the EasyPrivacy list. Was using AdBlock Plus in
Firefox for Android, but it lacks the option to subscribe to third-party
filter lists, an almost 2 year old ticket that still hasn't been fixed.

~~~
aylons
You may want to try ad-away for Android.

------
atom_enger
At some point I really think we'll resort to blocking ads at the network
level. There's no way to detect a block at that level and we'll truly be able
to control the content that way. I've seen a few http/dns ad blockers here on
HN already so we know it's possible and being thought about. These browser
based detections are just a game of cat and mouse at this point.

~~~
logicallee
you're not entitled to have some server serve you whatever content you want it
to, it doesn't have to answer your http requests - so logically, by whatever
means we get there, the end-game is for servers to monitor and exclude you.
but the status quo is a lot better now, than for what it would take for that
to happen.

Do you want servers to figure out that you're blocking ads at the network
level, and tell each other not to serve to your IP? Because it is a lot less
wrong for them to do it - they have a lot more right to do it, if it's in
their TOS - than for you to recraft their content so that you're only making
http requests to contents, but not their ads. It's like going grocery shopping
for milk and sugar at restaurants and coffee places, i.e. because they have it
out 'for free'. you might say, hey, they're making it available for free, it's
not your fault if they have a broken business model. But it's their right
whether they want you there.

The analogy isn't perfect, it's quite leaky, so let's get back to the
technical facts here. The cat and mouse game is between a server wanting to
serve content as well as ads, and some consumers wanting to recraft the
requests so their clients/browsers do not load ads. Since ultimately the
server has what the users want, for example articles, and the business model
is some limited part of the attention of the user, I don't see this ending
well for users who want to consumer the content but do not share any part of
their attention with ads. It's just not going to work out.

~~~
drdeca
re the milk analogy: They can just make a rule that you can only get the milk
and sugar if you purchase the coffee? Which, seems like is basically the case?

They can include a contract thingy before showing the content for the first
time if they want. If I intentionally agree to not block ads, I don't think
I'm going to violate that agreement.

But I haven't made an agreement like that, so my choice to allow ads to run is
not due to any obligation.

I choose not to block ads, indeed, partially so that the websites receive
payment. (perhaps partially also due to laziness though) But I also "defend"
(insofar as my comments on the internet can do so) the right to block ads if
one so chooses, and has not explicitly made an agreement not to.

In the same way that a person who views a donation funded website is not
obligated to donate, hoping instead that it will be funded by other people who
donate, a person who views a website which is ad supported is not obligated to
view the ads, hoping instead that other people (such as myself) will view the
ads.

Ads are* a donation, not a purchase.

*in the absence of a contract

edit: also I disable 3rd party cookies

~~~
mahranch
> Ads are* a donation, not a purchase.

I vehemently disagree. Ads subsidize the content you consume. Without ads,
there would be minimal or no web content, end of story. Most of the web is
directly or indirectly funded by ads. Just like local radio stations and
public/local TV stations have their programs/content funded by advertisers.
It's the _exact_ same thing. If everyone (100% of the population) was able to
skip watching or listening to those ads, then advertisers would no longer
advertise and there would be no content because nobody is paying for it, or
footing the bill.

And people wonder why they call our generation (millennials) "the entitled
generation". This is _exactly_ the reason. You truly and honestly believe
we're entitled to consume all that content for free. As if that wasn't enough,
you have the gall to act like you're doing the content creators a favor by
disabling your adblock! I'm actually shocked...

That's one thing the gen-xers and boomers have over us - they understand that
nothing is ever free and they never feel entitled to it all. When my
grandmother was first shown the internet, I showed her some of her online
versions of favorite magazines and sites like youtube. She kept asking me how
much it cost to go to those sites and consume that content, and for 2-3
months, she really thought there was some hidden catch, and she expected a
bill to arrive in her mailbox. That's the correct mentality to have. She
understands the value of the content she's consuming and realizes that nothing
is free.

> *in the absence of a contract

The contract is there in play already. Ads are up on a website right along
side the content. You have to install software on your own computer to hide or
remove those ads. You're actively going out of your way to alter the website's
owners property - you made the first move. It's not like the content was
already there, then the creator decided one day to put up ads after the fact.
It doesn't work like that.

It's just like ads on a TV. In order to watch a TV program, say Fox's
Elementary, (just picking a popular show), you have to sit through the ads to
watch the full show. If you make an effort to not watch the ads (get up and
walk away, shut your eyes, change the channel), you have that right and are
free to do it, but don't pretend you're not breaking your "consumer contract"
with those shows. They put those ads there in good faith that they'll be seen
by the people watching them.

People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to
disappear in the future. When there is no money in content subsidization, the
content will disappear. And some naive & ignorant people will say that's a
good thing, since they'll purchase content à La Carte, but trust me. It's not
a good thing. It obliterates innovation and destroys creativity.

Most content producing companies/websites will be swallowed up by
consolidation (you can already see this happening as "networks" of websites
have been forming, like the Gawker network, etc) while the little guys,
bloggers and startups completely disappear as they can no longer pay their
hosting bills. Only the Walmarts of web content will be left standing
(companies that can afford to run a subscription model). That's a bleak future
I want no part of. I'll keep the ads, thank you very much.

~~~
bkor
If you have to make up a lot of points to make your argument, maybe you don't
have an argument? Ranting about "entitled generation", a supposed contract and
small bloggers having a huge hosting bill doesn't do you much good. To top it
off, "people like you". Blergh!

The problem with ads is that they slow down the internet significantly,
various try to trick you to install malware (e.g. on sourceforge), often make
sites unusable (big huge banners), affect e.g. clicking on text (I have this
habit) and moreover they track you personally.

You make it sound "it is just an advertisement" while ignoring all the reasons
people block this stuff. It's not about the advertisement; it also includes
all the stuff that comes with it!

An adblocker makes for way less malware on a machine and a way speedier
browser. That's the reason I install it; not because there's some ads. This is
_hugely_ different from "ads on TV". Yet even for TV you have Netflix which
seems to be pretty popular.

~~~
mahranch
> If you have to make up a lot of points to make your argument, maybe you
> don't have an argument?

Wow, I thought this was hackernews, where longer, in-depth comments were
welcomed, not insulted. And certainly not used against the person. It's like
I'm in the youtube comment section...

> The problem with ads is that they slow down the internet significantly

Irrelevant. Again, without ads, there simply would be no internet at all. You
completely underestimate just how much innovation has been the result of ads.
Hell, the entire first internet bubble was due to the promise of advertiser
money. I suggest you read up a bit on the history of the internet,
specifically from 1995-2002.

> You make it sound "it is just an advertisement" while ignoring all the
> reasons people block this stuff.

That's because OP didn't mention that in their prior comment. The conversation
wasn't about that. Otherwise I would have. It was irrelevant to the direction
the conversation was headed.

> An adblocker makes for way less malware on a machine and a way speedier
> browser.

That doesn't change the fact that ads fund the internet. As more and more
people use ad blockers, you're going to get to a point where you won't need ad
blockers anymore. Think about it. :)

~~~
pjc50
_read up a bit on the history of the internet, specifically from 1995-2002_

I was there. I rememeber it. I also remember that a large amount of it was
fundamentally _amateur_ content, produced with no funding at all. I remember
when advertising arrived on USENET, and the subsequent attempts to contain it.

I remember the collapse of the first internet bubble, because I was made
redundant then. It was all predicated on "owning" traffic, that every company
thought they would be the one to be the default portal (like CIX or AOL) that
steered everyone's purchasing. This was a bad idea then and it's still a bad
idea now.

------
ainiriand
Hi guys. I guess I'm one of the bad guys. I developed the foxplay, natgeoplay
adblocker detectors. I used a very simple approach because we know that anyone
that wants the content and not the ads is going to have it anyway. The ads in
the pages are something that is needed. What is not needed are, as other
commenters said, 3rd party cookies, trackers and analytics beacons. Keep up
the good fight.

~~~
self_awareness
Are your employers interested in developing adblocker-blocker-blockers?

~~~
josteink
When the arms-race _really_ gets going, we will need better names than these
:)

~~~
ainiriand
Like LASER: Lightweight Adblock System for Extension Reconaissance.

~~~
ry_ry
Ad Revenue Sustainability Extension.

------
chadzawistowski
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector_detector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector_detector)

~~~
gpvos
I knew about these, but not about the radar-detector-detector-detectors!

------
codezero
I'm very pleased they include the link to the Trace Buster Buster:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3G80bplTg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3G80bplTg)

~~~
anonfunction
I was also happy to see the reference to one of my favorite all-time movies,
The Big Hit.

1\.
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120609/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120609/)

~~~
balls187
Straight Jackin'.

------
archibaldJ
Or functionally:
[https://github.com/0a-/FuckFuckAdblockFunctionally](https://github.com/0a-/FuckFuckAdblockFunctionally)

    
    
      var _ = function(){};
      var fuck = function(fn,fns){
      fns.push(fn); //side effect here since this is OO. Otherwise could have written: fns = fns.concat(fn)
      var partiallyFuck = function(fn){ return fuck(fn,fns)};
      var thunk = function(){ fns.map(function(a){a();
          window.fuckAdBlock = fuck(_,[]); //forced to do side effect here due to OO
          window.blockAdBlock = fuck(_,[]); //forced to do side effect here due to OO
        }); return true};
      return {
        onDetected: partiallyFuck,
        onNotDetected: partiallyFuck,
        check: thunk,
        emitEvent: thunk
      }
      window.fuckAdBlock = fuck(_,[]);
      window.blockAdBlock = fuck(_,[]);

------
wtallis
It looks to me like this is just a special case of what NoScript's _surrogate
scripts_ feature has been providing for years. It allows substituting your own
no-op scripts for whatever scripts you'd rather not run, but want to fool
other scripts into thinking have been loaded.

------
waynecochran
The license is even more flexible than the MIT license.

~~~
morganvachon
The license is the best thing about this, hands down. It's even more offensive
to GPL evangelists than public domain and closed source licenses put together.
Hooray Anarchy!

(I still prefer BSD or MIT for myself though)

~~~
AndyKelley
If you're amused by the WTFPL, see also the Tumbolia Public License[1] and the
Solipsistic Public License [2].

[1]:
[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joshleaves/licenjs/4174e04...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joshleaves/licenjs/4174e046c920acf066bfe9cd14d833210490c8b8/lib/template-
tumbolia.txt)

[2]:
[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/matildah/SPL/fb35894f14be4...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/matildah/SPL/fb35894f14be41ffd78018ae150e9da1cf6d4a75/LICENSE)

~~~
davesque
I think I prefer the Solipsistic License out of those two.

------
crystalclaw
I went to the linked
[http://fuckadblock.sitexw.fr/](http://fuckadblock.sitexw.fr/) and their
publicity example didn't load. Looks like my adblock rules are doing their
job!

~~~
zouhair
Having ublock, Privacy Badger, Noscript and Disconnect makes it hard for ads
to show up.

~~~
johnmaguire2013
You can get Privacy Badger and Disconnect lists in uBlock Origin. No reason to
have all three.

~~~
mintplant
True for Disconnect, but not for Privacy Badger, which does dynamic,
heuristics-based blocking.

ref: [https://www.eff.org/privacybadger](https://www.eff.org/privacybadger)
under "How does Privacy Badger work?"

I use it and uBlock in combination.

------
Orangeair
[https://xkcd.com/952/](https://xkcd.com/952/)

------
wldcordeiro
Make it work with the beta as well to preempt its release. :)

~~~
mechazawa
Done
[https://github.com/Mechazawa/FuckFuckAdblock/commit/a74307ca...](https://github.com/Mechazawa/FuckFuckAdblock/commit/a74307ca436da30130b377e07872262f324fd5af)

------
mukundmr
How about this instead? Plugs into U-Block Origin:
[https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-
killer#instruction](https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer#instruction)

~~~
aorth
I also thought the same. I have it enabled in my Chrome's uBlock Origin, but
this test—linked from the FuckFuckAdblock repo—still detects it:

[http://fuckadblock.sitexw.fr/](http://fuckadblock.sitexw.fr/)

~~~
gorhill
Version 1.4.0 of uBlock Origin adds the ability to redirect a blocked resource
to a local, neutered version of the resource. FuckAdblock is part of the
available neutered resources:

[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/db74ea310b966def35e84...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/db74ea310b966def35e8422d617b0beae59994b8/assets/ublock/redirect-
resources.txt#L35)

So a filter like the following one work with uBO 1.4.0 to neuter FuckAdblock
on the site:

    
    
        ||fuckadblock.sitexw.fr/fuckadblock.js$script,redirect=fuckadblock.js-3.2.0

------
jayzalowitz
A part of me really wants a system that asks the browser for a "hey, you wanna
give money instead" token that lists a payment system and a unique id. I don't
wanna really hurt content creators.

~~~
yegle
Seems like you are looking for contributor.google.com

~~~
malka
It still allows Google to track you. It's not a solution.

------
manigandham
But why?

~~~
moftz
Because some sites can be really annoying about a user using adblock software.
They can force you to disable adblock by hiding everything until you do so.
Nice sites will just simply ask that you enable it via panels below the
intended adspace. In this case, this script is only fighting against
FuckAdblock's adblock detection methods.

I don't mind seeing ads sometimes. I do realize this is where hosts and
content producers get their funds. I would much rather have sites where you
can pay subscriptions to allow access to not only ad-free content and
additional premium content as long as the site actually has quality content
that I will constantly come back for. Places like WolframAlpha and I'm told
Chegg have quality content behind their fees. Also, another thing that is
quite annoying is hearing the same ads over and over again. Streaming services
have this issue all the time.

~~~
FuckOffNeemo
Personally, I'd rather be asked for a small donation towards the sites running
costs than running ad blocker. Unfortunately, this type of option isn't
available in all websites or media providers.

Unless there's a method where I can directly pay them with cash or BitCoins.
I'm blocking their ads and consuming their service for free. For reasons
already mentioned by others.

I'll use Nexus mods as an example
([http://www.nexusmods.com/games/](http://www.nexusmods.com/games/)). When
accessing their site (which I do regularly), their web service tells you that
they need ads to survive and offer you a life time ad-free subscription for
2.50GBP. Of course, it only shows when it can detect you're using Ad Blocker
Plus. But this is the subscription model that more clients need to use.

YouTube Red (not RedTube... made the mistake of recommending this to a client
yesterday) is another similar method. Though everyone knows Google is trolling
my browsing habits anyway.

~~~
ry_ry
I'm racking my brains to come up with a viable 'pay as you browse' model for
sites, but it quickly extrapolates to the ludicrous extremes.

Hmmmm. Thinking about it, i might throw together a chrome plugin that
calculates a suggested donation based on usage to sites that have donation
mechanisms.

------
dantetheinferno
I hate to ask this, but could someone explain where this stops the
FuckAdBlock? I can't see it in the code.

EDIT: Oh nevermind; it calls a FuckAdBlock instance and then overrides it. Ha.

------
simfoo
I have Ghostery and ublock origin installed, after adding this to my custom
blockers it still tags me as "adblock enabled"

------
recroad
As a content creator who runs two websites and relies on ads to pay bills
because my actual job doesn't cover the costs, I say fuck anything that's
trying to block ads.

~~~
executesorder66
How would you like to be continually forced to perceive everything you hate,
while others profit off of your pain?

Edited: to conform to site rules.

~~~
TheLogothete
Why do you feel forced? Stop using websites which rely on advertising. Simple
enough.

~~~
executesorder66
I don't feel forced at all. I use adblockers and my problem goes away.

However I was talking about the 'fuck adblockers because I need ads to support
my hosting costs' mentality. Those people want to force people to view ads so
that they can make some money.

~~~
TheLogothete
Why do you feel entitled to use their services? Don't you think that makes you
a hypocrite?

~~~
executesorder66
I don't feel entitled to use their services.

They put content on a publicly accessible server for anyone to access if they
choose to do so. (I sometimes choose to)

They also link ads on the same server for anyone to access if they choose to
do so. (I always choose not to)

If they took their content away, I wouldn't give a shit. There are many other
things I can, and do, spend my time on.

Since I never paid for their content, and they never asked me to pay for it, I
have no expectation of what _must_ happen with the content.

Edit:formatting and spelling.

~~~
TheLogothete
Then why do you use their services? You know certain companies provide a free
service because they can serve ads alongside with the service and this is how
they operate. You chose to use their business, but to obstruct their business
model intentionally. This is hypocrisy at its finest.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not mad at all. Well, a little bit, but for a totally
different reason. Advertising is not going anywhere. In fact, it will grow
incredibly in the coming years. And the actions and attitude of people like
you will make it way more invasive and amoral than it currently is.

Congratulations on running adblock. You stuck it to the man!

~~~
executesorder66
I click on a link because I might find it interesting. I risk my time and data
going to that link because the content might be worth it. If I would somehow
be forced to see ads in order to view the content, then it would not be worth
my time or data, and I would not go to the link. The advertisers/website take
a risk by placing ads. They know people hate ads. They know people might use
adblockers. They know most people that don't ignore the ads anyway.

People who run botnets that spam the living fuck out of millions of email
addresses have the exact same business model. Send lots of unwanted
advertising to masses of people hoping for that one idiot who will take the
bait. Is using a spam filter obstructing their business model? No, because one
of the main risks that the business model accounts for is the fuckload of spam
filtering that is used.

Putting ads on your website as a business model, is using a business model
based on risk. The risk that many people will have no response to an advert.
People who use adblockers are built into that risk. So I am not obstructing
it. So I don't see how it is hypocrisy at all.

To me personally spam and ads on a website are exactly the same thing. In fact
all advertising (radio, TV, posters, door to door sales, cold calls) is spam
by my definition. I don't want to be told what I need/want. I know what I
need/want and I will go find the products/services to satisfy that need/want
by myself. No advertising necessary.

Why are you a little bit mad? What would you suggest everyone should do? I
fully agree that advertising will grow worse and worse. And I also agree that
adblockers are accelerating this process. And I'm glad about that. I can't
wait for the whole advertising industry to become so evil and abhorrent to the
human civilization that it becomes illegal on a global scale. In the mean
time, let the arms race continue. I don't see how the advertising industry
will ever win.

And no, I don't run adblock to "Stick it to the man". I run adblock because I
hate adverts. But if by "the man" you mean the advertising industry, then yes.
Congratulations to me. Fuck them. I hope I make their lives difficult. I can't
wait until their whole industry implodes. Even if it takes another 200 years,
then I'll be glad I contributed in a small way to their downfall.

~~~
TheLogothete
>If I would somehow be forced to see ads in order to view the content, then it
would not be worth my time or data, and I would not go to the link

So you don't use google, youtube, reddit, stackoverflow or any service that
you already know is ad supported, because it will not be worth your time or
data, correct?

~~~
executesorder66
I use all of those sites, because I am not forced to view the adverts. Just
like I sometimes even block or alter certain content on websites that I visit.
The server is hosting the files, but I am never forced to display a web
element in my browser. I do what I want with it.

~~~
TheLogothete
If you want to use those sites you must allow their ads to load in your
browser. It's in their terms of service. Do you block the ads while using the
services or don't you?

~~~
executesorder66
I tried to find the Tos for the sites you listed.

I only managed to find the ToS for Stackoverflow [0] and it does not mention
adverts or adblockers anywhere.

Please provide links to the ToS of the sites you mentioned earlier where it is
stated that you have to display the adverts on their site.

[0] [http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-
service](http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service)

