Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

By your logic we should stop fighting diseases, i.e. killing bacteria, to prevent bacteria from evolving.

That does not follow by proper application of logic.

But to clarify:

- advertising isn't as harmful (yet) as infectious diseases

- if we want to get rid of it, the same rules apply as to fighting bacteria - you want to hit as hard as possible in as many places as possible, to not give any room for bacteria to mutate; proliferation of adblocks is like taking antibiotics and stopping treatment half-way - not effective enough to kill off everything, and forces bacteria to mutate into drug-resistant variety

Then there's also problem that ads mutate much faster than bacteria - because they're driven not by evolution, but by sentient adversaries.

Ads generate money through sales. Advertisers can lobby lawmakers to not make much restrictions on ads. Who you think can out lobby them? You and me? I think we have better things to spend our money than that. Adblock gives (almost) free and painless solution. I don't see how you think there's a better, easier and cheaper way of dealing with it.

I don't see any "better, easier and cheaper way" right now (which is why I use AdBlock myself). I'm just expressing my fear that current solutions may hurt us badly in the long run.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact