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

The whole point of AdBlock is that it does block the actualy requests in the first place. Why should I have to download 800k of ads for a 200k webpage, and open myself to adware tracking cookies? Removing them from DOM after they've been downloaded is not a proper solution to me at all...



I disagree. I have an internet plan with 100 gigs of allotted transfer. I don't care if a few kb here and there come down. I understand that your position may be different, but in my opinion most use Adblock the way I do -- to not see advertisements.


Transfer totals has no bearing on bandwidth speed. When I'm on wireless connections, or at work where I am forced to work from a connection shared with 400 other employees, the bandwidth required by ads actually takes up a significant amount of time. I don't even have any caps on my usable bandwidth, in any of the above situations or at home, but the speed can still be greatly affected by the number of ads being loaded that I don't even see. Even my cable internet provider still gives me only a measly 384kilobit upload speed, and that now has to be shared between even more outgoing connections?

To top it all off, from an ad-provider's perspective, why should I be paying for ad impressions that the end user doesn't even get to see? At least with Adblock, my server bandwidth isn't used, and my impression statistics aren't being impacted by users who aren't actually getting the chance to view the content...


I don't think there's anything adblock does that a chromium extension script (or a greasemonkey script) can't do. You can write a script that just looks for the html fragments that represent ads and nuke them before the page renders, right? - in the same way adblock does




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: