[–] [deleted] 0 points 654 points (+654|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

9
172

[–] ZENerve 9 points 172 points (+181|-9) ago 

Yeah, excellent isn't it? Sorry no upvote because, well, voat.

3
74

[–] Fyzzle 3 points 74 points (+77|-3) ago 

I got your back bud.

6
53

[–] Drenki 6 points 53 points (+59|-6) ago 

10 upvotes for me every 24 hours. Woooo...

Doing this too often, had to wait 30 seconds.

3
40

[–] Jon_TWR 3 points 40 points (+43|-3) ago 

Just hit 20! Have another upvoat!

1
18

[–] sparkybear 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

What? What is this that I've missed?

3
45

[–] ack 3 points 45 points (+48|-3) ago 

0
42

[–] ninny_muffins 0 points 42 points (+42|-0) ago 

0
9

[–] throwawaylinesegment 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

This should totally become a thing. With that exact PNG. Forever within voat.

0
7

[–] midoriiro 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It's soo shiny!

0
4

[–] roj2323 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I wonder why they didn't go with Voat Platinum or something more exotic. Voat Gold just doesn't have a good ring to it.

0
24

[–] 786762? 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

You get my voat because you posted it before I did.

0
12

[–] jotch 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Voat you man!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
10

[–] ack 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

That's because a script is needed to check for adblock :D

0
5

[–] TheBlueGhost 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

There's no kill like overkill!

0
3

[–] sinidj 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

NoScript is great :D

0
1

[–] the_spectre 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The other option is a browser script that isolates ad blocker detection scrips and blocks them. It's a little better to do that if you can find/make one.

0
163

[–] AnonymousCrowdMember 0 points 163 points (+163|-0) ago 

Ads have gotten absurd. It was one thing when they were unobtrusive small images in the margins, and didn't interfere with loading the page, but this is ridiculous. Using 40 percent of the bandwidth, popping up full screen blocking the content I'm trying to view, autoplaying on page loads at full volume.

Fuck 'em, there's a reason I finally installed AdBlock.

0
52

[–] sesstreets 0 points 52 points (+52|-0) ago 

For those looking into an adblocking solution, I'd prefer if you were to look into uBlock Origin since it is a better implementation that saves on more resources.

0
11

[–] ninjai 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

I just switched over to this recently. I like it a lot.

0
8

[–] jeegte12 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Long time AB/AB+ user, switched to uB couple of weeks ago, haven't looked back.

0
6

[–] SirPremierViceroy 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Doesn't Adblock get paid to "whitelist" certain sites as well?

0
5

[–] racetam 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I really like their selection of blocklists too. ublock has the option to load a lot of privacy subscriptions like disconnect and easyprivacy.

0
48

[–] VexingVariables 0 points 48 points (+48|-0) ago  (edited ago)

autoplaying on page loads at full volume.

Every once I'll have adblock off for one reason or another and one of those fucking ads will play and just remind me why I use Adblock...

0
8

[–] GeminiK 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

You should take a week once a quarter and go vanilla Internet. See why you've changed as much as you have. Appreciate adblock.

0
15

[–] Penguinkeith 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This reminds me of my old friend.... lets call him weston... weston was raised harshly Christian, and he loved video games especially flash games online, but the problem was even in the early 2000s there would be super suggestive ads in the margins, so he would tape a couple strips of paper on each side of the screen where the women would be xD

0
11

[–] Leopold 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Try uBlock Origin.

0
3

[–] techtoy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I love this. Much less CPU load, it is a much less bloated option.

0
88

[–] soothaa 0 points 88 points (+88|-0) ago 

As an IT guy here, I've been rolling it out to all my new machines to save people mainly from themselves. The speedups and savings are a secondary effect. I am seeing much less infections from people clicking on bad ads/malware baiting ads.

0
27

[–] Tangent-love 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

It always surprises me that people fall for those ads.

0
20

[–] aggressivesalad 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

You must always presume the user is, lets say technologically slow.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Meowface 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I use this one weird trick to get people to click my ads. Marketers hate me!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] jotch 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I was working with one of the directors and saw he had ads on his gmail. I asked him if they were annoying and he said yes, so I installed uBlock. I dont normally do desktop support but we play poker together. About a week later he came and took me to lunch saying he never new the internet could be amazing without ads.

0
5

[–] mav 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I don't see any way around this anymore, ads have become such a problem that installing an ad blocker is a perfectly valid security measure. It's very difficult for non-Internet veterans to be able to distinguish between good software and things that are trouble, for example, like this.

0
3

[–] IneptProfessional 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I've wanted to install it on all machines i configure but figure it'd be frowned upon.

0
7

[–] ThatFrancopoli 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Sell it as a security solution. That is what I did.

0
1

[–] Avnomke 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I don't think it would be.

0
49

[–] MadMikeLove 0 points 49 points (+49|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Should've used uBlock Origin

From what I understand, it's less system intensive and it sends a callback to the advertiser to let them know you "saw" the ad, as opposed to adblock plus. (can someone confirm this?)

EDIT: It does NOT send a callback. However, it is still the better adblocker.

0
15

[–] polymorphist 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It doesn't fake a view. It just blocks resources from loading. I'm pretty sure I've seen this posted on an official source, but I'm having a hard time finding it.

0
5

[–] toughenough6 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I read that it fakes the views from a reddit comment, then I regurgitated that later to another comment and was told by a bunch of people that it's actually false and it does not actually send the callback to fake the view. I'm going with that.

0
1

[–] j_ 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It’s right on the uBlock Origin repository’s front page:

Looks like I still need to dispel that other myth: I've seen in many places lately the following assertion:

ublock blocks ads just like adblock plus, but triggers the ads API to think it got viewed

Completely false. uBlock Origin (or uBlock) does not "trigger" any "ads API" (whatever that is). It prevents network requests from being made according to filter lists so that your browser does not connect to remote servers, period.

0
6

[–] Sodliddesu 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Firefox link for those of us not on Chrome.

0
4

[–] intergalacticninja 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

it sends a callback to the advertiser to let them know you "saw" the ad, as opposed to adblock plus. (can someone confirm this?)

According to uBlock Origin's author:

uBlock Origin (or uBlock) does not "trigger" any "ads API" (whatever that is). It prevents network requests from being made according to filter lists so that your browser does not connect to remote servers, period.

0
2

[–] KL1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So why use the fork uBlock Origin and not uBlock itself?

0
1

[–] j_ 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Both are good, make your own choice based on their feature sets.

0
1

[–] intergalacticninja 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

uBlock Origin is being developed by uBlock's original author and (former) main developer. More info on the history and differences here.

0
33

[–] AgressivelyNeutral 0 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yup... I know the feeling.

As my university's network admin I've had ad blockers running for the past 12 years and I've had around 30% bandwidth economy these past years compared to one of our networks that runs unfiltered as the control group. The exact numbers aren't precise since every network has different users so they have different habits but 30% is a conservative estimate.

Concretely, If I count the number of GETs and POSTs that are blocked, we avoid almost 50% of them through ad blockers and they aren't even very aggressive - it's just a bunch of basic regex rules that don't create much of a load on my squid proxies to deny.

I also anonymize part of our traffic because my users and the university's students aren't very smart to keep their online profile discreet. I implemented this through HTTP header controls, creative routing and TOR - nobody notices this so nobody cares about it, but I think it's cool.

As an aside from my aside, two years ago a new IT manager decided to stick his toes into network ops and managed to order us to take the filters offline because he accused us of censuring his internet. He begged to bring it back (really, I made him ask in writing that he CC'd to the Dean and our university's governors - I didn't ask but that was a nice thing for him to do) since his helpdesk crew were receiving constant calls from people complaining that their websites were full of ads - that lasted 3 days because he ordered us to do it on a Friday. He was fired a few weeks later for unrelated causes (he was a world class clueless moron).

Edit: Some extra info, for the nerds:

  • We have, according the our antivirus' statistics, a little less than a thousand PCs and 100 APs for mobile devices.

  • At peak hours we have around 1800 concurrent devices - most of them are on wifi and most of those are cellphones.

  • My proxy farm is composed of 12 instances of Squid. In the past they use to take a huge beating because of drastic fun-filters. We managed to relax these rules and now 12 is nice and cozy, most of them don't go beyond 50% CPU usage per day.

  • The control network has around 100 PCs, no wifi and of the traffic is student generated (only 10-ish employees on that network).

  • Oh, one last thing, we have around 100Mbps for our networks.

0
2

[–] Layer4 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Thank you for providing your solution and experience.

When you say you anonymize part of your traffic, what part do you include and why? And how do you handle anonymizer's that your users might use on their own?

And a side question, if I may... How do you handle torrent traffic?

0
4

[–] AgressivelyNeutral 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Currently, the only thing that's anonymized are the #chan-style imageboards. I set it up as a little project to play around with forced anonymity, most people don't care about their privacy and only want the content so I considered this and built it - it's not the best solution but it's in place if we ever really need it.

There are no rules against people running their own TOR browsers but it's flagged on the IDS, we don't block odd ports so that TOR runs on non-80/tcp or 443/tcp tunnels, it makes the traffic much easier to detect. It goes into a low priority traffic bucket (lower than legit HTTPS and HTTP, higher than the general traffic). In the end you might avoid our content filters (mostly ad blocks) but you won't gain a significant advantage to exit/enter our network since we strip out all device set TOS flags and set our own.

As for torrent traffic, it's almost the same thing as TOR traffic but it all goes into a tiny bucket (5 Mbps max for the whole network) - you'll download what you want but it's going to be strangled if more flagged sessions are running. It might not be fair but I've seen a single user suck up everything we had so now it's available but limited. We don't have a very good torrent detection system running but it certainly does detect casual downloaders and, personally, I'm more interested in casting a wide net to catch abuse than I am in detecting everything passing through the routers.

Mind you, I'm a fan of the BOFH, but I do my best to give all traffic and everybody a chance for bandwidth and 12 years building this from the ground up taught me quite a few lessons and I've had to learn some really esoteric stuff to manage everything on a barely shoestring budget with two network guys.

0
2

[–] XNiiNJA 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Wouldn't pushing some of your traffic through TOR be a bit slow? Also, wouldn't the end host also see the request as coming from another source that might be in an entirely different country, which may end up in users seeing the wrong Google page for their country, or some other strange happenings?

0
4

[–] AgressivelyNeutral 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Yes and yes - it's a pain to maintain the list of sites that exit via TOR but currently it's only for accessing the chan-type sites, 4chan's TOR filter is actually useful for me since it keeps 4chan traffic down and deflects the user's complaints from me to other users (because of the blanket bans). In the past I used it to go around a few draconian court-mandated blockades.

0
2

[–] Goatinaboat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Thank you for this write up. This is what I came here to see.

0
1

[–] johnlocke90 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Oh, one last thing, we have around 100Mbps for our networks.

That seems extremely low for 1800 devices.

0
1

[–] AgressivelyNeutral 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It really is and we're trying to add more but, until then, we really the need for bandwidth saving.

0
12

[–] PintOfBees 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Are there any legal issues that can arise from blocking ads in large organizations like this?

0
16

[–] stratbasher 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

I'm assuming that some websites' terms of use include that you must not block ads. How enforceable? Not really.

0
9

[–] YourBlueIsMyPurple 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

You have been backtraced by the cyber police.

0
7

[–] notaseriesoftubes 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I don't think so, since that would mean using a browser like lynx (no images, javascript, flash, css, etc) would also be illegal

0
4

[–] Phekka 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

You so sure it won't be? Just give it time.

0
5

[–] Malor 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It's their network; how they display content on their devices is purely up to them.

0
4

[–] technologyisnatural 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Looks like we're about to find out.

0
10

[–] supernatendo 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Since when did advertisers think it was all right to use up bandwidth that individuals and companies pay for? It would be like using a publicly funded tax-subsidized service to send advertisements to your home... oh wait... they do that too!

0
4

[–] scratchcatmeow 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It's like if companies sending mail ads made you pay for shipping.

0
3

[–] recursive 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

They're not pushing ads. You have to request a page in the first place to get them. From that point of view, there's no difference between ads, and any other resource necessary to render a page.

0
9

[–] 1vibe 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Ads use my bandwidth to serve me ads. Bandwidth that I pay for. If 40% of my bandwidth is ads, shouldn't these companies pay at least 40% of my bill?

0
2

[–] johnlocke90 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well ads also pay for a lot of the websites you visit.

0
2

[–] greenman1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

yeah i dont think an Internet with built-in Adblock would be a great place.

0
2

[–] Jeroen 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You could negotiate like that, ask for them to pay 40% of your bill in exchange of you viewing their ads.

load more comments ▼ (51 remaining)