It's about time we stopped buying into the propaganda phrase "ad blockers", and started calling user-protection tools like #uBlockOrigin and #NoScript what they are; spy blockers. If I display ads on my website using HTML and CSS, spy blockers won't block those. As far as they know, the text, images, audio, or video that make up the ads could be anything. So what's really being blocked is not ads, but tracking. Thanks to the authors of this site, for pointing this out:
"... blockers will definitely not block advertisements that are completely integrated with the content that you wanted to open, but when that sort of thing happens, it means that the author of the content knew about what they were advertising, instead of just having a banner ad automatically stuck to their page. Figuring out if you can trust the author of the web page that you opened is something you had to do anyway."
@strypey Good point. There is no reason ads cannot be served as a simple image, gif or video, with HTML and CSS.
TBH I don't even mind non obtrusive ads for local businesses in the language of the site I am reading (as they improve my language skills) - it does annoy me (or would if I didn't have ublock etc) to see ads in English (or worse, random articles in English inserted into a news site), which immediately give away "ad reinsertion" techniques. Even my local news group (Archant) has websites that are unusable without blockers (they literally crash some browsers)
@strypey I agree with you on the need to change terminology.
@strypey I find "user protection tools" a very good, refreshing alternative term for ad-blocker software, but "spy blocker" much less so as it may communicate a narrower set of use cases to ppl that are not familiar with ad-blockers. Like "Spy blocker? Isn't that for journalists, intelligence officers or the tinfoil hat types?".
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!