FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)
The FBI’s 2022 advisory to use browser ad blockers to avoid malicious search ads has reignited debate over the safety, ethics, and practicality of online advertising. Commenters describe ad networks as a major vector for scams, tracking, and malware, argue over how much blame lies with platforms like Google and Apple, and trade tactics ranging from uBlock Origin and Pi‑hole to strict no‑JavaScript setups. Others question whether ad blocking undermines content creators or essential services, but many see it as necessary “basic hygiene” until regulators hold ad platforms accountable for harmful or fraudulent ads.
Context and reactions to FBI advice
- Thread centers on a 2022 FBI PSA recommending ad blockers and VPNs due to malicious ads and search-result fraud.
- Many agree, noting it’s “insane” to browse on machines without ad blocking; some joke CDC should recommend it for mental health too.
- A few point out that FBI cyber guidance has often been solid (e.g., past advice to disable Flash/Java).
Why use ad blockers (security, privacy, sanity)
- Ads are framed as untrusted JavaScript and links that can deliver malware, enable drive‑by exploits, and normalize surveillance.
- Users mention scams via Google search ads (e.g., fake utility sites), with resulting financial and data loss.
- Ad bombardment is seen as harming attention, productivity, and user experience; some say ad-tech constitutes “cyber terrorism.”
- Network‑level blocking (Pi-hole, AdGuard DNS, etc.) and tools like uBlock Origin, 1Blocker, Wipr, NextDNS are praised.
Reasons some avoid or limit ad blockers
- Some consciously don’t block ads to “support creators” or because they leave ad-infested sites instead.
- Others cite friction: extensions breaking login/payment flows, food ordering, banking sites, or causing “site requires you to disable adblock” blocks.
- A few simply don’t know how or don’t care enough to learn; others rely on reader mode or manually deleting overlays.
Browser and platform constraints
- Debate over Safari and iOS:
- One side claims iOS “doesn’t allow ad blockers” or only weak ones.
- Others counter that Safari supports content blockers (e.g., AdGuard, 1Blocker, Wipr) and that complaints often conflate the YouTube app with the browser.
- Apple’s privacy stance is contested: some see genuine focus on privacy; others suspect data collection and point to lack of full browser choice and engine restrictions.
- Chrome Manifest V3 is criticized for limiting effective ad blocking; some expect a shift to system-wide blockers or alternative browsers.
Ad ecosystem, responsibility, and ethics
- Strong sentiment that ad networks and platforms (especially Google) should be legally liable for scam/malware ads and “link fraud,” not just users told to scrutinize URLs.
- Advice to “check the URL” is seen as unrealistic given tracking/vanity links and user workload.
- Discussion about whether software engineers as a profession bear collective responsibility for ad bombardment; views range from “we’re complicit” to “blame lies with a minority and with management/market incentives.”