FBI recommends using an ad blocker (2022)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

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.”