[meowface]

Where do you draw the line though?

Let's say OpenDNS and Google changed their DNS servers to resolve all ad domains to 127.0.0.1.

It is a private choice to decide to use those DNS servers, but such a large percentage of the public uses them that this would no doubt impact nearly all ad networks and websites.

[JoshTriplett]

> It is a private choice to decide to use those DNS servers, but such a large percentage of the public uses them that this would no doubt impact nearly all ad networks and websites.

Those ad networks might even die off completely! And that'd just be terrible, really; however would people get by without being advertised at?

(Ideally you'd want the ad domains to not resolve at all, though, rather than resolving to localhost.)

I don't see how someone adjusting a service that they completely own and control to provide a more useful service would fall anywhere near a "line". That line is entirely drawn by the owners and operators of the service, and people can always choose to use a different service if they don't like that.

(That said, ad networks have sadly gotten sophisticated enough that DNS blacklists alone won't suffice, and could potentially break sites.)

[petercooper]

That line is entirely drawn by the owners and operators of the service, and people can always choose to use a different service if they don't like that.

That's all well and good until whatever business you run competes with the DNS provider or offends them in some way and they stop resolving your domain name. You're not going to say, "well, people can stop using Google's DNS if they really want to use my service".

[JoshTriplett]

If a DNS provider does something they can't justify in the name of providing a better service, that makes it easier to convince people to use a different service.

[meowface]

Don't get me wrong, I hate ads. I use an ad blocker on all my devices. I have never served ads on any websites I've operated, and never will.

But love them or hate them, they're vital for many companies' and websites' revenue. If big tech companies started implementing anti-ad features by default, there would be chaos.

[JoshTriplett]

People don't like ads. Necessity is the mother of invention.

That said, any anti-ad features need to avoid breaking things for users, and it'd be entirely too easy to break a simplistic DNS-based ad-blocker in ways that would end up hurting users. Client-side ad blocking can take more sophisticated steps, both to deal with anti-adblocking technologies, and to give users feedback and recourses if something goes wrong.

[Aaargh20318]

> such a large percentage of the public uses them that this would no doubt impact nearly all ad networks and websites.

That would be the point wouldn't it ?

At this point, I'm surprised no one has picked up a sniper rifle and started systematically picking off the CEO of every single online ad agency one by one until no one wanted the job anymore. You know, maybe someone who has just a few months left to live and who wants to do something good for humanity before they leave.

I'm not saying someone should, just that it wouldn't surprise me if someone did.