| "The web is unusable without a proper Adblock" Unusable for the commenter perhaps, based on his choices, but not unusable in an absolute sense For example, I have been using the web without an adblock for several decades.^1 I see no ads Adblocking is only necessary when one uses a popular graphical web browser When I use an HTTP generator and a TCP client then no "adblock" is necessary When I use a text-only browser then no "adblock" is necessary Websites that comprise "the web" are only one half of the ad delivery system The other half is the client <--- user choice Firefox is controlled and distribuited by an entity that advocates for a "healthy online advertising ecosystem" and sends search query data to an online advertising services company called Google in exchange for payment. Ex-Mozilla employees left to join Google and start another browser called "Chrome" These browsers are designed to deliver advertising. That's why an "adblock" extension is needed When one uses a client that is not controlled and distributed by a company that profits from advertising services, that is not designed to deliver advertising, then an "adblock" may not be needed. I also control DNS and use a local forward proxy The web is "usable" with such clients. For example, I read all HN submissions using clients that do not deliver or display ads. I am submitting this comment without using a popular graphical web browser 1. Obviously there are some exceptions, e.g., online banking, e-commerce, etc. For me, this is a small minority of web usage The web is usuable with a variety of clients, not only the ones designed to deliver ads |