[Noaidi]

I prefer an ad (and porn, gambling, social media) blocking host file myself.

[WesolyKubeczek]

Necessary, but not sufficient. Sometimes you want to block certain URLs and not whole domains.

[pseudalopex]

Or certain elements.

[drdexebtjl]

A lot of sites serve their ads from the same domains as their actual content nowadays.

So if you really don't want to ever see ads again, you need something at the application layer.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"A lot of sites serve their ads from the same domains as their actual content nowadays."

What are some examples

I observe the contrary among the sites submitted to HN

Without access to other subdomains and other domains plus a Javascript interpreter, the ads and tracking don't work

[drdexebtjl]

Google's sponsored results, ads from streaming services.

Usually when the website is not part of an ad network, but instead runs their own ads.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

How many streaming services

Are these "sites" as in "websites"

Or something more akin to Netflix, endpoints accessed with an "app" on a "TV"

The parent comment's HOSTS file method will fall short, for sure

But a zone file that functions as an "allowlist", cf. "blocklist", can do the job in most cases

If the ads are in the video file then downloading makes more sense than streaming

Ads can be removed from the file, or skipped in the video player

[lightedman]

Many browsers and programs now days ignore HOSTs.