_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML AI uBlock Blacklist
giancarlostoro wrote 1 day ago:
I'm the weirdo who just closes websites with too many ads, and just
mostly powers through the ads. If you have a sane setup for ads I will
use your website. I'm tired of the years of adblock drama. Every time I
come to these threads its completely different names for adblock
plugins, it's like a rat race.
dotancohen wrote 1 day ago:
The problem is that ads have often been vectors for malware.
nottorp wrote 1 day ago:
Not all, but blocking ads makes sites load 10x faster.
rishabhaiover wrote 1 day ago:
AI-generated content vs human-generated content is merging as such a
fast pace that such a list doesn't seem like a scalable general
solution
lkm0 wrote 1 day ago:
Why is apnews.com on the list?
dgares wrote 1 day ago:
It seems to have been added as part of a commit[1] pulling from an
SEO company's internal inventory document.
HTML [1]: https://github.com/alvi-se/ai-ublock-blacklist/commit/f6ee8d...
jadar wrote 1 day ago:
I feel like this is a bit of a sinking ship. I suppose if you want to
avoid known sources of slop then this works ⦠but beyond that itâs
a bit of a lost cause. Itâs like sports betting â once itâs there
then thereâs no saying who is (ab)using it.
greyman wrote 1 day ago:
Meta question: do you guys feel the adblockers will maybe not be that
important in the future? As for myself, I ended up to use just a few
websites, but those are reputable and I don't mind a few ads they
provide. The only adblock which is still very much needed is one for
Youtube.
TacticalCoder wrote 1 day ago:
I used to run pihole on a Pi and now I directly run unbound, still on
a Pi. The difference on a great many sites is night and day: you
simply get way fewer ads. And that's just by using a DNS blocklist.
Occasionally I'll get one site that refuses to load because I've got
an "adblocker" but most sites do work fine, just with way fewer ads.
greyman wrote 1 day ago:
I usually now just ask agent, for example Gemini in Antigravity to
check certain article or a group of articles, like "check all
AI-related article in tldr.tech and tell what is interesting"... I
am already a bit lazy to browse myself, and in this process I dont
care about ads.
Grom_PE wrote 1 day ago:
I feel that blocking, substituting, and even inserting user-defined
resources for a website must be a native browser feature.
xboxnolifes wrote 1 day ago:
I dont think this is a sign of the times or the future. I think its
just your own personal browsing habits.
diath wrote 1 day ago:
According to uBlock Origin it blocked 9.5 million requests to
ads/third party trackers since I installed it. So yes, it's very much
needed.
notepad0x90 wrote 1 day ago:
Love this, I wish there were more and broader categories of sites one
could block. You can always temporarily allow sites.
In the enterprise space, there are URL reputation providers. They
categorize sites based on different criteria, and network
administrators block or warn users based on that information.
In my humble opinion, there needs to be a crowdsourced fund (or ideally
governments would take this seriously and fund it on behalf of people)
for enabling technologies that allow user friendly internet
experiences. Browsers, frameworks, vpn providers, site-reputation,
deceptive content, dns-providers, email providers,trusted certificate
authorities(no,google and microsoft shouldn't get to police that),
nation-state or corporate affiliations,etc... You shouldn't need to
setup a pi-hole.
Imagine a $1B/yr non-profit fund for this stuff. if 10M people paid
$10/mo that's $1.2B/yr. Proton has $97M revenue in 2024 and 100M total
accounts (I don't know how many pay but the spread is roughly $1/user).
I really think now is the time to talk about this when so many are wary
of US tech giants and looking for other opportunities.
filldorns wrote 1 day ago:
Come on guys, 2026 and you still using "blacklist". Why not BlockList?
nosrepa wrote 1 day ago:
Now we just need scientists to agree on something other than black
hole.
TacticalCoder wrote 1 day ago:
I do use "blocklist" on new project and name my main "trunk" and not
"master" but I'll both a) defend other's rights to use terms like
blocklists and master and b) call out the virtue signalling ones who
are trying to push a political agenda by trying to control thoughts
(by attempting to control speech).
filldorns wrote 1 day ago:
There's no political interest here. (Although I believe EVERYTHING
is political, including not taking a stand!)
The only point I'm making is that (as a Black person) I have the
authority to tell you that it's important and how I feel. You can
defend whatever you want, I'm just communicating and SUGGESTING
that you change the term.
What I find funny is that many here argue that we can't even
SUGGEST. And they still say they're in favor of democracy. Oh,
okay!
Ylpertnodi wrote 23 min ago:
As another black person (3rd gen Ghanaian, sp), you can get lost,
and you have no 'authority' (really?) at all to tell me/ others
how you feel.
Blacklist it is, for me.
Eu-based, fwiw.
As i grew up we were coloUred, for a while, and then 'black'
became the easy way to descibe ourselves.
charonn0 wrote 1 day ago:
Because changing blacklist to blocklist, master to main, etc. is a
meaningless act of virtue signalling.
filldorns wrote 1 day ago:
So what? Your proposal is to change nothing, continue as is, and
subtly continue using terms like "blacklist" as something bad and
"whitelist" as something good... I don't think I understand your
point. I don't see any real sense in it.
Unfortunately, MANY people still think this is nonsense and
shouldn't be given attention. What you don't understand is that you
subtly say that things from Black people are bad and things from
white people are good. Do you know what that causes in the end?
A company "of Black people" applies for YC and has a higher chance
of being rejected than a company of/for white people, even if it's
a necessary solution. You doubt it? Try it!
charonn0 wrote 1 day ago:
No, I'm not proposing to change nothing, continue as is, nor do I
use coded language to express my secret inner racism.
I'm saying that changing words like "blacklist" or "master" is
purely performative and actually quite selfish. People do it to
feel good about themselves for "helping" without actually having
to do anything helpful. It's the moral equivalent of sending
"thoughts and prayers".
filldorns wrote 1 day ago:
I'm not saying that those who use these terms are racist. I'm
saying that language evolves. If there are equivalent technical
alternatives that don't carry a history of oppression, why not
use them? It costs nothing and can make the environment more
inclusive. This doesn't replace concrete actions, but it also
doesn't prevent them from happening.
If changing a word is "purely performative," then keeping it is
also purely performative. The difference is that one choice
preserves a metaphor of domination and the other does not.
Technology is made of choices. This is one too.
mjmas wrote 1 day ago:
> It costs nothing
It cost time and coding work to make the change.
ragall wrote 1 day ago:
> I'm saying that language evolves.
That means I won't bother fighting changes that became
established before I was born. I most definitely doesn't mean
I have to go along with every change I see proposed now.
> If there are equivalent technical alternatives that don't
carry a history of oppression
Words are not oppression.
Thanemate wrote 1 day ago:
I'd argue it's not meaningless because the point wasn't to show
inclusion but power. Nobody went for master's degrees, "master" as
a rank in video games, or anything else.
Reminds me of [1]twitch.tv trying to remove "blind playthrough" as
a tag to encourage inclusive language.
1.
HTML [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/k7dvgw/twitch_rem...
Symbiote wrote 1 day ago:
GitHub changed the default branch name from master to main.
semiinfinitely wrote 1 day ago:
Tragic twist: repo was entirely AI generated
mixtureoftakes wrote 1 day ago:
media.tenor.com/oW5zO_6gu5gAAAAi/theomegaoof-emoji.gif
ossa-ma wrote 1 day ago:
Glad we're moving in this direction, I've also got a tool that I use to
determine if writing is AI using common tropes and reconstruct the OG
prompt from it:
HTML [1]: https://tropes.fyi/aidr
mh- wrote 1 day ago:
Haha, that's a neat idea. Thanks for sharing. [1]
HTML [1]: https://tropes.fyi/aidr/b184cf3a
HTML [2]: https://tropes.fyi/aidr/9b132f92
ramon156 wrote 1 day ago:
I would rather have a whitelist that adds a nice tag at the end of the
link, indicating that overall it has high quality content. This also
forces you to periodically check the sites you've whitelisted
dhayabaran wrote 1 day ago:
The false positive problem gets worse over time too. Domains get sold,
sites pivot, old content gets removed. A blocklist with no removal
process and a "cry about it" attitude in the FAQ is basically a one-way
reputational blackhole. At minimum it needs an expiry or re-review
mechanism. Even browser safe browsing lists re-check URLs periodically.
quiet35 wrote 1 day ago:
I like the idea and even considered contributing to the list, but this
stopped me:
> NAQ (Never Asked Questions)
> My website is on your list!
> Cry about it.
That's quite a suspicious attitude. Clearly the maintainer believes he
is infallible. I understand the emotions behind this, but this is not
how a public blacklist should be maintained.
wasmainiac wrote 1 day ago:
Fork it then!
GaryBluto wrote 1 day ago:
Think about the type of person for whom seeing any mention of "AI"
would send them into a tizzy and it makes quite a lot of sense.
Chris2048 wrote 1 day ago:
Not any more it seems:
HTML [1]: https://github.com/alvi-se/ai-ublock-blacklist/commit/7ebaa7...
ycombinatrix wrote 1 day ago:
If the website is not AI slop, presumably they would remove it from
the list.
DrammBA wrote 1 day ago:
You forgot:
> A personal list for uBlock Origin
Drupon wrote 1 day ago:
Probably because there's about the same chance of them being innocent
as the "Help I was wrongfully banned by VAC :(((" posts in the
Counterstrike community.
matheusmoreira wrote 1 day ago:
Reminder that false positives are not only possible but likely. I
remember one instance where you could get people banned by sending
them a specific string of characters over chat. Anticheat was
scanning the entire contents of RAM looking for it.
These days anticheat software is likely to snap at anything. Who
knows what they think of the development tools Hacker News users
are likely to have on their computers? They really hate virtual
machines for example. There's no telling how they'd react to a
debugger or profiler.
Drupon wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah that's what the people love to say on the Steam forums when
they've gotten busted in one of its many ban waves.
s0ss wrote 1 day ago:
Both of you can be right.
the_biot wrote 1 day ago:
I would add that with this attitude and how new this initiative is,
there's very little chance it will still be updated 5 years from now.
Really this sort of thing needs to come from Easylist or similar, who
have a track record of maintaining these for years.
Larrikin wrote 1 day ago:
I don't understand the need for the author to commit the rest of
his life to this or start a foundation. It is a good list for now
and if its never updated again, that seems fine.
jjcob wrote 1 day ago:
If a blocklist doesn't get updated it is outdated in a week.
Some tools are useful without updates. A blocklist for AI content
farms that are sprouting like crazy is not helpful if it isn't
updated.
skeeter2020 wrote 1 day ago:
in that case they should just contribute to one of the existing,
more established lists. We don't need n+1 standards...
Larrikin wrote 1 day ago:
Which lists is open to this kind of contribution?
NeutralCrane wrote 1 day ago:
Also seems a bit hypocritical given the screed about how such a list
is necessary because the AI content might output hallucinations or
damaging content without review.
But if itâs the authorâs blocklist that is wrong, unverified, and
causing harm to others? Cry about it.
TonyTrapp wrote 1 day ago:
Yuuup. My personal website has been inaccessible to a few friends,
they thought my server was down. It turned out they had some
blocklist (not related to AI) installed on their PiHole, and for
whatever reason my website was on that list. It is, in fact, to this
day, because my request to unblock it went completely unanswered. I
still don't know why the website is on the list.
jorvi wrote 1 day ago:
Go to the Adguard GitHub (or use the extension) and report it. And
get all your friends to switch to Adguard extension and Adguard
Home (Pi Hole alternative) as blockers.
Easylist and its sublist are notorious for being poorly maintained
and ignoring issues opened against it. Adguard is much more active
in maintaining its lists. Especially Adguard its language
blocklists have much, much less breakage and missed ads than
Easylist.
skeeter2020 wrote 1 day ago:
>> And get all your friends to switch to Adguard extension and
Adguard Home (Pi Hole alternative) as blockers.
Nice of you to slip this "easy" step into your advice. Give me a
break!
VladVladikoff wrote 1 day ago:
Perhaps it got hacked and was hosting malware without you being
aware? They are pretty good at hiding it from the site owner
(showing the original website to you, but not to others).
TonyTrapp wrote 1 day ago:
The server is and has been clean the whole time. I don't even run
WordPress or anything similar on that server that would be a
common hacking target. If it was hacked, I'm pretty sure Google
Safe Browsing would be the first to flag the site, not some
random PiHole list.
dimava wrote 1 day ago:
Also check the [1] , AI extension to detect AI replies on twitter
HTML [1]: https://botblock.ai/
driverdan wrote 1 day ago:
A better option is to stop using it entirely.
srid wrote 1 day ago:
Does it even work?
I ask becaue it considers @lilycoy__ (an obvious AI generated
account, as quoted by Robin Hanson < [1] >) to be "100% human"
HTML [1]: https://x.com/robinhanson/status/2025332066552819782
HTML [2]: https://i.imgur.com/NQHVcdM.png
add-sub-mul-div wrote 1 day ago:
That's a curious one, Twitter is worthless anyway. Before AI bots
proliferated, the change to rank paid accounts high in replies turned
it into a de facto entry level $8/month advertising tier.
throwatdem12311 wrote 1 day ago:
Ublock Origin also already has an âAI widgetâ blocklist you can
enable. Literally the only extension that keeps me on Firefox because
of how useless it is on Chromium.
amelius wrote 1 day ago:
At least we're not yet in the phase where we have a whitelist for the
internet.
papichulo2023 wrote 1 day ago:
We were close but the app dominance declined.
metalman wrote 1 day ago:
flip it, and build green(organic) lists
perhaps work towards having sites than dont just, not use AI, but never
talk about it
it's not just AI, search is a scam, no mojo in the world can extract
the contact info for the business next door and the mountains of
porncoin, scamulous garbage and hate news
taking up a full 50% of whats left, does in fact make a determined
effort to greenwall a section of the web something to consider
firebot wrote 1 day ago:
Firefox already feeling more responsive.
Dwedit wrote 1 day ago:
What happens if a legitimate site (forums, wiki, etc) gets mass-spammed
with slop?
Joel_Mckay wrote 1 day ago:
Registration process requiring a trivial task like "introduce
yourself", 24 hour account activation delay, and email a one time
login-code every time.
The bots and SEO spammers already fill sites with garbage =3
harladsinsteden wrote 1 day ago:
I ceases to be legitimate.
afcool83 wrote 2 days ago:
Admirable idea and executionâ¦but it does apply opposing
evolutionary/economic pressure for AI-slop to become less detectable
over time. AI will learn and adapt.
Metaphorically speaking, itâs the Borg weâre dealing with, not the
Klingons. All Janeway did was slow the Borgâs progress.
alansaber wrote 1 day ago:
It's actually rather difficult for SoTA models to shift tone without
losing performance on various datasets, so not such a one-sided arms
race.
mapontosevenths wrote 2 days ago:
Cory Doctorow wrote a story ~20 years ago about how the first
sentient machines would be spam bots because their job is to pass as
human, and anti-spam systems provide competitive evolutionary
pressure.
He may not be too far off.
tetris11 wrote 1 day ago:
This one?
HTML [1]: https://craphound.com/overclocked/Cory_Doctorow_-_Overcloc...
mapontosevenths wrote 1 day ago:
I think that's the one. I was a bit off on the timing, it's not
20 yet. Great read either way.
From the story:
âSpam-filters, actually. Once they became self-modifying,
spam-filters and spam-bots got into a war to see which could act
more human, and since their failures invoked a human judgement
about whether their material were convincingly human, it was like
a trillion Turing-tests from which they could learn. From there
came the first machine-intelligence algorithms, and then my
kind.â
lifthrasiir wrote 2 days ago:
Not necessarily disagreeing the whole principle...
> All I hear is skill issue. Imagine needing an AI to write stuff.
Grammarly users (and underrepresented non-English speakers) would
complain.
dangus wrote 1 day ago:
This specific list from this specific author isnât worth using
since they refuse to remove items from the list if domain ownership
changes.
E.g., bought a domain that previously hosted AI content.
E.g., Whitehouse.com used to be a porn site, now itâs not.
ragall wrote 1 day ago:
> E.g., bought a domain that previously hosted AI content.
Before buying a domain you should check if it's present in
blacklists.
> Whitehouse.com used to be a porn site, now itâs not.
I won't lose sleep over that.
dangus wrote 1 day ago:
Well, I understand you wonât lose any sleep, but this is
conceptually stupid.
That would be like refusing to allow someone to buy a house
because the last owner was a convicted of a crime. Sorry, we
gotta demolish the house now! And nobody can live on the plot.
The owner of this repo is free to do whatever they want but Iâm
free to point out that itâs a dumb practice.
duskdozer wrote 2 days ago:
If you don't know English and you want to write English anyway,
please just use a machine translator.
mrweasel wrote 1 day ago:
From experience: If you don't know Danish, please don't ever use
machine translators to translate from English. Regardless of what
some people may think, they make mistakes, so many mistakes.
I get why it's tempting, good translators are expensive, and few
and far between. A friend of my is a professional translator and
she's not exactly in need of work, but a lot of customers look at
her prices and opt for machine translations instead and the result
not always impressive. Errors range from wrong words, bad sentence
structure to an inability to correctly translate cultural
references.
runarberg wrote 1 day ago:
There are levels to things. In a professional context (including
product design and documentation/instructions) donât use
machine translation[â ].
For your personal hobby site or for general online communication,
you probably shouldnât use machine translation, but it is
probably useful if have B1 language skills and are checking up on
your grammar, vocabulary, etc. As for using LLMs to help you
write, I certainly prefer people use the traditional models over
LLMs, as the traditional models still require you to think and
forces you to actually learn more about the output language.
For reading somebody elseâs content in a language you donât
understand, machine translation is fine up to a point, as long as
you are aware that it may not be accurate.
---
â In fact I personally I think EU should mandate translator
qualification, and probably would have only 20 years ago when
consumer protection was still a thing they pretended to care
about.
embedding-shape wrote 1 day ago:
Right, makes sense for Danes, or other population where English
knowledge is basically ubiquitous. But I'm think it might look
differently in other places, if the choice is between "Badly
translated but I can understand 95% of it" and "In a language I
don't understand at all, maybe 1% I could figure out", then the
choice might be a bit different.
ploum wrote 1 day ago:
nope, let the user does the translation, with his own choice of
tool and being thus perfectly aware of the shortcomings.
I know that some people translate my French posts to read them.
Thatâs really cool. But I would never post something I
didnât write myself (but I use spellcheking tools. I even
sometimes disagree with them)
embedding-shape wrote 1 day ago:
> let the user does the translation
Not everyone can. Try going to rural Spain and handing out
flyers in English and ask them to translate it themselves, 0%
of the people will translate it themselves, it'll go straight
into the trash. If you instead hand them something in a
language they understand, there is a least a chance they'll
read it, even though probably 5% will do so.
It's sometimes useful to understand that the world is much
bigger and varied than what you experience locally, and what
works for you and the people in one country, doesn't always
work the same everywhere.
victorbjorklund wrote 1 day ago:
And the machine translator is using AI to translate the text
UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote 2 days ago:
â¦what? no? why?
GaggiX wrote 2 days ago:
Why? A model correcting your errors is a powerful tool to learn the
language, much better than just writing the phrase in your native
language.
QuadmasterXLII wrote 2 days ago:
Thereâs not a single group whoâs ever been told skill issue that
didnât complain
tclancy wrote 1 day ago:
Sure, but there also plenty of times âget gud!â is used for
gate keeping. Life is on a continuum, man.
jofzar wrote 2 days ago:
I use Grammarly at work (it's mostly to make sure our brand
guidelines are kept) and I don't find that it (defaultly) corrects
too far into the ai slop territory. It's mostly just making sure your
sentence is correct.
Op is going after AI slop bot farms like android authority
rererereferred wrote 2 days ago:
I mean, the reason we use grammarly is because we recognize we have a
skill issue.
rdmuser wrote 2 days ago:
Personally I find that I prefer badly written english or
auto-translated stuff written in languages foreign to me over ai
generated or even just ai polished works I've seen. There is just so
much more character, depth and variance there vs ultra ai generic or
slop text.
That being said this project seems focused on content farms not
people who just need a little help writing so this whole conversation
is a bit of a side tangent.
flkiwi wrote 2 days ago:
One of my coworkers is EXTREMELY capable but functionally almost
illiterate. Heâs recently discovered that he can put an idea in
Copilot and have it generate an email. So now instead of brief,
correct, but difficult to parse emails we receive 20-paragraph,
bulleted, formatted OpenAI slop. Itâs been a very strange thing
to see, like someone getting extraordinarily bad cosmetic surgery.
toofy wrote 1 day ago:
> like someone getting extraordinarily bad cosmetic surgery.
this is such an incredible way to phrase what it all looks like
to the rest of us. and i suspect the people doing it, just like
those with obvious cosmetic surgery, have no idea how weird and
off it looks.
ploum wrote 1 day ago:
"One of my coworkers is EXTREMELY capable but functionally almost
illiterate."
I cannot imagine what it means. To me it reads like "I know
someone who can run very fast but has no legs."
vogu66 wrote 1 day ago:
Capable doesn't mean capable of office work though, I could see
someone with a language disorder doing electronics and have
trouble with words, not numbers. Or someone who has trouble
with written words specifically doing most of their learning
with classes and videos.
flkiwi wrote 1 day ago:
Exactly right. The individual in question produces excellent
deliverables within their space. They, the coworker, are very
good at receiving inputs, but not very good at outputs (other
than their deliverables). In a way, it's like having an
offshore worker who speaks almost none of your language but
can understand it and produce good work.
SpicyLemonZest wrote 1 day ago:
I have a similar coworker, but he's not great at prompting, so
10% of the time the AI version of himself makes confident
assertions that he did not intend and are clearly not true.
Genuinely no idea what I'm supposed to do about it.
flkiwi wrote 1 day ago:
Exactly right. Heâs good at what he does, except
communicating, and people are beginning to associate him with
AI slop they donât have time to read rather than the
excellent work he does for them.
wolvoleo wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah I hate it when people do that and I always call them out on
it.
Unfortunately our company is trying to be "AI First" so they'll
just point to that and continue their bullshit.
Our company literally promotes AI slop over personally made
content even if it's mediocre crap. All they care about is rising
usage numbers of things like copilot in office.
dawnerd wrote 1 day ago:
Sam, and when you ask them a deeper question about it on a call
they usually have no idea. Itâs making people very lazy.
lifthrasiir wrote 2 days ago:
I mean, I know it is probably tongue in cheek but that
never-asked-question was particularly out of place. Massively
generated AI contents are usually not THAT thoughtful anyway.
rdmuser wrote 2 days ago:
A new more grounded list focused on specifically blocking content farms
and similar low quality sites.
A nice alternative to this very broad anti ai list: [1] Edit: Oh I
should mention I found it through reddit and there is some good
discussion there where they describe how they find stuff etc:
HTML [1]: https://github.com/laylavish/uBlockOrigin-HUGE-AI-Blocklist
HTML [2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1r9uo3j/automat...
tkel wrote 1 day ago:
Thanks, I added both lists
smusamashah wrote 1 day ago:
So there is a spreadsheet of websites. That is very interesting.
There was an article here sometime ago about a media group who have
so many super SEOd websites. They all have common footer text. I
searched and added as many as I could find in uBlacklist. I have a
gist listing them and how I searched for them. You might find that
useful.
Edit:
HTML [1]: https://gist.github.com/SMUsamaShah/6573b27441d99a0a0c792431...
Dwedit wrote 2 days ago:
The broad list seems to just be a hater list. It's not trying to
cover cases of deception (passing off AI material as if it's
something else), as it includes sites which are very open about what
kind of content is on there.
lawtalkinghuman wrote 1 day ago:
If my goal is not seeing AI slop, I don't particularly care whether
it is honestly labelled or not.
hogwasher wrote 1 day ago:
The purpose of the broad list is removing AI-generated content from
search results, so that the user doesn't have to wade through (as
much) slop to find the human-created content they're looking for.
While I applaud the honesty of sites that are open about their
content being AI generated, that type of content is never what I'm
looking for when I search, so if they're in my search results it's
just more distraction/clutter drowning out whatever I'm actually
looking for. Blocking them improves my search experience slightly,
even though there is of course still lots of other unwanted results
remaining.
Granted, I definitely count as an AI hater (speaking of LLM's
specifically). But even if I weren't, I don't think I'd be seeking
it out specifically using a search engine; why would I do that when
I could just go straight to chatgpt or whatever myself? Search is
usually where people go to find real human answers (which is why
appending "reddit" to one's searches became so common). So I see
this as a utility thing, more than a "I am blocking all this just
because I hate it" thing. Although it can be both, certainly.
Edit: removed an off-topic tangent
malfist wrote 1 day ago:
Would you say the same about a block list that blocks anything
else? I don't care how obvious an ad is, I don't want to see it.
Same with social widgets or cookie consent banners, or newsletter
sign-ups.
But I wouldn't call the person that maintains the news letter popup
block list as "newsletter hater"
gruez wrote 1 day ago:
>Would you say the same about a block list that blocks anything
else? I don't care how obvious an ad is, I don't want to see it.
Same with social widgets or cookie consent banners, or newsletter
sign-ups.
He's not complaining that widgets for his favorite social network
site is getting blocked, he's complaining that anything vaguely
related to social networks are getting banned. Some of the sites
on that list are stuff like chatgpt.com, which might be AI
related, but clearly doesn't fit the criteria of "AI generated
content, for the purposes of cleaning image search engines".
malfist wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
Its an AI block list. Not an "AI generated content, for the
purposes of cleaning image search engines" block list.
xnx wrote 2 days ago:
Hasn't been updated in 5 months
rdmuser wrote 2 days ago:
Oh good point I also overlooked that with the anti ai list.
The big anti ai list also seems to be focused on hiding links from
ddg/bing/google where this new more focused list just blocks sites.
I tend to like block ones vs hiding because they pop up a nice
warning no matter where I came from and I can still decide to
ignore it if I want so they is more user agency instead of just
quietly hiding a unclear chunk of the net from search engines.
DIR <- back to front page