"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

For almost all purposes and users this is the same as saying "just close your eyes"/"just stay offline".

Why do people make posts like this?

You know that your long-winded and patronizing response in no way is a solution to the problem that you claim it is for the audience you're talking about.

Why do you pawn off an obviously non-solution as a solution? What does this get you?

I use a text-only browser as an offline HTML reader

I make HTTP requests with a TCP client

There are no "false positives"

I only request the resources that I want, e.g., the HTML from the primary domain, JSON from the API domain, etc.

I also use custom filters written in C to extract the information I want from the retreived HTML or JSON and transform it into SQL or "pretty print"

There is nothing to "block" because I'm not using software that automatically tries to request resources I do not want from domains I never indicated I wanted to contact

Using a text-only browser is equivalent to using an ad blocker that has a lot of false positives.

If you’re happy with it, carry on. But you are using the equivalent of an ad blocker.

Original web clients were not designed for (today's) ads. Graphics were optional. There was no Javascript

I even still use the original line mode browser and other utilties in the 1995 w3c-libwww from time to time

The "modern" protocols are handled by the local forward proxy not the client

TLS1.3, HTTP/2, QUIC, etc.

In terms of majorities and minorities, HN commenters do not represent "almost all users"

There are some web users who are online 24/7

There are others who may prefer to stay offline

A wide variety of people use the web for a wide variety of purposes

HN commenters are a tiny sliver of "all users" and "all purposes"

As such, HN commenters are not qualified to opine on behalf of "almost all users" as almost all users do not comment on HN or elsewhere on the web. Almost all users prefer to express their opinions about the web, if any, offline

"When I use a text-only browser then no "adblock" is necessary"

So you browser as if it were 1999? Yup, no ads back then.