"Sort of". I use Ghostery (http://www.ghostery.com/), but mainly use it to block 'like' buttons and various analytics/tracking services. I also block a few ad networks that are either consistently obnoxious or really slow-loading, but I don't use it mainly as an ad blocker.
I block things like third party cookies but don't block adds on sites that I frequent. However if I go to a new site the adds are blocked by default; if I find myself going back to the site I unblock it.
I use AdBlock and Ghostery. Ghostery is super useful. It throws out so much crap that I am not interested in. On sites like techcrunch, engadget or thenextweb it usually cuts the number of requests in half.
Rant:
It is sure getting out of hand in a big way: it is not uncommon for tech news sites to send you 1.5 MB of crap surrounding a simple 200 word story.
I am getting so tired of that. Specially on mobile. My iPad has a 250 MB data limit, so with 10 pages like that I am already on 50% of my cap. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe it is time for some serious server-side proxy filtering. Like moving things like AdBlock and Ghostery to the server side?
Here is the shocker: ACTUAL ARTICLE SIZE: 163 words, 971 bytes. That is a 0.034% of what was actually downloaded.
I know that browsers cache stuff. But a lot of these are dynamic resources that get loaded anyway. There is also the fact that caching on both the iPad and Android is horrible. So this really adds up on a mobile device.
Hey thanks for mentioning Ghostery -- I never heard of it before, and it looks neat. I'm using ABP, NoScript and FlashBlock myself, and I think Ghostery will make a nice addition to my line of defense.
(minor nitpick: it would take roughly 83 pages, not 10, to reach 50% of your 250MB limit)
Their parent company - Evidon - is suspicious. The FAQ on the site is choke-full of weasel words and wishy-washy statements on how they are not an "ad company" but rather an "ad assurance company". Skimpy on actual details too. They have changed their About summary now, but not long ago it basically said that they are in business of delivering better advertisement experience to the advertisers. Just ask yourself if instead of being tracked by multiple entities, you are OK with being tracked by one that gets your data resold to others. They are not a non-profit, so - as cliche as it sounds - you are their product.
Ghostery has a secondary purpose. It's also "the eyes in the sky" that the ad industry will use to monitor and enforce self-regulation. In other words, it will collect data to ensure that ad companies are complying and affixing proper opt-out mechanisms to behaviorally-targeted ads.
First:Thanks very much to everyone that uses Ghostery here! This thread has been a great read for us.
Aaron is correct.. Ghostery works in the same way NPR works, only with data. Users can opt into data collection in Ghostery's options. Also, even if they do, we go to great lengths to make sure that all of the data are anonymous and only used in aggregate.
The extension will never collect anything if you don't volunteer it. The data are used in all sorts of ways to make the internet a better place, and to help us make money. For instance, website owners can use the data to see what 3rd party scripts are running on their sites and eliminate them. This saves load time, prevents data leakage to leeches, and - most importantly - allows them to provide a layer of privacy for their users.
The BBB also uses aggregated Ghostery data to monitor self-regulatory efforts - thanks to our awesome panel volunteers we can literally "track the trackers."
Hi, I am a developer of Ghostery. Ghostery does not track its users; Ghostery tracks third-party page elements. The GhostRank panel is strictly opt-in.
I know some of the people at Evidon rather well. They provide a mechanism that allows individuals to opt-out of behaviorally-targeted advertising via an icon in the advertisement. In other words, the company makes it easier for individuals not to be tracked.
You might not be paying Evidon directly - the ad networks that use their tools do that - but that doesn't mean you're the product. 'Keeping the FTC off your ass' is the product. Since the FTC is a pain, that product's worth a fair amount of money.
As far as I know, all Ghostery collects (if you opt-in) is which trackers appear on which page. It's a simple way for large organizations too screwed up to know which tags are on which pages (in other words, most large organizations) figure out if they're complying with the FTC regulations.
Privoxy is pretty good. I run it (usually a single centralised instance) on any LAN I am allowed to. Any network installs for people (e.g. family/friends) I set up a Linux server and Privoxy is in there (with judicious bypassing because it IS too aggressive for some sites out of the box).
See, this is what happens when your ads are just that wrong side of obnoxious and you piss off the 1% - they might just have the power to make sure ANOTHER 10% don't see your crappy ad, either. And that 10% thank me for it. Every so often they get to see what a festering cesspool the internet is without a filtering proxy between them and it, and by God they thank me.
AdBlock + NoScript. The web has been much more tolerable for a long time, thanks to these, and it is always amazing how much noise is on the page when I navigate with an alternate browser.
I use AdBlock, but I stopped using NoScript. NoScript essentially makes the modern web unusable. For 99% of the sites I visit I want them to be able to make my user experience more pleasurable through these technologies.
It would be interesting to know how many devs consider NoScript users when designing websites. (I personally think it's too much effort).
I agree. And so when I go to a website that I trust, I enable its JavaScript. NoScript makes it easy to enable JavaScript from specific places and permanently ban scripts from other places. I prefer having the whitelist approach so that I can avoid accidents, such as clicking the wrong result from a search. I do have to occasionally play guessing games when I am on certain sites and want to enable media served by multiple other places.
With this policy, I have an awesome track record on my systems with regards to the number of "problems" that have installed themselves on my computer (number = zero, and I do not have AV installed, though I like to temporarily install several AVs and sanity check once every couple years or so; their overhead, constant updates, etc, just are not worth my time).
In windows I use Microsoft Security Essentials, otherwise, nothing else.
I don't use NoScript, and have never had anything install itself on any of my machines (to my knowledge at least - and as a dev I actively monitor CPU/Memory so hopefully would notice).
No, because these days I do 99% of my web browsing on a tablet (iPad and altered NookColor) or mobile device (iPhone). While I could block some ads at my router at home, but the risk of false positives doesn't outweigh the benefits. And that wouldn't help when I'm not at home.
I also use dnsmasq as a DNS aggregator and filter. I also have a number of domains (doubleclick, tynt, adbrite, tribalfusion and some others) set to have an IP address of 127.0.0.1.
May I ask why you use both FlashBlock and NoScript? I haven't looked too much into the former but it looks to me to just have a subset of the functionality of NoScript (which I do use).
On a few sites NoScript causes the whole web Page to go nuts. So rather than dig into what element is causing this I disable NS and fall back to the protection of FlashBlock (Which is doing something simpler).
I am relating patio11's expertise in web advertising to ad blocking browsers. As in, would he be interested in how the web looks to someone using ad blocking.
I am totally mystified as to how that workflow would improve my life. It sounds like a lot of work for no gain. Can you explain to me what you find attractive about it or think I would find attractive about it?
But seriously, does this mean there isn't even any point in trying to find a way to give people who use ad blocking something which would almost never be blocked, and yet could still be considered advertising if not blatantly so?
Are users of ad blocking just a complete and total void from an advertising perspective?
For example I know reddit sometimes has games in their ad banner, that's a way to encourage people to turn off add blocking.
And some TV advertisers are designing adds which still look good at Tivo fast forward speed.
I hate ads with a passion. If I had the power, I'd make unsolicited advertising illegal. If I hear or see an ad, I often make a mental note not to buy that product.
While maybe unsolicited advertising is annoying, good luck with your mental notes though. I assume you are writing your posts on a computer? Sure hope Intel or AMD never ran a commercial...
At best, it's a stretch to go from in-your-face, unsolicited advertisements to "promotional vehicle" which we all use willingly. In addition, there is a value associated with this website that you just don't get from ads.
The ads usually intend to add value. They just often aren't very good.
I don't think advertising is inherently evil (though I respect that some may disagree), I think the problem is that we're still in the early days of Internet advertising. The technique isn't quite there yet.
We could categorize ads into value-added, passive ads versus brute-force, active ads. Passive ads don't only push a product, but provide some useful content for the user, be it music discovery or news aggregation (I guess calling it intellectual stimulation would be reaching, though). The purpose of active ads is to simply push a product and entice the user to buy now. As such, they vie for attention and usually interrupt the user's workflow.
Examples of passive ads: music discovery [pandora], news aggregation [HN], etc versus active ads: traditional ads (TV/radio/internet/magazine) and active product-pushing.
As an aside, I am aware that Pandora has ads which is kind of mind boggling - they are actually providing free advertising to the music companies by letting me discover new music, yet they still have to pay royalties, so they are forced to use ads.
Maybe in the advertiers' and their bosses' deluded minds.
I'd estimate that 90% of ads I saw were lying either directly or by omission. They don't add value, they try to trick you in to buying crap you don't need, that's often no better (or even worse) than the competition, products that can even be harmful (like various prescription drugs that you'd often be better off not taking in the first place).
The people that peddle this crap are slime. But I'm not at all surprised that a large contingent of HN members would defend them and try to justify their miserable, lying, parasitic existence. After all, many of them own companies which depend on advertising. So they try to apply some moral balm and pretend that they're "adding value".
What is actually more offensive to me is the tracking. Ads, I can choose to ignore them. But I don't like the idea of being tracked, and having my every move online watched under a microscope in the name of selling me a targeted product. That's why I make every effort to block ads and scripts.
However, I don't think it's fair to say that "HN members defend them" since (as of this comment), there is a 2:1 ratio of blockers vs. non-blockers. OTOH, this survey doesn't distinguish users who block ads AND use them on their own sites.
I hope you also enjoy paying a fee for every single website you enjoy, because without ads, this would be the only way anyone would be able to keep the lights on.
I offered to pay a higher monthly fee in order to watch content on Hulu commercial free. There's no commercial free option, so I cancelled. Bottom line is I hate being exposed to commercials and am happy to pay for content.
I prefer having ads during a film, so that I can get a break and go make tea or whatever. Watching films on the BBC, which has no ads, used to irritate me a bit, as there are no breaks. But I guess you can hit pause on Hulu, unlike on regular television.
Would you prefer to pay for your online content? Without ads, that's the only sustainable business model I can see for things ranging from the NY Times to Penny Arcade.
There's no shortage of free, non ad-supported content out there. I would gladly ditch whatever ad-supported content there is, if that's what it took to get rid of ads.
There are only a handful of industries (like movies and tv shows) which take a fair bit of money to create high quality content (though overwhelming majority of the time the money's wasted on utter garbage). Books, stories, news, and music can be created and distributed on a shoestring budget. They don't need the ad-supported creation or distribution model to thrive. The days of content shortages are practically over.
From what I can see, there is a shortage of free, non ad-supported news of the level of the NY Times. The only two venues I can think of that qualify are the BBC and NPR - both take government subsidy, and one does do infrequent pleas for money.
Then there are some of the webcomics I like, which has no alternative. If I want to read Penny Arcade, substituting another comic won't help.
So do you not read the NY Times, Washington Post, or any online newspaper that has ads? Do you not read print newspapers because they have ads?
There's definitely some good content in the mainstream media, like the NY Times, Washington Post, Independent, Guardian, Spiegel, Japan Times, etc. But there's also a lot of propaganda and slanted journalism (witness all the disgusting cheerleading for the pro-war side during the lead up to the Iraq war).
Advertisers, corporations, and the government have a corrupting influence on the media. I'd much rather the media be 100% listener-supported, like Pacifica Radio is. Then there'll be a lot less conflict of interest.
I think that's tenable - I actually have an NY Times subscription for this reason. I think it's important to pay for good journalism, and I'm putting my money where my mouth is. But I ask because it's possible there are people who don't want to pay for content, yet want it to be free. I want to understand their thinking. (Assuming, of course, they exist.)
I don't use adblock either. If I find a site that is so eggregiously ad-heavy that it hampers my browsing experience I'll generally just not go there. For the most part such sites don't have much to offer anyway so it's not a big loss.
Ghostery, Disconnect, FlashBlock, AdBlock, and in some browser profile: NoScript & RequestPolicy. I whitelist trusted sites.
The online ad ecosystem is out of control with surveillance: data collection, tracking, device fingerprinting, aggregation, de-anonymization, etc. (and data volumes).
To prevent those annoying widget buttons, use NoScript or Ghostery. Of course NoScript's white list method is more secure but I like Ghostery's blacklist approach more. It's tiresome to have to constantly click on NoScript to allow Javascript running
You don't need Disconnect if you're using Ghostery. I too was using Disconnect first, but Ghostery (at least the most recent version) does its job and then some.
Problem for me is not seeing ads, it's that they take too long to load and block the rest of the page. Perhaps strictly a browser problem, but until a better solution I just use
vi /etc/hosts
> It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads.
So you do block ads, only with your brain ;) Fair enough, but can I ask why this is more courteous than blocking them in the browser? Are ad loads generally causing money to flow? I was under the impression that click-throughs cause revenue, rather than ad loads?
That's what lots of advertisers are pushing for. It makes in some cases, but in others it's a bit disingenuous. Lexus doesn't really care how many people click through to its landing page; they want to get their logo in front of your eyes as often as possible so that when it's time to buy a car, their brand is fresh in your mind.
Some online ads are just general brand awareness ads, in the way that the big Pepsi sign at a baseball stadium isn't talking about a new product or trying to get you to buy a Pepsi right now.
Part of it is competitive intelligence. I want to know who's doing big ad buys on Huffpo and FoxNews and the NYT.
Agencies have gotten very clever at measuring the indirect effect of ads; most of them don't get a direct click, of course, but you can still look at things like how likely someone was to search for your company's brand name the week after they saw the ad.
I block flash and popups which prevents a lot of advertising. IMO, professional courtesy only goes so far, and the fact I clicked on a link does not mean you can do whatever you want.
A compromise position for those who don't mind ads is "Fanboy's Annoyance Block List" (for Adblock Plus). It blocks annoying social media buttons without blocking ads.
My thought is: If you can't afford me blocking ads then do one of two things:
1) No flashing ads. No flash ads (cpu time is mine!) No ads that blur content with ads. And I will turn off ad blocking on your site. If ads have sound and I can't block it I will never visit the site. This is why arstechnica has ads turned off for me, autoplaying video and sound.
BTW I will not turn off blocking of the +1 button or Like or whatever. I just don't wanna be tracked.
2) Don't give free content. Make me pay for it. If I like it I would.
1) The industry is finally realizing that a massive amount of people got pissed by flashing display ads. Up to 14% of the online population uses an ad blocker (much more on HN :).
Last month, the IAB published their new guidelines, including max CPU usage for Flash banners: http://www.iab.net/iab_products_and_industry_services/508676...
I'm working on a product that helps publishers verify that CPU usage from ads served on their site does not exceed their specs, http://www.clarityad.com
Adobe is also investing in this, with their project Adthenticate http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/adthenticate/
"Up to 14% of the online population uses an ad blocker"
I would bet you anything that far more of the general population would use ad blockers if they knew ad blockers existed, and if installation and use of an ad blocker could be made very simple and understandable to them.
My suspicion as well. I was talking to my boss yesterday about the results of this poll, and he had no idea there were addons for blocking advertising.
And, being the contrarian he is, he didn't install one after I told him how to find them on the intertubes. Go figure. :-)
If the logic follows, you should use the software you make and not watch porn out of professional courtesy. After all, that is what is paying your salary.
I wonder if people who use adblocker are more likely to answer this poll than those who do not use adblocker. I guess we can't control for that, but I feel like it might have some bearing.
It has occurred to me before that those of us who use adblockers might prefer that they remain unpopular, because it's not clear who would win if the adblocker arms race really heated up. Might be that some of the "no" answerers are actually just concealing their true nature as adblocking zealots.
I used to. I'm not bothered by ads much anymore and I don't frequent sites with a lot of annoying ones. I guess I appreciate advertising more than I used to considering I use it personally, and I like to support the sites I love that rely on it.
Yep, but without a subscription to a blacklist. I only block things if they turn out to be too annoying. As it turns out, most of the things I've block aren't ads but are annoying images, javascript, and UI clutter.
217 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 271 ms ] threadRant:
It is sure getting out of hand in a big way: it is not uncommon for tech news sites to send you 1.5 MB of crap surrounding a simple 200 word story.
I am getting so tired of that. Specially on mobile. My iPad has a 250 MB data limit, so with 10 pages like that I am already on 50% of my cap. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe it is time for some serious server-side proxy filtering. Like moving things like AdBlock and Ghostery to the server side?
Roughly how large is a TechCrunch page with Ghostery?
Example:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/03/siri-experiencing-its-first...
Without: 275 requests, 2.85 MB transferred
With: 76 requests, 1.72 MB transferred
Here is the shocker: ACTUAL ARTICLE SIZE: 163 words, 971 bytes. That is a 0.034% of what was actually downloaded.
I know that browsers cache stuff. But a lot of these are dynamic resources that get loaded anyway. There is also the fact that caching on both the iPad and Android is horrible. So this really adds up on a mobile device.
Most sites are pretty good with providing iPhone compatible content, which is magnitudes smaller than the desktop version.
For example the techrunch page from my previous comment comes in at 33 requests and 122 KB when I set Safari to "Mobile Safari iOS 4.3.3 iPhone".
If only Safari on the iPad supported extensions :-/
(minor nitpick: it would take roughly 83 pages, not 10, to reach 50% of your 250MB limit)
[edit on my own math. heh]
Their parent company - Evidon - is suspicious. The FAQ on the site is choke-full of weasel words and wishy-washy statements on how they are not an "ad company" but rather an "ad assurance company". Skimpy on actual details too. They have changed their About summary now, but not long ago it basically said that they are in business of delivering better advertisement experience to the advertisers. Just ask yourself if instead of being tracked by multiple entities, you are OK with being tracked by one that gets your data resold to others. They are not a non-profit, so - as cliche as it sounds - you are their product.
First:Thanks very much to everyone that uses Ghostery here! This thread has been a great read for us.
Aaron is correct.. Ghostery works in the same way NPR works, only with data. Users can opt into data collection in Ghostery's options. Also, even if they do, we go to great lengths to make sure that all of the data are anonymous and only used in aggregate.
The extension will never collect anything if you don't volunteer it. The data are used in all sorts of ways to make the internet a better place, and to help us make money. For instance, website owners can use the data to see what 3rd party scripts are running on their sites and eliminate them. This saves load time, prevents data leakage to leeches, and - most importantly - allows them to provide a layer of privacy for their users.
The BBB also uses aggregated Ghostery data to monitor self-regulatory efforts - thanks to our awesome panel volunteers we can literally "track the trackers."
More info: http://mygho.st/D
My contact if you have any questions: adam _ at ghostery _dotcom
For an example of what GhostRank makes possible, see http://www.knowyourelements.com/
For more information on Ghostery, Evidon and GhostRank, see http://www.ghostery.com/faq
I've used it for some time, quite happy to have it block the numerous tracker things that otherwise spy on me and/or add bulk to my downloads.
I've never noticed anything in their privacy policies that gave me concern, and I'm normally quite picky about such things.
I know some of the people at Evidon rather well. They provide a mechanism that allows individuals to opt-out of behaviorally-targeted advertising via an icon in the advertisement. In other words, the company makes it easier for individuals not to be tracked.
You might not be paying Evidon directly - the ad networks that use their tools do that - but that doesn't mean you're the product. 'Keeping the FTC off your ass' is the product. Since the FTC is a pain, that product's worth a fair amount of money.
As far as I know, all Ghostery collects (if you opt-in) is which trackers appear on which page. It's a simple way for large organizations too screwed up to know which tags are on which pages (in other words, most large organizations) figure out if they're complying with the FTC regulations.
See, this is what happens when your ads are just that wrong side of obnoxious and you piss off the 1% - they might just have the power to make sure ANOTHER 10% don't see your crappy ad, either. And that 10% thank me for it. Every so often they get to see what a festering cesspool the internet is without a filtering proxy between them and it, and by God they thank me.
It would be interesting to know how many devs consider NoScript users when designing websites. (I personally think it's too much effort).
With this policy, I have an awesome track record on my systems with regards to the number of "problems" that have installed themselves on my computer (number = zero, and I do not have AV installed, though I like to temporarily install several AVs and sanity check once every couple years or so; their overhead, constant updates, etc, just are not worth my time).
I don't use NoScript, and have never had anything install itself on any of my machines (to my knowledge at least - and as a dev I actively monitor CPU/Memory so hopefully would notice).
http://xkcd.com/552/
Browsing for anything other than a few minutes without these is impossible for me anymore.
I would have imagined you visiting every website with at least two browser at the same time, at least one of them blocking all ads and then some.
But seriously, does this mean there isn't even any point in trying to find a way to give people who use ad blocking something which would almost never be blocked, and yet could still be considered advertising if not blatantly so?
Are users of ad blocking just a complete and total void from an advertising perspective?
For example I know reddit sometimes has games in their ad banner, that's a way to encourage people to turn off add blocking.
And some TV advertisers are designing adds which still look good at Tivo fast forward speed.
I don't think advertising is inherently evil (though I respect that some may disagree), I think the problem is that we're still in the early days of Internet advertising. The technique isn't quite there yet.
Examples of passive ads: music discovery [pandora], news aggregation [HN], etc versus active ads: traditional ads (TV/radio/internet/magazine) and active product-pushing.
As an aside, I am aware that Pandora has ads which is kind of mind boggling - they are actually providing free advertising to the music companies by letting me discover new music, yet they still have to pay royalties, so they are forced to use ads.
Ads generate $billions online. They work.
1% of the online population block ads. It's not really a problem outside places like HN where the majority detest ads.
Maybe in the advertiers' and their bosses' deluded minds.
I'd estimate that 90% of ads I saw were lying either directly or by omission. They don't add value, they try to trick you in to buying crap you don't need, that's often no better (or even worse) than the competition, products that can even be harmful (like various prescription drugs that you'd often be better off not taking in the first place).
The people that peddle this crap are slime. But I'm not at all surprised that a large contingent of HN members would defend them and try to justify their miserable, lying, parasitic existence. After all, many of them own companies which depend on advertising. So they try to apply some moral balm and pretend that they're "adding value".
However, I don't think it's fair to say that "HN members defend them" since (as of this comment), there is a 2:1 ratio of blockers vs. non-blockers. OTOH, this survey doesn't distinguish users who block ads AND use them on their own sites.
That would be solicited.
There are only a handful of industries (like movies and tv shows) which take a fair bit of money to create high quality content (though overwhelming majority of the time the money's wasted on utter garbage). Books, stories, news, and music can be created and distributed on a shoestring budget. They don't need the ad-supported creation or distribution model to thrive. The days of content shortages are practically over.
Then there are some of the webcomics I like, which has no alternative. If I want to read Penny Arcade, substituting another comic won't help.
So do you not read the NY Times, Washington Post, or any online newspaper that has ads? Do you not read print newspapers because they have ads?
Advertisers, corporations, and the government have a corrupting influence on the media. I'd much rather the media be 100% listener-supported, like Pacifica Radio is. Then there'll be a lot less conflict of interest.
Yes. A thousand times, yes.
As it turns out, we're already inefficiently paying for our online content. Where do you think the dollars for ad budgets come from?
I like to think of it as the country's largest privatized hidden tax system, funding socialized content.
The online ad ecosystem is out of control with surveillance: data collection, tracking, device fingerprinting, aggregation, de-anonymization, etc. (and data volumes).
HTTP_DNT=1
Can I have a peek at your /etc/hosts
I have flashblock, adblock with the antisocial filter. Still I see the damn twitter buttons. Is there a way to remove them and g+?
How do I prevent google from tracking me?
To prevent those annoying widget buttons, use NoScript or Ghostery. Of course NoScript's white list method is more secure but I like Ghostery's blacklist approach more. It's tiresome to have to constantly click on NoScript to allow Javascript running
It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads. Plus, if I see something egregious on my employer's site, I can let them know.
I use Ghostery to see who's buying data from whom.
So you do block ads, only with your brain ;) Fair enough, but can I ask why this is more courteous than blocking them in the browser? Are ad loads generally causing money to flow? I was under the impression that click-throughs cause revenue, rather than ad loads?
Agencies have gotten very clever at measuring the indirect effect of ads; most of them don't get a direct click, of course, but you can still look at things like how likely someone was to search for your company's brand name the week after they saw the ad.
1) No flashing ads. No flash ads (cpu time is mine!) No ads that blur content with ads. And I will turn off ad blocking on your site. If ads have sound and I can't block it I will never visit the site. This is why arstechnica has ads turned off for me, autoplaying video and sound.
BTW I will not turn off blocking of the +1 button or Like or whatever. I just don't wanna be tracked.
2) Don't give free content. Make me pay for it. If I like it I would.
Nice in theory, but there are many markets where only 1 company will win, and it WILL be the ad-supported model. That's just how the math works.
3) I've been using the internet since 1990 and how many items have I purchased from an ad? 0.
You might. 99% of the population would not.
I would bet you anything that far more of the general population would use ad blockers if they knew ad blockers existed, and if installation and use of an ad blocker could be made very simple and understandable to them.
And, being the contrarian he is, he didn't install one after I told him how to find them on the intertubes. Go figure. :-)
Do you mind if I ask which companies are your favorite?
I did start using Facebook Disconnect though.