Live data from Hacker News

Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

theawl.com

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#31
The author gets one thing massively wrong. So do the reddit commentors they quote.

The quote:

"Ad blockers could end up saving the ad industry from its worst excesses. If blocking becomes widespread, the ad industry will be pushed to produce ads that are simpler, less invasive and far more transparent about the way they’re handling our data"

Oh? And how are you so sure they won't go the other direction? Because that's where I'd place my money in a heart beat.

Adblockers rely on blocking requests to known ad networks and affiliates. If the ads are instead served up locally, from the site the person is visiting itself, it can't block the ads. Ad blockers are 100% ineffective in those instances. A company like google or any other major ad network just needs to create some sort of back-end, plugin or server side program that serves up ads from the domain you're visiting. The ad blocker wouldn't know if it's a picture of a cat or an ad for Netflix since it's all coming from randomsite.com

Several smaller companies have already started doing this and it could very well signal the end of ad blockers if it becomes widespread and adopted by the big players (specifically adsense).

The one thing I don't see is ad companies becoming more transparent & open. That's silly to even think about since it's less profitable alternative. The companies that don't do this will cannibalize the ones that do since they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. No, I see ad companies becoming more clever.

As far as content creators go, I don't even know how this is a debate. Just how entitled are people nowadays? Is this why they call millennials the entitled generation? If someone creates content, and wants people to see an ad for Pepsi before you can consume that content, that is the creators prerogative, not yours. End of story. There's no further argument here. I don't know why people think everything should be free. Nothing is free, everything is subsidized by something.

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#32

The author gets one thing massively wrong. So do the reddit commentors they quote. The quote: " Ad blockers could end up saving the ad industry from its worst excesses. If blocking becomes widespread, the ad industry will be pushed to produce ads that are simpler, less invasive and far more transparent about the way they’re handling our data " Oh? And how are you so sure they won't go the other direction? Because tha…

    If the ads are instead served up locally,
    from the site the person is visiting itself,
    it can't block the ads.
Why not? I don't see why an ad blocker couldn't identify and block certain URL schemes/patterns, common scripts, or element structures.

Also -- doesn't cross-site tracking rely on third-party cookies from a shared (separate) domain?

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#33
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we slide into closed and centralized places ... that is scary.

Every business will still have a web site for their own products and services. Amazon won't have a problem. Wikipedia will go on. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Economist are already pay sites, and they're almost the only news sites with actual reporters. Pay TV will continue to fund news networks, which will have sites with additional content to get people to watch their TV. All we'll lose are the…

As the article mentions, 40% of NY Times' revenue is still provided by advertising.

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#34

The author gets one thing massively wrong. So do the reddit commentors they quote. The quote: " Ad blockers could end up saving the ad industry from its worst excesses. If blocking becomes widespread, the ad industry will be pushed to produce ads that are simpler, less invasive and far more transparent about the way they’re handling our data " Oh? And how are you so sure they won't go the other direction? Because tha…

Ad blockers already have element rules so yes, you can block ads served from the same site. As long as it's possible for an intelligence to distinguish ads from content, it'll be possible to remove ads. It might get more difficult, but you're simply wrong to say it's the end of ad blockers.

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#35
post #17
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of a system that pays people less than a cent?

Right, that part needs some improvements. I'm thinking, advertisers might compete for viewers by paying more for a given keyword, i.e. the prices are not fixed and the highest bidder wins the viewer. Another question is whether these ads are skippable or not. Can I skip the ad, go straight to the article and not be paid? Maybe content providers could decide.

> Can I skip the ad, go straight to the article and not be paid? Maybe content providers could decide.

I think the content providers would argue that you getting the content is your form of 'payment' for seeing the ad. So if you skip it, why should they give you the content anyway?

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#36
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad blockers could become smarter in return.

I see, so as long as the code can be looked at, it can be circumvented?

No. So long the code is executing on an uncontrolled device, then you cannot guarantee it'll execute how you intended. So if you make a device, like an iPad, seal it to prevent hardware tampering, and ensure no user-triggerable bugs exist, you're all set. There's also remote attestation, like Intel SGX might start to bring.

But on existing general-compute devices like PCs, it's a hopeless battle.

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#37
I love the mantra of "the web is supported by advertising" that every one of these sorts of articles at least quotes. It's not. Shitty business models are supported by advertising. There are plenty of us who provide non-advertising driven services that are profitable and can afford transit costs.

As for blocking, the technology allows it so I will use it. If it doesn't allow it, I have no ethical qualms about breaking it until it does. If I'm paying for the portal device be it tablet, desktop, smartphone, TV, I will be in control of it. If it's subsidy-driven, their funeral.

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#38
This is why I encourage all the people I know, who aren't great with computers, to use adblockers:

http://i.imgur.com/dzwaKhI.png

Saw that ad for what is borderline malware on a fresh install of windows 10 while trying out Microsoft Edge to see what it's worth as a browser. It's a google ad (you can always spot them through the X button), on a popular website.

As long as google doesn't do any real policing on what is permissible in their adnetworks, it will always be a user's right to protect himself. Television and newspapers have higher standards for ads, at least in my country.

This was also a reminder that Edge will not be a real browser until Microsoft adds the possibility of using an adblocker. No extensions, no deal.

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#39

The author gets one thing massively wrong. So do the reddit commentors they quote. The quote: " Ad blockers could end up saving the ad industry from its worst excesses. If blocking becomes widespread, the ad industry will be pushed to produce ads that are simpler, less invasive and far more transparent about the way they’re handling our data " Oh? And how are you so sure they won't go the other direction? Because tha…

If the ads are instead served up locally, from the site the person is visiting itself, it can't block the ads. Why not? I don't see why an ad blocker couldn't identify and block certain URL schemes/patterns, common scripts, or element structures. Also -- doesn't cross-site tracking rely on third-party cookies from a shared (separate) domain?

Yep. That is exactly how modern ad blockers work. :)

Re: Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking

#40
Content providers (from ad networks to movie studios) need to realise that you can only go so far. Ads have become more than ads. They track you wherever you go, not just online but offline too and people are starting to realise how intrusive this is. Most people are reasonable. A lot of articles have been publish about how terrible ads are but if you show them in a tasteful and a non-intrusive way (meaning that they don't track the user), they can be very successful.

Podcasts have been getting more and more popular everyday and I listen to a lot of them. I almost never skip any podcast ads even though I've heard most of them before because they feel more authentic (mostly because it's read by someone whose opinion I trust) and they're not intrusive at all. It seems like a good trade of to listen to them while getting great entertaining/informative content for free and I might get a good deal on something I might be interested in (since they mostly offer promo codes). If I'm listening to a podcast on technology, I get to hear Hover's ad spot, for example. That's interesting to me because as someone who's interested in listening to a podcast about technology, it's possible that I already manage a couple of domains and I might not be happy with my registrar (then again, who is). They're generically targeted ads. While on the websites, cookies follow me wherever I go, sometimes even when I delete them and my information is sold by companies I trust as a user because they're greedy and some other party want my information just so they can put ads in front of my face. When I try to block these, I'm called unethical because I'm taking food off the table of the writers.

There's a middle way here but I don't think ad networks ever going to realise this the same way movie studios haven't realised you can't solve piracy problem by adding more and more DRM. Don't be intrusive. Don't fuck up the UX. Don't bother me. I don't mind removing my ad blocker and see ads if that means I'll support the websites I visit. But ad networks are greedy and I fear this is only going to make them become more intrusive because of how easy (and now probably widely reached) ad blockers are going to become. And even if they do realise their mistake and make ads less intrusive both for privacy and UX reasons, no one will be there to realise that because everybody will be using ad blockers.

Post reply on HN