Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

guru3d.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 334 posts

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#321

Post by RUG3Y »

mozumder wrote: post #301
M2Ys4U wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The burden is on you to justify your right to privacy. Privacy is a human right. I am the only one who gets to decide what information I divulge about myself, except in the very small set of circumstances where my right to privacy has to be balanced against the human rights of others. Nobody should ever have to justify one's right to privacy.

> Nobody should ever have to justify one's right to privacy. You always need to justify you rights, since you should never assume those with power over you - the ones that grant you your rights - are willing to do that. There is no such thing as natural rights.

Wrong.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#322

Post by RUG3Y »

hcon wrote: post #38
seanwilson wrote: post #21

Is there a reason more sites don't do self hosted ads? Is there a general way these can be blocked as well? If the ad is coming from their own server and displayed with their own custom HTML/CSS, I can't see an obvious way these could be detected and blocked in general.

> Is there a reason more sites don't do self hosted ads? Google Adsense (for example) is a live auction clearing house where you paste a snippet of code into your site that resolves into the highest bidder for the keywords on each page. You're done. Meanwhile, hosting your own ads entails finding advertisers, wooing them, developing a relationship with them, maintaining that relationship, negotiating a contract, sett…

In other words, lazy content providers are complaining because user's are unwilling to conform to the model that they want us to.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#323

Post by cpeterso »

BogusIKnow wrote: post #299
cpeterso wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an illusion. Do not some ad networks pay content providers for "impressions", regardless of whether the ads are clicked? In that case, loading the ads without reading them is not the same as not loading them.

My prediction for the future: Ad blockers will load ads but not display them as more and more websites will block visitors who block them.

Loading the ads without displaying them doesn't help with page load time.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#324

Post by beagle3 »

mozumder wrote: post #300
beagle3 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For once, they would not (easily) be correlating my data with other sites. Also, they would have more liability for choosing their ads so they do not include malware (a liability that Yahoo and friends have somehow been able to avoid, but shouldn't have)

They could correlate with other sites with a back-end system that shares cookie data.

That's exactly the thing, they can't. If you block 3rd party requests as intrasight (and I) do, there's no way for a back-end system to know that users of one website are users of another, short of using things like panopticlick or font-signature correlation (which are much less reliable than a cookie -- and personally I take action to make them useless).

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#325

Post by jhall1468 »

RUG3Y wrote: post #311
jhall1468 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's fine. If paywalls is the business model that works (I don't think it is for most content (it's really just not worth anything even ad eyeball time)) then that is how it will be. This argument is already so tired. When you limit all options to one, that option has to be taken whether or not it is a good option. If everyone blocked every advertisement indiscriminately there would be no other option available b…

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean it's "tired." It's absolutely true. I block every ad, I will continue to do so, and should content go behind a paywall, I will simply not view it. If there are enough people like me, content providers will be forced to adapt their strategies. That's the way it is.

> If there are enough people like me, content providers will be forced to adapt their strategies.

For the most part the large companies will remain so because there will likely always be "enough" money in advertising to keep Google and Facebook going.

But you aren't something anyone in any industry is concerned about. You are a leech and no strategy is going to change the fact that you are a leech. You feel that all your content should come without cost and any means to monetize content you will either outright block or ignore the content entirely.

That's the way it is.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#326

Post by tehmaco »

cm2187 wrote: post #314
tehmaco wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a thought - if the ad network uses js code (hosted on abc.com and xyz.com servers), which loads images from the same domain (but it loaded in on a server-to-server link, and cached and served from the the domain you're visiting). Can they not just set a tracking cookie for that domain that they control with a unique ID, tied to browser fingerprinting, which is transmitted to the ad network? So you visit abc.com…

Do you mean: I visit abc.com, abc.com serves me an abc cookie, then I visit xyz.com, and xyz.com makes a call to abc from my browser, so that they can use the abc cookie to track me? Well, that is effectively using abc as a tracking server, and abc.com would quickly be added to the adblockers lists. Effectively this is the current model. The other thing is that I may visit abc.com and xyz.com but this particular comb…

That's not quite what I meant - the ad network provides abc.com with a js file, hosted on the abc.com servers. That js file creates an ID from browser fingerprinting, which is saved in a separate cookie, or an additional data point within whatever abc.com sets.

The ad cookie/ID is then sent from the abc.com server to the ad network (along with whatever data they need to determine what ads were seen/clicked), who collate all the data from wherever their js file is running, thusly allowing them to track you, without any requests from your browser being sent to any other domains other than the ones you directly visit.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#327

Post by bigbugbag »

jhall1468 wrote: post #200
bigbugbag wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main reason ad-blockers exist is because fools with decision-making powers and no critical-thinking skills decided to make ads obtrusive. I remember differently, when ads started to appear on the web, it was promptly followed by adblocking. Actual reason was to block ads.

> I remember differently, when ads started to appear on the web, it was promptly followed by adblocking. Actual reason was to block ads. Sure, but the adblocking was pretty specific. Popup blockers followed popup ads and they were far more popular than any software that blocked ads outright. Adblocking isn't new, it's that it's iron-fisted and gaining in popularity that's the problem.

I don't remember adblocking to be specific, it was about adding a bunch of ip to your hosts file to redirect them to 127.0.0.1 and was sometimes a bit too broad.

Then again this is a matter of opinion, to me it is ad supported model popularity that is the problem.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#328

Post by bigbugbag »

JorgeGT wrote: post #192
bigbugbag wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main reason ad-blockers exist is because fools with decision-making powers and no critical-thinking skills decided to make ads obtrusive. I remember differently, when ads started to appear on the web, it was promptly followed by adblocking. Actual reason was to block ads.

Yep. I remember most of the first ads were outright scams, "You are visitor 1.000.000 of this webpage! Click here to collect your $500" [Seizure-inducing flashing to follow].

IIMNM the first ads I remember were banners, used to be banner exchange between willing webmasters turned into paid for banners (not sure if it was per impression or per click or both).

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#329

Post by hcon »

chris_wot wrote: post #79
hcon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously nobody does that. My favorite example is when you see a popular github repository with a donate button (Flattr, Bitcoin address, etc) only to realize they've made a whole $14 in the past year. Wow, thanks world! It turns out that ads worked because the user didn't actually have to do anything. They didn't have to get their credit card out of their wallet, something they rarely do on the internet. And when t…

Yeah, ads work because users don't do anything. That includes actually clicking on the ads themselves.

Ever use Adwords or Adsense? People click on ads.

Fewer and fewer, but they still do and with enough volume to prop up entire businesses, small and multinational.

Re: The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com

#330

Post by hcon »

SixSigma wrote: post #63
hcon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously nobody does that. My favorite example is when you see a popular github repository with a donate button (Flattr, Bitcoin address, etc) only to realize they've made a whole $14 in the past year. Wow, thanks world! It turns out that ads worked because the user didn't actually have to do anything. They didn't have to get their credit card out of their wallet, something they rarely do on the internet. And when t…

You say "nobody" but I know that's not true because I am "somebody" who donates. Ad blockers mean one isn't prepared to pay for your product. Personally when I am prevented from viewing content because my Privoxy has been detected I tend to just go elsewhere. I find ads a significant burden on my concentration and well being. Yet in print media I don't mind. Often I read trade mags specifically for the ads, they are…

I mean "nobody" in the sense that it doesn't scale and people like you, god bless, do not replace ads for the vast majority of websites.

At least not until some sort of shift happens in how we pay for content which I think is imminent.

> Ad blockers mean one isn't prepared to pay for your product.

Perhaps rather: "Your product is not worth taking out a credit card and paying for" which applies to most websites. There are massive barriers to explicitly paying for things, even just psychological.

In an abstract sense, ads are like vignette windshield stickers that let you cruise past tollway checkpoints when the alternative is to have to stop at a tollboth even if it's just to pay 10 cents.

People have tried to create services that replace ads in that abstraction, but so far nothing has stuck. I think the post-ad solution needs to be just as mindless as ads if it's going to replace them.

Post reply on HN