Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you feel entitled to use facebook's resources?
Because they encourage us to use them and make them available for free.
It is available on the condition that you are served ads alongside content.
Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
201–210 of 462 posts
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd also be a big risk in that it'd be easier to cheat the ads as they'd all come from the same connecting IP. I doubt advertisers would appreciate that much.
Indeed, proxying is basically pointless. At that point, it would be better for the site and for the advertisers (and users who don't block ads) for the site to simply self-report. At least then they avoid the extra overhead and load times (which might, btw, be detectable by ad blockers). Alternatively, advertisers could host a server on the site's domain. A subdomain or specific path would be easily blocked, but a ra…
Yeah, this is how I envisage it. Publisher gets a docker image (or whatever) from the ad-network and hosts it internally on their network. Then you just need to map a random path from nginx/haproxy. Client IP can be passed through too.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity. It's not. Ads can be entirely successful without a click - sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. "Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway" is a pretty naive view of how the ad industry operates.
> sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. All it does is make me avoid the product out of spite.
This isn't what usually happens though. If advertising drove negative value to a brand over time it just wouldn't be purchased.
Not many companies can take off purely on the quality of their product, especially in boring industries. I can't think of an insurance company which I learned about outside of widespread advertising.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#204It's really interesting to me how strongly people dislike actions like this and the "Please turn off your adblock" thing. If this were a physical store, it's the equivalent of you taking something and the owner saying "hey man, that's not free, this is how I make a living". It seems like the right response would be "Oh wow, sorry, I won't take that any more", not "Go away, you're bothering me, and I'm going to keep t…
My attempt at the analogy would be: someone offers to come to your house and, using your Legos, build a little Lego castle in your living room for free, so you say "Sure," and when they come over they build the castle, but then they use the rest of your Legos to build a little Lego giraffe.
"Why'd you build a giraffe, too? I just wanted a castle."
"I get paid to do that by the National Council on Giraffes."
"Well, sorry, these are my Legos and this is my living room, so I'm going to take your giraffe apart and build a drawbridge for the castle."
An ad-blocker is just a robot that automatically takes apart Lego giraffes so you can use those Legos for other things.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's facebook's problem, not the user's.
You've got it exactly backwards. The service is free, ergo you are the product, ergo Facebook's problems are your problems. You have three choices: 1. Stop using Facebook 2. Pay Facebook to remove ads 3. Look at ads I've opted for option 1, though I'll happily revisit this choice if Facebook (A) finds a way to make money without serving ads and without requiring me to pay out-of-pocket (unlikely) or (B) Facebook star…
I'd happily pay for Facebook, but then it shouldn't just be ad-free, I'd also want to be fairly sure that my info isn't sold to third parties either (not my existing data at FB, nor new data collected after I became a paying customer).
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#206I love FB Purity and would hate for it to stop working. It's what makes my FB feed useful.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#207Facebook makes most of its money on mobile ads which are not affected by ad blockers. So why make a big deal announcing efforts to block ad blockers? A smart company like Facebook doesn't make moves accidentally. This announcement is more targeted towards publishers than it is towards ad blockers. Doesn't matter how affective the work around is - it sends publishers, who are holding off from instant articles and more Facebook hosted content, the message Facebook is the only way out; You will lose the war against ad blockers; sign up with us for instant articles and other Facebook hosted solutions and we will fight with and for you.
http://qz.com/743988/facebook-is-an-unstoppable-force-on-mob...
> In the second quarter, mobile sales made up 84% of its $6.24 billion in advertising revenue
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#208I hope this doesn't break FB Purity. Social Fixer is undergoing a long overdue re-write as well.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook already owns my personal data and any content that I publish. Why should I also have to look at ads?
What good is your personal information if it's not to show you personalized ads?
They can sell it to third parties, who can in turn show ads on other sites.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's more like those terrible flyers you get in the mail and shoved under your door, except you have to pay the postage on them. Don't suck up my bandwidth on your crappy ads.
Don't suck up my bandwidth on your crappy attitude. You know facebook is ad supported. If you don't want to look at ads, why do you keep going there?
> why do you keep going there?
Have you ever considered that some contents are only available there? It's more the fault of some users that post required informations there, but it's a reality.
Personally I rarely go there, and would rather never have to go there.