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

Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 462 posts

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#271

Post by nostrebored »

ominous wrote: post #215
johndavidback wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dollars. I suppose a stark, diametric alternative to being forced to view targeted ads would be Facebook as a paid subscription service. It's the age old issue of 'Someone has to pay for this party.'

But the party has no justification to exist other than someone wants to be paid for it. Close it down, if you can't force me to pay. Keep trying.

Are you against businesses being able to set their prices? They're asking you to pay the market price. If you're not fine with it, doing some unilateral haggling isn't exactly how exchanges work, just don't use their product. Using Facebook is not a right.

The fact of the matter is, most people waxing poetic here about ads infringing on their rights, will still use Facebook when their adblockers don't work. They are willing to pay, they just want to pay less.

This is a very hard position to justify ethically.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#272

Post by Azkar »

deanCommie wrote: post #234
denzil_correa wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. Technically, Facebook could insert news feed ads like a post from one of your friend (assume that the friend has liked some page or organization). It could be tough to distinguish between ads and posts much like native advertising.

That was what I was referring to here: > Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised they need to go out of their way to explicitly announce that they will be disguising ads. They already have the power to inject it in the middle of content invisibly.

But Facebook doesn't get any cut of a sponsored post. (meaning a company paid an individual to write a post)

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#273

Post by ihsw »

flinty wrote: post #207

Facebook 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…

> mobile ads which are not affected by ad blockers

I've permanently switched to Nexus devices because other vendors fill their phones with crapware.

I've permanently switched to Firefox on my Nexus 6P because Chrome is weak an ineffective.

If ads start to creep outside of the harmless bottom 120px stolen by apps then I will root my phone and install native adblockers.

Mobile ads enjoy their place now only because in-app ads are generally benign.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#274

Post by millstone »

blahi wrote: post #175
hodder wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Serious question: Why do you block FB ads?" Because I dont like looking at ads.

Why do you feel entitled to use facebook's resources?

Facebook tracks you and shows you ads regardless of whether you use Facebook.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/27/11795248/facebook-ad-netwo...

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#275

Post by ocdtrekkie »

ihsw wrote: post #269
paulddraper wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would your users know you had "respectful" ads?

For example, when they visit, there are no interstitial pages, boxes covering the page when a user mouses out of the viewport, autoplaying audio/video, or any of that other obscene nonsense.

paulddraper is pointing out that if the user has an adblocker, they will never notice whether your ads are intrusive or not.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#276

Post by nostrebored »

tdkl wrote: post #81
pseudointellect wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"while you were away" nonsense? A feature that shows you popular tweets from only people you follow. How is that nonsense?

He doesn't want to see it and there's no option to hide it. FB is also full of attention catching crap like that, it's all engineered.

You act like engineering things that most people like is a bad thing.

You're not going to please everyone. Even people who will like it a month down the line will hate it when you first roll out the change. And we should you have to support (|feature|!) different websites?

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#277

Post by dragonwriter »

Azkar wrote: post #272
deanCommie wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was what I was referring to here: > Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised they need to go out of their way to explicitly announce that they will be disguising ads. They already have the power to inject it in the middle of content invisibly.

But Facebook doesn't get any cut of a sponsored post. (meaning a company paid an individual to write a post)

> But Facebook doesn't get any cut of a sponsored post.

"Sponsored Stories" and "Promoted Posts" (one of which I expect is what was meant by "sponsored post") are the names of specific kinds of Facebook ads.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#278

Post by joosters »

hsod wrote: post #198
natrius wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook's profitability is not your problem. It's their job to figure out how to get paid. It's your job to protect your mind. Targeted ads are worse than gambling. We made sure everyone's aware of the dangers of gambling, but everyone's in the dark about targeted ads. These companies know what they're doing. If people want to portray ad blocking as stealing, so be it. Steal from them. They deserve it.

> Facebook's profitability is not your problem. No, but acting with honesty and fairness is. Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads. I think it's obvious that the "right" thing to do is to respect their wishes, not sneeringly defy them while using their resources and giving nothing in return.

Facebook is asking you not to use their service if you are going to block ads.

No they aren't (at least, not yet). Where do you think it says this in their terms & conditions?

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#279

Post by paulmd »

ultramancool wrote: post #63
lopatin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?

> If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair? I think "they're welcome to try" is exactly the right response here. Nothing is "fair" or "unfair", at least not in a way that advertisers or ad blockers care about. No matter what they do it's entirely possible to trick their scripts into believing I'm displaying ads, because they run not on facebook's servers but on…

I'm just waiting for the day when websites are rendering themselves inside a DRM-protected container in an HTML5 page. That's where I see all of this inevitably heading.

DRM-protected media extensions are almost uniquely positioned for this. They're designed around the abilities to uniquely identify the user and resist tampering. The only thing that's missing right now is interactivity.

Post reply on HN