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

331–340 of 462 posts

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#331

Post by ethanbond »

eridius wrote: post #299
natrius wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.

If you're on Facebook, they know what you're doing whether or not you're blocking their ads. Blocking ads from third-party sites makes sense for the reason you indicate, but blocking ads served up by the very site you're visiting does not actually help privacy at all.

You missed the point.

It's that targeted ads are meant to manipulate your decision making. In order to do that, you're tracked, yes. You can prevent them from manipulating your decisions (put your blinders/Adblock on), which is really great even if you can't prevent them from tracking you.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#332

Post by ethanbond »

r_smart wrote: post #187
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.'

I think you've overlooked the middle-ground: Stop engaging in tracking and spying and instead just show me adds. Many people who run ad-blockers (myself included) don't mind the ads, we mind the invasion of privacy.

Their shareholders mind ;)

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#333

Post by MichaelGG »

kbenson wrote: post #310
deanCommie wrote: post #7

They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is 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 are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. Well, you've given them permission to try. I doubt they are giving you any such permission, so you're actually presuming quite a bit when you say you're welcome to try as well. This actually matters, because as far as the law is concerned, you don't have any right to to the content beyond what they allow you (excluding laws specific to your subm…

I don't understand this. It's your browser. It's not like it's illegal to, say, run a noncompliant browser that misrenders things. An adblocker is the same.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#334

Post by daveguy »

ihsw wrote: post #282
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is no chance to recover a user after they install an adblocker.

Unless you stop using ad networks and just inline unobtrusive text ads?

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#336

Post by elmigranto »

epmatsw wrote: post #132

It'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…

Absolutely. And if you seeded a torrented movie, that is billions of dollars of lost potential profits, right?

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#337

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

kbenson wrote: post #310
deanCommie wrote: post #7

They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is 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 are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. Well, you've given them permission to try. I doubt they are giving you any such permission, so you're actually presuming quite a bit when you say you're welcome to try as well. This actually matters, because as far as the law is concerned, you don't have any right to to the content beyond what they allow you (excluding laws specific to your subm…

I also don't read all ads in print magazines, should I no longer buy print magazines?

If I rip out all ads in a print magazine, or throw away the flyers in a magazine - which I do first after buying a mag - then I shouldn't buy the magazine? (magazines are paid for by ads not by me buying them).

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#338

Post by danielweber »

wutbrodo wrote: post #303
chiph wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the point of the question - people install adblockers typically because they find the ads are intrusive (full-screen graphic overlays, etc), or their machine gets infected with ad network-delivered malware. If you presented ads that were respectful to the visitor (i.e. weren't offensive) I expect the blocker escalation war would cease.

> people install adblockers typically because they find the ads are intrusive (full-screen graphic overlays, etc), or their machine gets infected with ad network-delivered malware. If you presented ads that were respectful to the visitor (i.e. weren't offensive) I expect the blocker escalation war would cease. This is absolutely incorrect. Users may install them because they find some amount of ads to be abusive, but…

Can you mod my Playstation? I need to play, um, archived games. Yeah that's it. Archived games.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#339

Post by eridius »

ethanbond wrote: post #331
eridius wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're on Facebook, they know what you're doing whether or not you're blocking their ads. Blocking ads from third-party sites makes sense for the reason you indicate, but blocking ads served up by the very site you're visiting does not actually help privacy at all.

You missed the point. It's that targeted ads are meant to manipulate your decision making. In order to do that, you're tracked, yes. You can prevent them from manipulating your decisions (put your blinders/Adblock on), which is really great even if you can't prevent them from tracking you.

It sounds like you're saying that targeted ads are bad because they influence you to buy stuff. But that's what every ad is for, regardless of whether it's targeted.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#340

Post by danielweber »

ihsw wrote: post #282
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is no chance to recover a user after they install an adblocker.

After they install an ad-blocker anywhere. The site in question could always been been nice and unobtrusive with their ads. It makes no difference for most users.
Post reply on HN