Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#351

Post by kbenson » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #333

kbenson wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It's not like it's illegal to, say, run a noncompliant browser that misrenders things.

Actually it may be, if their terms of service say you aren't allowed to use devices such as that. For example, lynx, or some programming language user agent.

That said, I wasn't really specifically addressing legality. There's a legal argument, and a ethical argument. The legal argument is quite clear IMO. The ethical argument is what's interesting in my view. People have justified actions that are clearly against the expressed interest of the content providers and producers in some cases, and I find it interesting to explore the reasoning. I myself do this, as I use an ad blocker, but I've drawn my own line and reasons for doing so, and have my own complicated feelings about it.

Having has this conversation multiple times here, invariable security comes up as a big reason for some people why they feel justified, when they do feel conflicted in other areas. Having a content provider serve their own ads weakens the position of security argument quite a bit, so I'm interested in seeing how people react in that case.

Edit: s/moral/ethical/

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#352

Post by corobo » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

Does anyone serve adverts using websockets yet? I'm surprised it hasn't been tried and intrigued as to why it doesn't work if they have.

Might take a day or two for adblockers to catch up and start inspecting websocket streams anyway.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#353

Post by nostrebored » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:32 PM UTC

tdkl wrote: post #324

nostrebored wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> You act like engineering things that most people like is a bad thing. Like or is being exploited based on genetical brain responses to like because of the result of the "quest for new information" ? This behaviour is psychologically engineered to trigger more dopamine fueled hits and with it fueling site engagement.

Everything you like is based on brain responses. Fueling engagement with your product is only necessarily harmful if your product is harmful.

I hope you don't like music, movies, amusement park rides, love, etc., because I have some bad news for you.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#354

Post by fapjacks » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:32 PM UTC

Go home, Facebook. You're drunk.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#355

Post by hello_newman » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:33 PM UTC

JulienRbrt wrote: post #335

Good luck Facebook because we have this: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

this might sound like a dumb question, but how do you use that giant file? Just copy/paste in your hosts file? I use my hosts file for blocking a handful of sites I find distracting (reddit), but would a ~30k line host file cause any adverse effects?

What has your experience using this file been like?

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#356

Post by asib » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:33 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #339

ethanbond wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Targeted ads are much more effective at influencing you, so you avoid more unwanted influence by blocking a targeted ad than just an average ad.

Targeted ads are insidious - as natrius says, they prey on your psychology. By comparison, non-targeted ads are generally just an eyesore.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#357

Post by corobo » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:33 PM UTC

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…

Nail on the head there. I installed an ad blocker to stop video adverts on YouTube. Everything else is collateral damage.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#358

Post by gosukiwi » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:36 PM UTC

CaptSpify wrote: post #344

wutbrodo wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Unfortunately I agree with you. I try to do that, but too many sites are abusive. If a site said "hey, we see you block ads, please unblock, we only use small text ads", I'd unblock right away. Most of the time though, after I unblock a site, I immediately have to re-block it.

Personally I find that "begging" annoying for sites that I almost never use, like Pastebin. I consider it for sites I use more often, but I agree with you that most of the time I end up turning it on again, ads just lag the site and are obtrusive.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#359

Post by jackmaney » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:38 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #195

Remember, "your contract with the network is you're going to watch the spots." By ad blocking, you are not upholding your end of the "bargain", therefore you're technically committing theft of service. And companies have few ethical qualms concerning thieves.

What contract?? You can't find a single example of any such contract that I've ever signed.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#360

Post by beefield » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

hsod wrote: post #284

ubernostrum wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is a social-media advertising company. Their model, boiled down, is to extract the maximum possible value out of me in return for the minimum possible effort from them. Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? And given how often the above describes the way businesses will treat me, why shouldn't I generalize that position?

> Why shouldn't I approach them the same way? Practically: because it leads to a race to the bottom, lowering to their level, the world just gets worse and worse Philosophically: because ethics are a fundamental part of who you are, and strangers acting unethically does not relieve you of their burdens

I do agree when these strangers are living and breathing human beings. But when the stranger is an institution whose sole purpose of being and the only ethics defined by the owners of the institution (and even law?) is to extract as much net value from me as possible, I have difficulties understanding why I should still play with the rule book for good guys. If this makes me a bad person, so be it. Can't say I am too ashamed of that...