Live data from Hacker News

Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

wsj.com

391–400 of 462 posts

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#391
post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your entire position depends on the unstated assumption that it's wrong for someone else to convince you to buy their product. And that sounds pretty absurd. As for targeted advertising, seeing ads that are relevant to your interests instead of seeing unrelated ads does not seem wrong at all. As long as you're being advertised to, isn't it good to have those ads actually be things you might care about? The part that'…

There are people, like myself, who believe that the information asymmetry at play with advertising these days is abusive or unethical.

Psychologists know that humans have certain exploitable weaknesses. I mean, think about any relationship. You become vulnerable when you expose yourself, and so a person has to earn your trust such that you expose yourself to them.

Today, advertisers have made you vulnerable without actually earning your trust. You could argue that "by using Facebook you're saying you trust them," and you'd be right... If humans all had the capability and willpower to understand systems as complex as ad targeting... One of our worst exploitable vulnerabilities.

Put another way, I would say that it's ethical for a team of scientists to sit down and interview you about everything you love/fear/want/need for the purpose of helping you to find more people like yourself so you feel less lonely. I would say that it's unethical for those scientists to radio down the street as soon as you walk out the door to tell street vendors to start hawking goods that play at your insecurities.

Not all advertising is based on exploiting people, but the most effective types are!

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#392
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as? I'm thinking any ways that do exist are extraordinarily difficult to do, at least for the common lay man.

Hosts file / adaway doesn't help with Facebook app? Can't tell myself, I don't have them installed on my own.

AdAway does work with apps.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#393
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to continue to modify my ad blocker until it allows me to use enough of facebook to be happy. How I choose to render the data Facebook sends me, is up to me.

While I think that this is a very bad idea, one could dynamically name them in a defective way. The relevant information (blocking lists) are openly available.

This just demands a new strategy for blocking.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#394

I am also surprised at all the hate against ads. Yes, there are some bad ones (disrupting, malware etc.), but how does that justify you blocking all ads (and thereby robbing websites of their only legitimate source of income)? As Immanuel Kant said (loosely translated): Act in such a way that you actions could serve as the foundation for a general legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative I.e.…

1. All ads are bad 2. Closing your eyes is not the same as robbing

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#395
post #357

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…

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

FWIW YouTube now offers an ad free service for a monthly fee, bundled with Play Music. $10/mo in the US.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#396
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

additionally: FB forces itself into your life by adding tracking on non-FB sites. Even if I never go to FB, they can still track me, and sell my data.

Indeed their shadow profiling via other websites is a serious concern (I usually try to block requests to fb/goog on other websites, with the help of some browser addons).

But my main concern, as other people mentioned it here too, is rather about the safety of the displayed ads: malevolent ads are an important security (and privacy) risk. And I doubt ads sellers would cover any damages occurring to me because of them (moreover proving it seems difficult).

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#398
post #395
post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

FWIW YouTube now offers an ad free service for a monthly fee, bundled with Play Music. $10/mo in the US.

I'll be first in line when it gets here (seriously)

> United Kingdom Not yet available here

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#399

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…

> but it's sometimes hard to reconcile blocking ad-blocker-blockers ethically There is nothing unethical about it. If you want to be paid for your content, charge me for it and let me decide, voluntarily, to pay and receive it, or not. This argument comes up every time there's discussion about ad-blockers: if your writing, music, poetry, punditry or photography is good, people will pay you for it. You don't "deserve"…

So, if they offered a PayPal button, and I decided I didn't want to pay via PayPal, would it be okay to not pay in that case?

By putting up the blocker blocker, the site has clearly indicated how you can compensate them for the content, and the only ethical way I can think of around it would be to not consume it.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#400
post #246
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I fail to see why that consideration should make a difference. Facebook provides a service, if you want to use the service, you see ads. If you don't want to see ads, don't use the service. Your livelihood is not threatened if you don't see some information hidden through a facebook login. If some friend of yours handles invitation through FB, that is because facebook provides a very good infrastructure to handle tho…

> Your livelihood is not threatened if you don't see some information hidden through a facebook login.

I would have missed an exam, because the place and date were only communicated through that medium.

> I can see enabling adblock for the internet at large and sites you don't care about, but you KNOW that facebook relies on ads and you repeatedly use them.

As I said, I rarely go there (maybe two or three times per year?). I'm more a statistical noise at that level. I doubt it threatens their business model, they seem to be doing pretty well recently.

In fact I'm probably making them and their partners save some money by not loading ads for products I would not buy anyway, it seems way more ethical to me.

And in fact all of this is dwarfed by the fact that ads in general are a big security risk.

Post reply on HN