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

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#411

Post by Falkon1313 » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

hsod wrote: post #285

facetube wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about only downloading and rendering the web content you want to view.

IMO, the technical mechanisms are irrelevant. the ethical questions easily map to a face-to-face interaction.

Yes. In a face-to-face interaction, if the other party is sneezing and coughing and spraying mucus on your face, it is not unethical to wear a surgical mask. There is no moral or ethical requirement to inhale someone else's possibly virus-laden mucus just because you want to have a conversation.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#412

Post by type0 » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 2:30 AM UTC

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…

I fear that when it doesn't shows to be working they would make their own browser and make it obligatory.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#413

Post by robrenaud » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 2:58 AM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #405

mattmanser wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a legal requirement in most countries to clearly distinguish ads from content.

Distinguish them to human viewers , not to computers. If the aggregate effect of all the CSS and element classes is to make ads look one way and non-ads look a different way (each with slight variations), it's an AI-complete problem infer an answer to "given these elements and this CSS sheet, which subset of them looks different and add-like to a human?"

Is it an AI-complete problem to do email spam classification? Why is determining if a facebook post is an ad or not so different than spam classification?

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#414

Post by type0 » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 3:09 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #311

Grishnakh wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real-world analogy I use is that of a brick-and-mortar business like Walmart. Walmart is free to open a business and allow people off the street to shop there, browse their wares, and buy stuff if they want. They cannot force people to buy something for the privilege of visiting, and while they could require a "cover charge" to enter, they're probably going to lose most of their customers if they do this. It's Wa…

Contrast: A small shop has a sign, and a bucket. "Put $1 in the bucket and test how good you are at some_game." There is no one there - it's an unmonitored booth. Do you try your hand at the game and not put in money? They lose nothing, it's a repeatable game with no consumables. There is no one watching you, and there is no line behind you either.

Kinda bad analogy, really. Even if what you meant was that you should disable adblock on smaller blogs that want to get some compensation. You can't compare it to the service like a gaming machine, in your example I would see beforehand if I might like the game or maybe try and pay only if it was any good.

When I visit a website I have no idea what value I might gain from it so having adblock always on is just internet safety and privacy conserving measure, nothing else. If the website has a donation button or sells some services that I might be interested it becomes a whole other issue.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#415

Post by backtoyoujim » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 3:31 AM UTC

hehheh wrote: post #395

corobo wrote: 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.

So are you suggesting that the sites that are collateral damage pay for my youtube red service?

Because that seems reasonable.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#416

Post by type0 » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 3:32 AM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #293

FoeNyx wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is option 2 even possible at the moment?

No -- admittedly I'm mixing hypotheticals with existing solutions, but the point remains valid.

> but the point remains valid.

No it doesn't, exactly the point, you can't pay them so you have no transactional or business relation, in fact one SHOULD block the ads that are forced upon you. Linkedin for example prohibit adblocking in their TOS, they can do this because you can pay them to get rid of the ads.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#417

Post by type0 » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 3:36 AM UTC

sfifs wrote: post #110

gramstrong wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook already owns my personal data and any content that I publish. Why should I also have to look at ads?

Because it pays their bills and salaries? The only real reason need your personal data is so they can show you Ads with presumably more effective targeting so they can get a greater share of advertising revenue. It pays to remember that most forms of media - TV, Net, Print etc. are basically funded by money from advertisers.

It pays their bills right. They would have to move the advertising into real world. Essentially "Minority Report" version of advertising. Unless users stop owning their machines there will always be ways to block the ads.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#418

Post by type0 » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 3:40 AM UTC

ionised wrote: post #138

untog wrote: post #100

Earlier 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.

The Mere Exposure Effect does work though, probably more effectively than you realize.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#419

Post by flukus » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 3:52 AM UTC

recursive wrote: post #75

aantix wrote: post #6

FB can't win this cat and mouse game. If the ads are to be distinguishable then there will be inherent properties that will lead to them getting blocked.

I think you're making some assumptions here. The logical end-game is that FB writes their own rendering engine in javascript and targets a single canvas element, handling all the interaction events themselves. In fact, I think it can go significantly further than that. Ad blockers will need to get much fancier to deal with that kind of weaponized ad delivery.

And someone will write their own rendering engine that removes the ads. The data still has to come over the wire.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#420

Post by Falkon1313 » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 4:01 AM UTC

f_allwein wrote: post #366

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.…

Browsers added built-in popup blockers and the option to disable flash for just this reason - to enable users to block only the bad behavior. Well-behaved ads would continue to work just fine.

But the advertisers completely ignored that very clear message. Rather than avoiding bad behavior and being good citizens of the society, they instead found ways to circumvent the blocks, achieve the same effects, and make things worse. And now they want us to feel sorry for them. To feel guilty for not letting them victimize us with their bad behavior. Blocking all ads is a reasonable response. We gave them a chance to behave. They blew it.

Besides, if their ads have, (hypothetical number) just a 3% chance of serving malware that might cost $1000 in time (or otherwise) to repair, then each ad would cost each consumer (on average) $30. So who's robbing who? (Admittedly 3%/$1000 are probably high numbers, but arguing that is no longer arguing whether the advertisers are committing an offense, just arguing the degree of the offense.)