431–440 of 462 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inventor of markdown. Fireball something. But it's really an exception.
Daring Fireball, that's the one! Of course it's an exception - no other bugger tries, opting to instead chuck adsense all over the place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The point was that Facebook's problems are de facto the user's problems. Ad-blocking is, indeed, a solution, but one can't expect Facebook to (re)act in the user's interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually run a local-interest blog for my small city, and whenever I talk to people about it they're amazed I don't have ads all over the place. "How do you make money", "why would you run this site without making money", "you should be getting something for it", etc. They don't immediately realize that 90% of the content on the site is advertising, and I actually am getting paid for it. I'll write an article about…
Do you disclose that content is sponsored? If not, is it legal?
In most jurisdictions, it's a priori legal unless it falls under some special category (e.g. a political campaign ad).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually run a local-interest blog for my small city, and whenever I talk to people about it they're amazed I don't have ads all over the place. "How do you make money", "why would you run this site without making money", "you should be getting something for it", etc. They don't immediately realize that 90% of the content on the site is advertising, and I actually am getting paid for it. I'll write an article about…
Well, that is deception unless you are honest with users. In many countries illegal, and as scummy, if not more, than your taboola ads.
Honestly I'm not sure it is. Sure, it's deceptive, but he's not serving ads that annoy, distract and often serve as a vector for malware. It's not clear (to me) that it's worse than traditional web advertising, which tends to be deceptive, illegal, scummy and annoying, dangerous and distracting.
And again, the trick with native advertising is to provide valuable content for the users, otherwise it's just crap that nobody will read. I don't know if the poster in question is actually doing this, but if he is, I wouldn't be so quick to write it off as scummy; bear in mind that oftentimes such pieces are identified as "sponsored content".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you disclose that content is sponsored? If not, is it legal?
>If not, is it legal? In most jurisdictions, it's a priori legal unless it falls under some special category (e.g. a political campaign ad).
FTC will regulate undisclosed native content advertising content in US: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/nat...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
The Advertising Standards Authority regulate it in the UK:
https://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-O...
About vlogging, but clearly applies to blogging and traditional print media: https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Maki...
http://blogtacular.com/sponsored-posts-ads-reviews-the-asa-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uBlock can already do this (I use it for hiding the Twitter "while you were away" nonsense), although I suspect that the next step is Facebook scrambling DOM classes and ids with no discernable pattern.
> scrambling DOM classes and ids with no discernable pattern That's why I have been beefing up the DOM filtering code in the latest versions -- there are already sites doing this. There is a lot of untapped potential with the new operators, I am waiting for opportunities to put them to test, and fine-tune them if needed.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Daring Fireball, that's the one! Of course it's an exception - no other bugger tries, opting to instead chuck adsense all over the place.
John uses Deck[0] for Daring Fireball 0: http://decknetwork.net/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. All ads are bad 2. Closing your eyes is not the same as robbing
Ok,then how should websites/ search engines/ social networks finance themselves in your opinion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are but not in a sense in which, for example, Netflix is, where terms are clear — pay and enjoy content. FB is also a service as an ad platform — pay and we will show your ads to people. Anyone with FB profile is not "getting serviced", they are a commodity same as peanuts at the store, but it instead of storing boxes in a warehouse, FB hosts your photos. There is expectation that most of users won't block ads,…
The terms are not clear only in the heads of people who think they can have their cake and eat it too.
Also, index page of Facebook says in huge letters that "It's free and always will be.", so not sure why you are so eager to prove I am to pay for it somehow.