Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 273 posts

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#71

Post by ComodoHacker »

Fiahil wrote: post #51

> The judges took note of the fact that Spiegel could have done something about ad-blockers. For instance, it could have shut ad-blocking users out from the Web content, linked advertising directly to the website's HTML I don't think that's a good idea. Doing exactly that would mean: the ad auction has to be closed and content injected server-side into the HTML page before sending the first byte to clients. And even…

>the ad auction has to be closed

Absolutely not. It would take some more time for your ad campaign fine tuning to apply, and to count clicks, that's all. Ad networks would install their boxes in datacenters and hosting providers' networks. Ads would cost a little more.

>content injected server-side into the HTML page before sending the first byte to clients

Injected, yes, but why before sending the first byte?

>it also means that you're giving the advertiser control over your entire page/website and of the clients' browser

I'm sure WhatWG will quickly find a technical solution to this problem too. Say, a special HTML tag attribute that tells the browser "treat content inside as third-party", which eventually will be exposed to ad blockers.

Spiegel is right, "it would not be a long-term solution"

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#72

Post by diafygi »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #57
tmnvix wrote: post #10

Am I missing something? If Der Spiegal doesn't want people to view their content while using an ad-blocker can't they detect and block those users (assuming those users also allow JS)?

Sure, they can detect ad blockers and present a nag screen. The ad blocker can respond by defeating their detection feature. For example, it can delete the detection function before it even executes. They could circumvent that; ad blockers could nullify their fix; they could fix it again... This could go on forever. In my experience as an user, no website has ever beaten an ad blocker. It's like trying to secure a co…

I think back in the early days Hulu served their video and ads from the same url format, so you couldnt distinguish. That's not how they do it now, but back then it successfully defeated adblockers.

For example, if you were watching a TV show, it would give you a playlist of video segments and ads, all having random urls (hulu.com/). You couldn't tell which was an ad and which was the real video, so adblockers couldn't write rules to block them.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#73

Post by username223 »

ZoeZoeBee wrote: post #65
ClassyJacket wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or because you use Safari.

Could you explain why you use Safari, other than it was pre-installed with your OS>

As others mentioned on another thread here recently:

* lower power/memory use and greater battery life vs. Chrome or Mozilla

* being written by a hardware company vs. a surveillance company

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#74

Post by ThePhysicist »

IMHO, by choosing to provide their content as an HTML data stream via HTTP to the user, "Der SPIEGEL" implicitly allows to consume this content in whichever way the user sees fit, as HTML is simply a markup language that can be interpreted in various ways, and could even be read in a text editor.

By trying to force the user to consume this data through a specific channel (e.g. through a standard-compliant browser with no ad-blocking abilities), they implicitly try to deny him/her the right to use the content in accordance with the HTTP specification.

Per se there's nothing wrong with forcing people to consume information/media through a specific technological channel (some people might disagree here of course), and companies like Netflix and Amazon have been doing this for many years already.

The difference here is that "Der SPIEGEL" explicitly chose to use an open medium, the world-wide-web, and an open protocol (HTTP) to disseminate their content, probably with the intent to reach as many people as possible. Unfortunately (for them), both of these technologies are built on the premise that the information can be consumed in whichever way the user sees fit, using his/her own software of choice, be that a desktop browser like Chrome, a terminal browser like Lynx, or even just a text editor.

If they really want to force people to consume their content in a specific way, they should simply ask users to enter an agreement with them, which could state that the user needs to consume the content in its entirety (advertisements included). That they don't do this is probably due to the fear of losing market share, as probably many users would not be willing to enter into such an agreement.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#75

Post by ComodoHacker »

JorgeGT wrote: post #53
mioelnir wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To serve the ads under the 1st party domain - without ending up in a situation where the entity reporting the number of ad impressions and the entity receiving money based on that number of ad impressions are the same - is often significant effort.

But newspapers have been doing this with printed ads for, literally, centuries...

They were not counting page views and charging accordingly.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#76

Post by dao- »

briandear wrote: post #60
JorgeGT wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The currently implicit trade of personal and behavioral data for services such as Facebook, Google, etc. is IMHO a domain in urgent need of some regulation.

Why? Those are voluntary services; the free market can regulate this just fine. It would be different if the government were requiring the use of those services.

> the free market can regulate this just fine

Except that it doesn't. Not everybody is expert enough to evaluate the risks of trading their data. Even if everybody was an expert, Google and Facebook are quasi-monopolies that are hard to avoid due to network effect and peer pressure. They play major roles in modern society so regulating them /in some ways/ seems warranted.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#77

Post by dTal »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #57
tmnvix wrote: post #10

Am I missing something? If Der Spiegal doesn't want people to view their content while using an ad-blocker can't they detect and block those users (assuming those users also allow JS)?

Sure, they can detect ad blockers and present a nag screen. The ad blocker can respond by defeating their detection feature. For example, it can delete the detection function before it even executes. They could circumvent that; ad blockers could nullify their fix; they could fix it again... This could go on forever. In my experience as an user, no website has ever beaten an ad blocker. It's like trying to secure a co…

>It's like trying to secure a computer against an adversary with full physical access.

It is literally that, in fact.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#78

Post by ZoeZoeBee »

username223 wrote: post #73
ZoeZoeBee wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain why you use Safari, other than it was pre-installed with your OS>

As others mentioned on another thread here recently: * lower power/memory use and greater battery life vs. Chrome or Mozilla * being written by a hardware company vs. a surveillance company

Yes, lower power/memory usage equals better battery life at the cost of performance, Safari is not nearly as perfomant as Chrome or Firefox, and to be honest if you're developing the browser is not your main energy drain.

Naive to put trust in either companies use of your details

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#79

Post by alkonaut »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #74

IMHO, by choosing to provide their content as an HTML data stream via HTTP to the user, "Der SPIEGEL" implicitly allows to consume this content in whichever way the user sees fit, as HTML is simply a markup language that can be interpreted in various ways, and could even be read in a text editor. By trying to force the user to consume this data through a specific channel (e.g. through a standard-compliant browser wit…

A logical step if a news outlet wants to show news+ads is to just offer their paper as PDF on the site. No click bait headlines, no Facebook trackers - just a newspaper, with ads.

The catch? The ads in the PDF are images without scripts and tracking.

Good.

Does the income from such ads not generate enough income?

Then GET OFF THE INTERNET or just close down the newspaper and take a long holiday. But don't tell me how to consume a http response please.

Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal

#80

Post by cm2187 »

ryuuchin wrote: post #27
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #15

Since this submission relates to blocking ads and trackers, I think it's worth bringing up that uBlock Origin [0] is better than Adblock Plus in (all?) ways (see the README for more details). I migrated to it a few years ago and overall I've been very happy with the outcome. I'm opposed to all tracking that isn't opt-in by default. I haven't thought about the topic at great lengths, so there may be cases which I'm fa…

The only reason for still using ABP is because you haven't heard of uBlock.

What's the best solution for iOS?
Post reply on HN