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

191–200 of 273 posts

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

#191

Post by bigbugbag »

morgante wrote: post #84
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…

> is better than Adblock Plus in (all?) ways (see the README for more details) That's only if people agree with your ideology. Instead of making blanket statements which are inherently subjective, just explain why you prefer Adblock Plus. Personally, I vastly prefer Adblock Plus. I have no ideological objection to advertising or tracking in general, I just don't want intrusive ads. ABP does an excellent job of filter…

Putting ideology aside, TheAceOfHearts is still right that ublock origin is better than adblock plus in all ways.

Have a look at performance comparison between the two, ublock origin offers better speed with memory footprint a third of ABP while blocking more a.k.a. saner defaults.

I don't care if ABP offers some mafia like option to deal with advertisers, I do care that my box stay snappy with memory available when I open 150+ tabs in my browser i.e. a regular day.

Whenever ABP offers the same level of performances than ublock origin then I may base my choice on ideology, but the required rewrite doesn't seems to be on ABP roadmap.

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

#192

Post by YCode »

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…

The current solution of detecting ad-blockers and either blocking your content or requesting users disable their ad-blocker seems sensible.

The latter especially works for me because I'm generally willing to disable my ad blocker for the domain and see what their ads are like. If their ads are reasonable I'll leave it off.

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

#193

Post by rebuilder »

summarite wrote: post #161
koolba wrote: post #90

> "The Claimant [Spiegel] argues that the Defendant’s [Eyeo's] business model endangers the Claimant’s existence," reads the judgment, which isn't final because it can be appealed by Spiegel. Because users aren't willing to pay for editorial content on the Web, "it is not economically viable for the Claimant to switch to this business model." In what situation is endangering someone's business model grounds for their…

This would probably result in less relevant ads and more power of ad providers, ie less neutral reporting. Think about how some companies or political parties 'punish' critical media by pulling ads and advertising with the competition instead. Imagine you little newspaper have a harsh truth to deliver about Nestle or P&G - and you know if you do so a large chunk of your revenue will disappear. On the other hand this…

As far as advertiser pressure goes, is it much different now? Advertisers can, and do, pull their ads from specific sites at will. For example, letting a big company know their ads are appearing on a Russian-sponsored site full of chaosmongering "news" will usually get them to pull their ads right quick.

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

#194

Post by senior_james »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #165
senior_james wrote: post #153

Adblocking has indirectly created many of these fake news sites we see today and will only create a more cluttered and product-filled user experience. Most news sites rely only on advertising for income. Real reporting and investigation costs money. Since their main money source is now drying up, news is starting to become hearsay, rumors, and things you see on Twitter (anything you can find from the comfort of an of…

Water flows downhill and market optimizes for profit. If you don't remove ads, the extra money gets pocketed by the companies, but that in no way incentivizes them to do "real journalism". Bullshit has better ROI than truth, and that's why there's so much of it.

Which companies are getting this 'extra money'? Certainly not the journalists or news organizations.

"but that in no way incentivizes them to do "real journalism""

Sure it does. If you actually have the money to send a journalist out and get a better story than the next person, you will. This is how it worked before the advent of severely diminished returns in the news industry.

In fact, most popular news sites today are owned or funded by extremely wealthy individuals that use it to push their own political agendas. This is because it's almost impossible to run a news business without this sort of capital. If there was a way for anyone to potentially make a decent living with advertising, this would change.

"Bullshit has better ROI than truth, and that's why there's so much of it."

I won't argue with you there. However, real journalism should have a competitive advantage. It doesn't because it's too difficult to make enough to pay real journalists. Our news landscape now consists of wealthy individuals that spew politically biased news (Breitbart, Huffington post), fake news sites, and the already established big players that don't need the funding because they already have decades of momentum.

Adblocking didn't teach the ad industry anything. It is a ham fisted approach that now only hurts the businesses that don't pay up:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-...

These extortionist tactics don't give me any confidence that ad blocking is even being done for the right reasons. It's just a roadblock setup to make the Adblock companies money through force.

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

#195

Post by bigbugbag »

skybrian wrote: post #178
jlarocco wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not the same. Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be. If we all choose our own block lists there is nobody for them to negotiate with. The war between ad blockers and advertisers continues forever. We have very different opinions, because I don't see it as a bargaining situation. The reasonable and acceptable level of spam, web advertising, malware, and user tra…

Yes, this is a different political position. I don't want all advertising-supported websites to die, which is what would happen if you convinced everyone to do what you do.

This argument has no basis, those websites don't have to die, they have to think of an alternative business model.

Some have already transitioned to crowdfunding (see patreon, the dice tower getting funded on kickstarter,...) micropayment, subscriptions.

But this case of "your failed business model is not my problem" is not to blame on adblockers alone but also on dwindling ads revenue among others reasons due to facebook driving prices down. When facebook investor story time will come to an end the whole web advertising ecosystem might crumble on itself.

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

#196

Post by bigbugbag »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #160
fucking_tragedy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertisers can negotiate with AdBlock Plus about what reasonable advertising should be How they reconcile this with the name "AdBlock" I'll never know.

Supposedly non intrusive ads that are out of your way

Wladimir should rename adblock plus to addoesntblock- supposedly-non-intrusive-ads then ;)

or maybe adsellads [1]

[1]:http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-...

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

#197

Post by bigbugbag »

morgante wrote: post #184
PerryCox wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the README. ABP sold out a while back and now shows ads on certain websites who pay money to ABP. uBlock Origin doesn't show ads on any website unless you specifically allow it.

It's amazing to me that you can't even grasp that the point you're trying to make is ideological: that ads are inherently evil and should all be blocked. I'm fully aware of ABP's business model. I just happen to like it. Stop trying to present a difference of ideological opinion as a feature difference. You can make ABP work exactly the same as uBlock and (apparently) vice versa.

Ads are not inherently evil, the omnipresent associated tracking and surveillance is. Problem is almost all ads come with tracking nowadays which in turn makes them evil.

That's another reason ublock origins is far superior to ABP: it blocks tracking by default. Of you can configure each one to mimick the other but users seldom change the defaults hence the 75% of german users subscribed to ABP acceptable ads program, (ratio is higher than usual because adblock are mostly used by tech savvy and privacy concerned users).

Then again you can't make ABP uses a third of the resources it uses so you would have to find a way to make ublock origins use three times more resources to make it work exactly as ABP.

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

#198

Post by kuschku »

tscs37 wrote: post #114
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ryuuchin wasn't suggesting people like you don't exist, just that such people are not reasonable. Theory holds.

I feel myself being very reasonable. If you disagree, would you mind explaining why or is that unreasonable to ask? Theory does not hold.

1. uBlock can be configured to show acceptable ads (it’s just opt-in). 2. uBlock is faster than ABP.

So you have zero disadvantages, but one advantage. As a result, it’s strictly superior.

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

#199

Post by ThePhysicist »

seviu wrote: post #188

Me and my business partner did get hit by Springer in Germany due to an iOS content blocker. We lost the part that relates to damages and won the one that touches copyright. Springer bases its claims on two principles: 1) Ad blockers are damaging their business money-wise. 2) An article and an Ad are an indivisible entity. And from a copyright perspective, removing the Ad means violating the copyright of the article.…

Honestly, win this, then sue them back. This behavior should not be tolerated. The whole ad blocking wars are even more bizarre than the "Leistungsschutzrecht", where publishers tried to force search engines (mostly Google) to pay for the fact that they show content from their websites (and as a result drive traffic to them!), which sounded very similar: Instead of simply telling Google not to index their openly available content (e.g. through robots.txt), they explicitly allowed it, but then tried to dictate how exactly Google should use it in order to maximize their profits.

Seriously, if you don't want your content to be freely downloaded, viewed and processed, simply hide it behind a paywall or invent your own proprietary format, and leave the open Internet alone.

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

#200

Post by nitrogen »

morgante wrote: post #184
PerryCox wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the README. ABP sold out a while back and now shows ads on certain websites who pay money to ABP. uBlock Origin doesn't show ads on any website unless you specifically allow it.

It's amazing to me that you can't even grasp that the point you're trying to make is ideological: that ads are inherently evil and should all be blocked. I'm fully aware of ABP's business model. I just happen to like it. Stop trying to present a difference of ideological opinion as a feature difference. You can make ABP work exactly the same as uBlock and (apparently) vice versa.

Allow me to explain why many disagree with you (I think I may have replied similarly to you a long time ago, not sure):

From the advertisers' perspective it's a shakedown. From the users' perspective it's a betrayal of trust. What's not to like? /s

Post reply on HN