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

AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 282 posts

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#271

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sanswork wrote: post #82
criddell wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. That seems incredibly tone deaf. Advertisers should be working on fixing the problems. Get rid of tracking, get rid of scripts, make promises about acceptable ad size and latency and every year reduce those numbers.

Ad blockers aren't a problem for advertisers since people using ad blockers likely aren't going to click on your ads anyhow. They are a problem for content creators.

Not all advertising requires clicks. Brand awareness works by finagling associations in to your brain. No matter how immune to suggestion one things they are these things work to some extent.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#272

Post by pbhjpbhj »

SnowingXIV wrote: post #189
_m7bj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attention is more valuable than that. It's /my/ attention, I get to set the price, and I don't accept their offer. They're welcome to block me from their websites, if they feel that's not acceptable.

No it's not. Your attention isn't worth much tbh. But like the other poster said, pay me for reading your post.

It may not be worth much to you, but to the right employer it's worth multiple $100k, and to oneself it's worth more than money.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#273

Post by caspianm »

aninhumer wrote: post #47
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If you can't fund your content without ads then you have a bad business model. We should kill ads and any content that dies in the collateral is an acceptable loss. Micropayments also don't work because no one has done it well, not because it's inherently not going to work.

I think micro-payments just don't sit well with people psychologically. Even if you know the totals are going to be tiny, being on a meter just adds mental overhead to every click. And moreover most of the time people don't know if something is worth paying for until they've seen it, and they probably resent paying for some things.

This is true. What I find puzzling is that advertisements have most of the same issues but many people accept them. You could argue that people's acceptance of ads suggests they should accept micropayments, or people's rejection of micro payments suggests they should reject ads. But I put up with ads and haven't signed up for any micro payment schemes yet.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#274

Post by pbhjpbhj »

mdekkers wrote: post #239
lvs wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I pass a street musician, I haven't implicitly signed a contract to pay her for the show -- either in currency or by transferring any other valued commodity. I don't have an obligation to support her business plan, even if I enjoy the music. She may perhaps claim that we entered into an implied contract. Or the musician could post a placard reading her terms-of-service. But in simply walking down the street, like…

> walking down the street, like clicking on a link these two are not even close to the same thing. clicking a link is a very specific action "show me this stuff". Your analogy would be more apt if it involved going into a venue where music is performed.

OK, so you walk in to a bar. The barman says, "£10 please, there's music playing that you've consumed". You chose to walk in. Unless they post a sign at the door, saying a concert is on and the price of entry then they're not (legally/morally) entitled to charge you.

The web equivalent is a paywall.

Now, bars put on free music. And you can go to them and not buy a drink regardless that the landlord puts on the music to get you to buy.

The landlord might get paid to have advertising up, like on a toilet vending machine. But me choosing not to look at it isn't morally wrong.

Arguably, even if I never buy a drink I can benefit the establishment socially.

The problem comes when the establishment not only needs pay the workers and buy the beer but also pay the breweries management and return dividend to share holders.

The web has moved to that stage where the capitalists have moved in - like large breweries owning pubs. Forums aren't run by the admins they're owned by media conglomerates, etc.. I'm really not sure it's made the web a better place.

Now, get off my lawn.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#276

Post by redner »

gfody wrote: post #74
1propionyl wrote: post #56

Good. I'm done being nice to advertisers. They are actively poisoning the internet in more ways than one. They had their chance to work out better ways to advertise, and they instead redoubled assaults on attention. This is getting installed on all of my browsers on all of my PCs. If your startup is advertising based, find a different model, or do without my business. I have no obligation to help you fund yourself or…

clicking all the advertisers links seems like an awfully nice thing to do for them, assuming they're paid per click

agred 100%

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#277

Post by redner »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #14

I'm out on this. 1. They say it's legally not click fraud. To me it sounds like regular fraud: "deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right". I'm not concerned with breaking the law I just don't want to act in the spirit of it. 2. This could hurt small startups that are very carefully managing an ad budget. They say the market will adjust, but until it does small startups take…

there is a lot of ways of doing advertisement, besides polluting people's browsers, give freebies, discounts, ...... etc.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#278

Post by redner »

Smaug123 wrote: post #233
literallycancer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply there is something questionable about blocking ads. The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker. It's a lower cost than the attention spent on ads, so I block them. Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.

"The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker." - there is also the externalised cost that the sites which rely on ads will eventually go bust if everyone does the same thing as you do. Given the current state of things, you are defecting on a massive Prisoners' Dilemma.

if you dont have money for a site, you can't have one, that is the universal law of life, i would like to have a alienware, but i can't afford it, i don't go spamming people around....

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#279

Post by hidden_forest »

_tulpa wrote: post #29
hidden_forest wrote: post #15

I block all ads, tracking, beacons, etc. because they are now the single largest vector for malware. I use Firefox largely because it's the most hackable browser. I tweak Firefox to do and not do several things: - I don't allow sites to see my history - I don't allow peerconnect - I don't allow WebRTC (shows private address schemas) - I don't allow much JS - I don't allow fingerprinting beyond pure basics - I don't a…

Would you mind elaborating on the tools you use?

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. I don't use anything elaborate.

I use the following Firefox addons:

- uBlock Origin

- Disconnect

- Decentraleyes

- Webmail Ad Blocker

I make the following changes in Firefox's about:config:

layout.css.visited_links_enabled (Toggle to false)

media.peerconnection.enabled (Toggle to false)

network.prefetch-next (Toggle to false)

network.http.sendRefererHeader (Set to 0 (zero))

network.http.sendSecureXSiteReferer (Set to false)

I also sometimes set dom storage to false, but this can sometimes interfere with some webmail clients.

If you're unsure of a setting, reference the Mozilla KB: http://kb.mozillazine.org/About:config_entries

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#280

Post by tripzilch »

dispose13432 wrote: post #115
TeMPOraL wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The foundation of the Web - the Hypertext Transfer Protocol - is that I request a piece of data from a given address, while also providing relevant information about my capabilities and media I'm willing to accept, and then you send me back that data. What I do with that data isn't up to you . That includes viewing all, parts, or none of the information I received from your server. That especially includes deciding a…

>The foundation of the Web - the Hypertext Transfer Protocol - is that I request a piece of data from a given address, while also providing relevant information about my capabilities and media I'm willing to accept, and then you send me back that data. So Facebook says that the foundation of the web is sending data to the server (such as cookies) and receiving information back. Nowhere in the protocol does it say the…

can we maybe make a new sort of Godwin guideline where we stop taking people seriously once they've shown they can't tell apart legal rights from moral rights?
Post reply on HN