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

Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 356 posts

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#211

Post by 0xADEADBEE »

jbmorgado wrote: post #183
IIIIIIIIIIII wrote: post #29

This is not the end of the arms race. At some point we will have AI designing and AI delivering ads, and while we may have AI designed to prevent us from having to watch ads we don't want we will also have AI that watches everything, gathering and filtering information that is too much for us to handle but tuned to our needs since it's "our AI". Then the race will be that one AI wants to trick the consumer AI into gi…

No you won't because that's ilegal. An advertisement must be clearly understood as such (at least in EU) and in fact (for instance) now the channels in here are actually having to tell you that you are about to see advertisements. So, no, we won't have AI tuning the advertisements so that they can't be catch by software like this one because that means it also wouldn't be catch by humans and that a very big no. I can…

I think it's myopic to dismiss this based on legality; companies of all sizes frequently flout laws and regulations. I agree that it's difficult to see the big picture (we didn't even see the paradigm shift of smartphones coming - there's no way anyone can be expected to predict how the advertising landscape will look in 15 years) but I certainly don't envisage a return to vintage era Google Ads. We tend to forget that (mostly due to this echo chamber in which we're participating) that regular people don't think like us and without the momentum of a large group, a reversion is unlikely to be affected.

That said, WRT GP's post, I don't think it's a million miles off. AI will undoubtedly become a cornerstone of modern life and I don't think the scenario they outline is entirely unlikely. Siri is objectively pretty hopeless, particularly when compared to its counterparts but it's been a nice clue as to what we can expect from modern innovation.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#212

Post by tyingq »

Guessing it has the same limitation that thwarts other ad blockers....running well on mobile, especially Android.

Google was smart enough to not allow extensions on mobile Chrome. So you are relegated to either 3rd party browsers or weird internal proxy solutions, both of which have downsides.

Still excited about serious resources going into ad blocking though.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#213

Post by dirkg »

What about the many sites who legitimately exist only due to minimal ad revenue, and don't abuse ads, allow malware etc?

I'm all for supporting them. Its the sites that pose an actual threat or whose ad:content ration is something ridiculous like 2:3 that are the problem. Esp on mobile.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#214

Post by jorvi »

virmundi wrote: post #175
gerdesj wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Members of Congress ... that these kinds of threats to companies like Google and Facebook would not be legislatively blocked." and how would that affect say me (in the UK)?

Hard to say. Since you're a finger in the Hand, I guess the palm would tell you to fold.

..when in comes the EU, who have successfully penalized and stared down Facebook, Intel, Apple and Microsoft. And which is either the biggest (until the Brits have officially left) or the third biggest economy in the world. You can't simply ignore them, even as a company of Google or Apple's size.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#215

Post by [deleted] »

orblivion wrote: post #127

The war on ads is like the war on drugs. This is just going to create more ruthless ad cartels. There is a demand to be met, it will find its way to the consumer, even if it has to plow over 50 others in the process. The question is, what is the online ad equivalent of legalizing drugs?

[deleted]

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#216

Post by zyx321 »

takeda wrote: post #179
chadgeidel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because - at least in the US - Tobacco advertising is specifically banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smokin...

But if it is a free speech, doesn't this law then violate the constitution? I would imagine that if it was a free speech, then tobacco industry already would have this law thrown out.

Can you legally tell children to kill themselves?

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#217

Post by tyingq »

jorvi wrote: post #214
virmundi wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to say. Since you're a finger in the Hand, I guess the palm would tell you to fold.

..when in comes the EU, who have successfully penalized and stared down Facebook, Intel, Apple and Microsoft. And which is either the biggest (until the Brits have officially left) or the third biggest economy in the world. You can't simply ignore them, even as a company of Google or Apple's size.

The EU had two different pending antitrust sanctions for Google, one around shopping ads and one around Android. Then nothing more about it since about mid 2016. Are those still pending?

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#218

Post by obstinate »

downandout wrote: post #36

The article puts a significant emphasis on the idea that bulletproof ad-blocking technology, assuming that's what this turns out to be in practice, will work long-term becuase of legal restrictions imposed by the FTC. If Google, Facebook, or other multi-billion dollar entities detect an existential threat arising from this or any other technology, rest assured that the laws will change as quickly as is necessary to k…

Just like how big coal was able to prevent all EPA regulations, and big tobacco is still allowed to advertise to children and on billboards, right?

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#219

Post by johncolanduoni »

narrowrail wrote: post #195
brianwawok wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a musician clearly put that on the package of a CD, why not? I dont have a constitutional right to buy an artist's CD.

Instead of making shit up about what you think makes sense, please familiarize yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

In that same article you can see first-sale doctrine gets murky when the distribution is digital. And it pretty much completely falls apart for subscription based services.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#220

Post by waylandsmithers »

Cool! I wonder if this means all advertising on the web will have to be superficial, which might not be a great thing.

Maybe eventually we'll feel the same way about ads on the web as we do about ads in film-- a character can't stare into the camera and tell the viewer to go buy a Corona, but if he is asked what he'd like out of the cooler at a barbecue, he can say he wants a Corona.

I personally prefer a middle ground, like when magazines print ads with the text "ADVERTISEMENT" or "SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION"

Post reply on HN