Live data from Hacker News

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

motherboard.vice.com

311–320 of 356 posts

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

#311

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…

Native ads will always evade this tool.

Also the end composition of the page can reveal to javascript what is or is not removed

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

#312
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ad-free world, only the affluent members of society would pay for access to intelligent journalism. The rest of society would be a mixture of information-starved, and fed information by special interest groups that provide content more cheaply than the paywalls. EDIT: Just to be clear, my own opinion is that online advertising is a horrifically ugly, cynical blight on the human experience, which causes huge amo…

Isn't that what we have currently? Quality journalism seems hard to pull off with only online ads. Most of it nowadays is supported by subscriptions and/or print editions. They help subsidize free access to some of the content.

Would you say that, today, most people who read quality journalism do so by paying subscriptions? I'm not sure about that. The Guardian is one obvious exception, but I agree the center-right newspapers have moved to subscription.

It's very broken though. The whole idea of paying a subscription for a newspaper is outdated -- it's based on the days when the head of household would select a newspaper and have it delivered to the house before breakfast. Most of the time when I'm reading news online I'm wasting time that I would prefer to be using productively, so there's no way I'm going to pay for that. Additionally, there's so much good free material on the internet that there's not enough incentive to pay for it. I think the major newspapers should accept that the days of a single cathedral-like website for their newspaper where devotees will spend hours are gone; if we could pay a small amount effortlessly on a per-article basis, choosing between many different sources, that might make sense.

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

#313
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what we have currently? Quality journalism seems hard to pull off with only online ads. Most of it nowadays is supported by subscriptions and/or print editions. They help subsidize free access to some of the content.

Would you say that, today, most people who read quality journalism do so by paying subscriptions? I'm not sure about that. The Guardian is one obvious exception, but I agree the center-right newspapers have moved to subscription. It's very broken though. The whole idea of paying a subscription for a newspaper is outdated -- it's based on the days when the head of household would select a newspaper and have it deliver…

The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist are all behind partial or full pay-walls.

I'm not sure that a subscription is outdated. It still makes sense for a bunch of editors to make a selection of what is news-worthy in their opinion. Leaving it to algorithms to tailor your newsfeed to your exact tastes risks leading to a feedback loop of reinforcing biases. I like The Economist, once a week, the most important news and a bit more in-depth than most newspapers. Their Espresso app seems interesting, but I haven't tried it yet.

I don't know if you can fund good investigative journalism with micro-payments. Maybe we haven't seen it yet because there is no good system for micro-payments, but maybe the market just isn't there...

My biggest beef with all those newspapers is that they never rethought their product when they went digital. It's just the same content as the print edition, only on a screen. It would be relatively easy to link to sources and more in-depth data supporting the main article, but you hardly ever see that. It's all boiled down to a few simple graphics and tables.

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

#314
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say that, today, most people who read quality journalism do so by paying subscriptions? I'm not sure about that. The Guardian is one obvious exception, but I agree the center-right newspapers have moved to subscription. It's very broken though. The whole idea of paying a subscription for a newspaper is outdated -- it's based on the days when the head of household would select a newspaper and have it deliver…

The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist are all behind partial or full pay-walls. I'm not sure that a subscription is outdated. It still makes sense for a bunch of editors to make a selection of what is news-worthy in their opinion. Leaving it to algorithms to tailor your newsfeed to your exact tastes risks leading to a feedback loop of reinforcing biases. I like The Economist, once a…

I agree with what you're saying. But I wasn't suggesting having algorithms pick our news items; agree with what you say about reinforcing biases. I'm suggesting that in the modern era, with adults who have grown up with the internet, it doesn't make sense to ask them to pick one source and pay a monthly subscription for it; we are used to an enormous range of quality reading options. Instead I'm imagining a middleman/broker site where one can see story headlines from a large selection of newspapers and pay to read on a per-story basis or via subscription (e.g. a monthly balance but still the newspaper whose story you click on is the one that gets the micropayment). People would happily pay $20 a month or whatever to read $their_desired_monthly_number_of_words of intelligent journalism if they can choose the range of sources from which those words come. But very few will pay 4 x $20 for 4 sources. (replace $20 with whatever's right).

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

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it gets murky. They can't "sell" something but actually mean rent it. That is false advertising, and most people aren't yet accustomed to thinking in this way (i.e. playforsure). A sale is a sale and if people want to redefine it to make what amounts to a highly conditional sale (at best), we should just call that rent.

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

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Instead of cursing, read the link you posted. FSD is about disposing of a physical artifact, not how a licensed work is used, broadcast, or performed.

So, your argument is that, "how a licensed work is used, broadcast, or performed" is different than real property?

I agree. We shouldn't afford any of the rights we do to 'intellectual property' that we do to real property. Your argument is completely derived from that of the intellectual property owners (aka rentiers).

My argument is that innovation and creativity will continue with very minimal intellectual property protections.

Edit: Therefore, intellectual property protections are useless in the intent:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;…"

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

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a musician clearly puts on the package of a CD that black people cannot listen to it, is that okay?

No, just like a restaurant can refuse service for not wearing a suit jacket but not because of race. It's not even a slippery slope.

Can an artist stipulate that a music CD must only be listened to on a mac?

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

#318
post #45

At risk of being very unpopular, am I the only person that doesn't mind ads? I mean some are pretty intrusive, but largely I'm happy to make the trade off. I'll look at (and maybe click on) your ad, if it means you have the cash to bring me what I want to look at. It's fantastic to think we live in a world where the web can support itself without ads, but it's not really practical, is it? Some stuff I'd support - but…

I don't mind ads typically. I still haven't bothered to figure out how to block ads on YouTube. I started out tailoring Ghostery to just block trackers but not ads. But the clickbait ads from taboola and friends were just so terrible (grossly misleading clickbait, half-naked women, tryptophobia) that now I don't feel bad about just blocking everything.

Is Ghostery overkill if you already use NoScript?

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

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it gets murky. They can't "sell" something but actually mean rent it. That is false advertising, and most people aren't yet accustomed to thinking in this way (i.e. playforsure). A sale is a sale and if people want to redefine it to make what amounts to a highly conditional sale (at best), we should just call that rent .

> The first-sale doctrine does not neatly fit transfers of copies of digital works because an actual transfer does not actually happen -- instead, the recipient receives a new copy of the work while, at the same time, the sender has the original copy (unless that copy is deleted, either automatically or manually). For example, this exact issue played out in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., a case involving online marketplace for pre-owned digital music.

> E-books have the same issue. Because the first sale doctrine does not apply to electronic books, libraries cannot freely lend e-books indefinitely after purchase. Instead, electronic book publishers came up with business models to sell the subscriptions to the license of the text. This results in e-book publishers placing restrictions on the number of times an e-book can circulate and/or the amount of time a book is within a collection before a library’s license expires, then the book no longer belongs to them.

Legally, it does get murky in the U.S. That has nothing to do with whether it's right or not, but it does mean it's not "making shit up about what you think makes sense". It's the actual precedent described in the very article you linked.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable. Even with the ad labeling requirements relaxed, unless it is truly deceptive, a CNN could identify it just as well (or better) than we can.

> Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable Many doubted that DRM was practical to enforce.

Piracy is still booming. It kind of support my point that ad-blocking laws wouldn't be enforceable, just like anti-DRM laws.
Post reply on HN