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

Ad blocking is under attack

blog.adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#31

Post by koolba »

ransom1538 wrote: post #22
Spivak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't joke. You really don't want to see these kinds of ravenous lawyers try to define website access not from an 'approved' browser as unauthorized access under the CFAA.

You could add to your TOS which browsers are approved. Using an unapproved browser would violate the current CFAA - under the current interpretation. Federal felony 1-5 years.

And then submit a subpoena for all users that have installed a user agent switcher plugin. Because clearly they're all criminals with nefarious intent.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#32

Post by anilgulecha »

It was admiral that did this: https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-...

They even clearly state they used the only tool available to them, DCMA. From all the current summaries on this, DMCA does not apply to a line entry in easylist. A domain can be trademarked.

This should be added back in. And if github cannot standup to DMCA abuse, then well, easylist and all other developers should be giving a clear hard though to their continued use of the github platform.

Edit: it looks like EFF has gotten in touch with easylist. Good. https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f...

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#34

Post by tehlike »

richardknop wrote: post #25
aphextron wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which results every single time in choosing option C: the browser back button.

Some of the websites that do that have solid content though. Not good enough for me to pay them though so I end up clicking the back button and using alternative sources.

soon, someone will implement one-subscription for online content - something like netflix.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#35

Post by gepoch »

richardknop wrote: post #4

There has been a growing trend of websites that will ask me to either: a) whitelist their site in my adblocker b) or subscribe to their monthly subscription and keep reading their site with adblocker

Call me crazy, but this seems like a pretty honorable scheme for profiting off of content.

Someone put effort in to create content, and has the option of putting this kind of paywall up. There is a consumer choice made to sell their own attention by viewing ads, pay a subscription fee for the content directly, or just move on to free content elsewhere.

That said, most places where you pay the subscription fee will ALSO show you ads and silently sell your data, but still... The above scheme feels reasonable in principle.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#36

Post by whipoodle »

anilgulecha wrote: post #32

It was admiral that did this: https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-... They even clearly state they used the only tool available to them, DCMA. From all the current summaries on this, DMCA does not apply to a line entry in easylist. A domain can be trademarked. This should be added back in. And if github cannot standup to DMCA abuse, then well, easylist and all other developers should be giving…

They say it's not an ad server but it sounds like one.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#38

Post by anilgulecha »

whipoodle wrote: post #36
anilgulecha wrote: post #32

It was admiral that did this: https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-... They even clearly state they used the only tool available to them, DCMA. From all the current summaries on this, DMCA does not apply to a line entry in easylist. A domain can be trademarked. This should be added back in. And if github cannot standup to DMCA abuse, then well, easylist and all other developers should be giving…

They say it's not an ad server but it sounds like one.

It's a "detect-adblocker" service.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#39

Post by rhizome »

wnevets wrote: post #9

a DCMA request for listing a inherently public domain name? Am I the only one confused?

No. It's appears to be a weird situation, described poorly by all sides, each of whom appear to be highly concerned with promoting themselves within their explanations.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#40

Post by Filligree »

krisdol wrote: post #24
aphextron wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which results every single time in choosing option C: the browser back button.

Usually two or three times because fuck sites who hijack browser history because I scroll a little too far

It's fine if they're just letting you bookmark the particular spot in the page, but this is what replaceState is for. pushState is definitely wrong.
Post reply on HN