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

131–140 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#131

Post by warrenm »

ballenf wrote: post #94
firefoxd wrote: post #55

I use privacy badger, and unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't use a list to block content, it just blocks any 3rd party request that send cookie information. Why are we relying on a list?

That approach might not be enough: https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/issues/95 Edit: the linked issue is regard "instart" which seems to exploit a Chromium flaw that allows it to disguise third-party cookies as first-party, preventing filtering based on that categorization alone. It seems it's getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were originally intended.

>getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were originally intended

That's because people want to Do Cool Stuff™ in their browsers - ie, they don't want to merely "browse"

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#132

Post by zb3 »

digital_trench wrote: post #99
zb3 wrote: post #60

If in the future I am forced to view ads, I won't click on them and I won't buy any products advertised via forced ads.

But the ad will leave residue on your brain. So you are still being advertised to.

Well the point was that we should reward ads that aren't forced on us, or at least the ones that try to be as nice as possible. Intrusive advertising should not work...

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#133

Post by cft »

otterley wrote: post #114
cft wrote: post #93

It's amazing that they are so uneducated about DMCA. This is called defective DMCA notice, and it should be ignored. The sender of the notice can now file a suit, since the publisher of the list is no longer under safe harbor. But they won't, since they know it is defective. And if they did, it would be thrown out with a summary judgment.

What, specifically, was defective about the notice?

The notice does not list the copyrighted works that are being infringed (I.e. made publicly available). This is the necessary element of a valid DMCA notice.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#135

Post by discreditable »

mnarayan01 wrote: post #19

Via https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/a4d380ad1a3b33a0... by one of the Easylist maintainers: > If it is a Circumvention/Adblock-Warning adhost, it should be removed from Easylist even without the need for a DMCA request. Anyone know why he's saying this? Edit: I guess he's referring to the following via https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adblock-guide-for-site-a... : > Anti-Adblock should only be challeng…

> Anyone know why he's saying this?

Because their business model depends on it working.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#136

Post by benchaney »

skymt wrote: post #82
gremlinsinc wrote: post #13

Wonder if we could create a git in the blockchain... where DMCA just can't exist/happen since there's no central authority to ask to take stuff down...

Copyright law doesn't care what technology you use to store and distribute material. If you have a blockchain that contains unauthorized copyrighted material, any host participating in that network would be legally subject to DMCA requests by the copyright holder. What would the defense look like in court, anyway? "We can't stop illegally distributing the plaintiff's content because that would break the chain?" In ef…

You are overlooking the fact that there is no actual DMCA violation in this case. The problem is that companies being bullied with frivolous DMCA threats will comply because it is easier than fighting it. Using a blockchain removes this as an option (and also makes the bullying pointless in the first place).

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#137

Post by jmilloy »

richardknop wrote: post #51
gepoch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 AL…

Perhaps. They are losing people like me though. I will never pay for a subscription to read a website and I will continue using adblockers to get rid of annoying ads. But they could still profit from me. There are less annoying ways to monetize which I might accept. For example affiliate links to buy products I am interested in (books, video games, gadgets). I'd be willing to pay % extra for some nice product in orde…

Why would they care about extra traffic referred to their site if they can't profit from traffic (other than with even more traffic)?

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#139

Post by dylz »

ballenf wrote: post #94
firefoxd wrote: post #55

I use privacy badger, and unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't use a list to block content, it just blocks any 3rd party request that send cookie information. Why are we relying on a list?

That approach might not be enough: https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/issues/95 Edit: the linked issue is regard "instart" which seems to exploit a Chromium flaw that allows it to disguise third-party cookies as first-party, preventing filtering based on that categorization alone. It seems it's getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were originally intended.

Instart is a MITM service like Cloudflare. It more or less partners with adproviders to serve thirdparty requests through a proxy on the first party domain.

Not so much a flaw.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#140

Post by dylz »

ballenf wrote: post #94
firefoxd wrote: post #55

I use privacy badger, and unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't use a list to block content, it just blocks any 3rd party request that send cookie information. Why are we relying on a list?

That approach might not be enough: https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/issues/95 Edit: the linked issue is regard "instart" which seems to exploit a Chromium flaw that allows it to disguise third-party cookies as first-party, preventing filtering based on that categorization alone. It seems it's getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were originally intended.

Instart is a MITM service like Cloudflare. It more or less partners with adproviders to serve thirdparty requests through a proxy on the first party domain.

Not so much a flaw.

Post reply on HN