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

251–260 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#251

Post by throwawaywonk »

jxramos wrote: post #237
vinylkey wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in that blog post, they state: "We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit." Their request is here: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562... And was made by this account: https://github.com/dmcahelper So, they made a github account the same day they made the "request" with an account that in no way indicates where the request is coming from? The github p…

I wonder if folks could get sneaky and change the design from a literal url to a regular expression tailored to single out that url but would also include additional sites that are just gibberish and could be relaxed if useful sites ever do fall into the URL overlap. This might be a new line of research to craft regExs to filter out a specific string while also throwing out a bunch of sister gibberish strings that wo…

Why is it that the tech set always forgets that CS pedantry != legal pedantry? Have we forgotten about intent? You can't just change the line to a regex that /just happens/ to match that URL and go "neener neener neener it's not the same!" Are you willing to argue in court that that line was changed and it /just so happened/ to match the domain from before? Do you have a plausible explanation for why that change would've been made that doesn't involve "well, we were trying to creatively skirt a DMCA takedown request"?

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#252

Post by manigandham »

aphextron wrote: post #18
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

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

That's honestly what they would prefer if you're not going to make them any money. It's fair to both sides.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#253

Post by djsumdog »

marksomnian wrote: post #30
aphextron wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or D: add the popup asking me to disable my adblocker... to my adblocker. Only works on some sites, but where it does it's effective.

If I'm really interested, I might open the inspector and delete the offending div, but often scroll is still hijacked or I'll delete div after div up the stack only to accidentally delete the content too.

It's a pain and it's often easier to use the cached version from a search engine or some archiving service.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#255

Post by dustinmr »

cwkoss wrote: post #193

Everyone should contact their investors. "Your portfolio company @getadmiral is committing fraud by filing false DMCA requests. Can you fix this?" Birchmere Ventures Florida Gulfshore Capital Florida Institute for the Commercialization of Public Research Mosley Ventures New World Angels https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/admiral-2#/entity If they are made aware a portfolio company is committing fraud, hopefully…

It would also be great if a list of their customers could be found/generated/etc. That is, if they have any yet.

Seems like one to add to the hosts file forever.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#256

Post by danarmak »

goodplay wrote: post #215
danarmak wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIUC, the DMCA says that if there's some technological mechanism X that's used to enforce copyright, and a tool Y that is (or can be) used to circumvent X, then making or distributing Y is itself illegal (as opposed to the act of using Y to circumvent X, which is already illegal even without the DMCA). The DMCA then provides a notice-based method for 'taking down' online copies of Y. In this case, X is the Admiral te…

What does ad-blocking have to do with copyright circumvention or copyright enforcement? The only think on that list is the domain name. I'm certain that including a name in a list does not fall under copyright (ample precedent that backs it up). In the unlikey (and unfathomable) case that it is protected under copyright, I bet it would fall under fair use. Trademark law isn't relevant to an entry in a machine databas…

Admiral's domain serves software that enforces access restrictions to copyrighted content. Including their domain in an ad-blocking list is a way to circumvent the restrictions.

Whether distributing a list of domain names counts as distributing "tools" or whatever the exact language of the act is, I don't know. This other subthread contains a better discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14991624

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#257

Post by manigandham »

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

Is this a complaint? I find this perfectly reasonable if you're browsing their content which they would like to be paid for.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#259

Post by djsumdog »

njharman wrote: post #58
tehlike wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You realize that everyone CBS, Disney, everyone is starting their own subscription service and (for many) pulling out of Netflix. Besides grasping at maintaining stranglehold over distribution. They are hoping to replicate the cable model. Pay for the base package where all the crap no one wants is, then pay for all these extra premium packages.

It's kinda like the channels a-la-carte they've fought against for two decades.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#260

Post by basseq »

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

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. "Unblock or Subscribe" misses the point. The the point is this: I don't trust you.

I don't trust you not to show me scammy ads, load 2MB of tracking JS, maliciously redirect me, or generally ruin my overall user experience with your content you claim is so valuable. So I run an ad-blocker. I'm blocking your infrastructure because I don't trust it and blocking your ads because I question your judgement.

And the only other option you offer me is for me to give you my credit card number!? To infrastructure I don't trust and to a company whose judgement is in question.

Nope.

Post reply on HN