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

421–430 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#421

Post by politician »

yndoendo wrote: post #395
chad-autry wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell, the DMCA does apply (sort of) Admiral seems to be a paywall server basically. If blocking their domain gave access to paywalled content, then the DMCA seems to apply http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-cont... However, that defense is a bit flimsy to me since the fall back to having the paywall blocked could/should be a "Paywall blocked, please disable your addblocker to gain…

To that same logic any operating system that allows editing the hosts file or running your DNS service and routing a domain name to loop-back or some other server is also liable for producing circumvention tools.

Operating a private, air-gapped LAN could be seen as circumventing ads on the Internet.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#422

Post by MichaelDickens »

bogomipz wrote: post #286

From a recent WSJ article about anti-ad blocking companies: “We really think the free internet is at risk because of ad-blocking, so these types of solutions are needed to turn the tide”, said Dan Rua, CEO of ad-blocking “revenue recovery” company Admiral, which recently raised $2.5 million to help build its platform."[1] It's amazing how selective the CEO's concern for the "free internet" is. Threatening community g…

Usually the "free" in "free internet" refers to free-as-in-speech but it sounds like Dan Rua means free as in beer. And it's true that companies are more likely to put up paywalls if they can't make money with ads but he's using the term "free internet" in a misleading way.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#423

Post by thecrazyone »

Gracana wrote: post #247
jxramos wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd rather just go a level up... You don't want users to tamper with your ads? Ok, we'll block your entire site. No tampering.

users of your list will not get this. And will stop using your list. This ending up not serving your purpose nor theirs.

For instance, let me go out on a limb and point out how some distros of linux insist on shipping without any non-free software. So, a user ends up having to go through hoops to just get an audio of video file playing. I think the analogy Im going for is, you don't want to play by our rules (our license, etc), we'll not use your software (or correspondingly block your site).

I'm trying to point out what I think is likely consequence of such an action

/impassionate comment

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#424

Post by allemagne »

mikeash wrote: post #412
allemagne wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a hurdle that Republicans already jumped over for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and don't need a single Democratic vote to do so again.

Confirmations are quite different from legislation. Most confirmations had already been reduced to only requiring a simple majority. Supreme Court was the only remaining position for which a confirmation still required 60 votes. There doesn't appear to be any movement toward changing the rules for legislation. If they were willing to do that, they wouldn't have tried so hard to squeeze the AHCA under the budget recon…

Sure. They can change the rules for legislation in much the same way they were willing to do so for Supreme Court nominations, and do it without Democrats. That confirmation rules are the same as legislation, or that Republicans were willing to use this option is obviously not what I was trying to say.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#425

Post by thecrazyone »

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #340
nilved wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they would purge it from the repo. In fact, it's questionably the case that they have abided by the DMCA order, for the very reason that it still exists in the repo history. As far as I know, DMCA takedowns normally lead to closing the entire repo.

How about don't host the code at a location which has such hostile laws?

This IMHO is the most sensible thing. There I think are a gazillion ways of serving your list which are out of reach of such laws (not necessarily US laws)

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#426

Post by thecrazyone »

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #410
hmage wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually made me think -- is there such location?

This is a good question. At least at a location where the US does not have an immediate jurisdiction. It's kinda lame, really, that the whole world has to bend over because all of these services are right there in the US. Make them work, at least. Germany, Sweden come to mind. *edit: removed a redundant word

I concur, I think until the world catches up with the innovation happening in the US (I'm guessing that's why this content is hosted on US services), we'll have to put up with this

Edit: libertarianism anybody ? :D

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#427

Post by lqdc13 »

detaro wrote: post #166
lqdc13 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still need some proxy for it to be accessible from the internet right?

If by "internet" you mean your browser/over HTTP, then yes. But the IPFS client provides exactly that, on your local machine, without any restrictions. If you offer it to the public, you can choose your own policy on copyrighted etc. content.

I mean it's unusable to the general public since IPFS network is not accessible via the browser without a proxy.

In other words, one would first have to integrate an IPFS client into all major browsers.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#429

Post by kelnos »

jxramos wrote: post #296
throwawaywonk wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

I'm not sure if its a matter of forgetting but about not knowing the contours of the boundaries of what's permissible and seeing a straightforward workaround as a proposition which also serves to give feedback regarding why or why not the proposition would be tenable. Evaluating a concrete technical solution in light of some legal matter should do well to illuminate and draw attention to the crux of the problem. I gu…

It's not specifically about the DMCA; it's about legal issues in general. Intent matters in the vast majority of law. You'd be hard-pressed to argue in front of a judge that your intent wasn't to block this specific site, based on the sequence of events:

1. Site added to block list.

2. Site removed from block list due to DMCA takedown request.

3. Site block by new rule added that doesn't target it directly.

I can't imagine any judge or jury looking at that sequence events and then taking you seriously when you say "I didn't intend to block the original site".

The parent's point was more along the lines of: people in the tech world need to stop looking for technical solutions to all problems. Some problems are social problems, or legal problems. They should be solved directly, not with awkward (or possibly illegal or at least tort-worthy) workarounds. We talk about chilling effects and corporations engaging in anti-social behavior when they threaten open source and the open web in particular, but attacking social/legal problems with technological workarounds is itself also anti-social.

Not saying that technological solutions are not useful sometimes. In the short-term, you can often make a bad social or legal problem less bad by using a tech workaround, while simultaneously taking the long slog toward fixing the root of the problem. But putting tech band-aids over our problems and then walking away will only hurt us in the long run.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#430

Post by manigandham »

michaelmrose wrote: post #370
manigandham wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument really gets old. Morally you know what you're doing. Most people would be fine blocking the big dozen or so of the most offensive ad networks but this extreme approach (especially when the publisher is trying to offer you choices) just comes off as ridiculous.

Morally maybe we just ought to kill off their entire industry because the world is a worse place with them in it?

What entire industry? Advertising? And how is the world worse because of it?

Do you realize just how much advertising funds? It's a 12 figure global industry and 99% of the content you consume is funded in part by it - and that's before we get to how advertising drives the economy by efficiently matching businesses to customers. Every company relies on advertising (whether paid, word-of-mouth, etc) to succeed.

It's irrational to see so much hate and it's likely your complaint is really only about intrusive ad formats and data privacy. That is something I agree with and I'm for every change that makes for safer, better, and more private ads, but that is vastly different than calling for the elimination of advertising in any sensible reality.

Post reply on HN