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

511–520 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#511

Post by rsync »

elihu wrote: post #473
TheKarateKid wrote: post #324

I hate to say it, but the ad-blocking community is handling this problem the same way governments often handle things: Reactionary instead of pro-active. The real source of the problem with ads, is that almost every ad network allows ads to be self posted with little to no filter. This opens us all up to the abuse from ads we've been experiencing for over a decade now. Could you imagine what would happen if you were…

I like NPR's approach to broadcast ads: their own commentators read a short little script, rather than playing an audio clip that was provided to them. There are various ways this can and has been applied to Internet ads, like making them text-only. On the other side of things, I would love to see a search engine that pushes sites down in its rankings proportionally to the obnoxiousness of their ads.

"I like NPR's approach to broadcast ads: their own commentators read a short little script"

This is not always true - for instance, the "brought to you by" slots at the beginning of the PBS Newshour are advertiser-supplied audio clips.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#512

Post by makecheck »

nkkollaw wrote: post #101

I didn't get what the hell happened. So, Admiral—an anti-adblocker company—contacted EasyList and told them to remove a domain from their list. This domain was a server they needed for their anti-adblocker platform to work. EasyList told Admiral that they would only do it if GitHub agreed, so Admiral contacted GitHub and the domain was removed from the EasyList list after GitHub told EasyList they should comply. The…

The idea of "removing" a name seems technically unreasonable too. Lists may legitimately be pattern-based (like "ads.*.net" for instance, where ads.targetdomain.net technically matches too).

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#513

Post by userbinator »

One should not need to think too much to realise that if this is allowed to continue, it will set a dangerous precedent of effectively removing the freedom to close one's eyes --- hitherto, it seemed to be accepted even among the strongest DRM supporters that consumers had the right to not consume content they didn't want. They've tried to force (or perhaps "encourage" is the wording they prefer) consumers to consume with things like unskippable video adverts and warnings in DVDs, but AFAIK it's absolutely not illegal to look away (perhaps even at a different TV) or go do something else while that content is playing; now, by effectively trying to say that blocking or denying oneself from consuming --- or letting one's browser or other technology through which one consumes --- certain content, is illegal, they are trying to make it legally enforceable to consume content.

I wish all those who are involved or support such insanity would be themselves strapped tightly in front of a computer or TV, with eyelids glued open, and subjected to this force-feeding of content they don't want to see.

Ultimately, this loss of control of one's eyes, ears, and mind is something I strongly abhor, strong enough to express in a manner I normally don't partake in: fuck this shit!

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#514

Post by hunter2_ »

heretoo wrote: post #507
hunter2_ wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a site can't make me pay, and doesn't want it's content to be viewed unless I pay, simply don't send me the content. I'm fully on your side here, but to play devil's advocate, I think it's fair to consider an analogy like "if a restaurant doesn't want its food to be consumed unless I pay, simply don't serve me the food." You ask a server (of the web or the hospitality variety) to serve you the usual. The server…

So, they serve you the food, and you pay for it. But, you choose not to eat the raw onions they've served with the meal. This would be the analogy of choosing not to render html/javascript content.

At the risk of destroying my efforts at being reasonable, suppose it's an "if you eat the whole thing, it's free" situation, except there is no "$19.99 if you can't finish" else clause. You know that they didn't offer an else, yet you eat anyway, and you slip your onions into the plant in the corner.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#515

Post by nilved »

justinmayer wrote: post #419
Hoshea wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not be a bad idea to report this user via GitHub's "block or report" feature when viewing that account: https://github.com/dmcahelper That type of behavior can only be bad for open source software. Threats like "to minimize file and repository impacts" are going to push more folks toward private repositories if they don't understand that it's not an actual authority pressing them into making changes on a given…

Agreed. I just reported that account ( https://github.com/dmcahelper ) for submitting spurious DMCA takedown requests. GitHub personnel responded promptly: Hi Justin, Thanks for writing in. We're looking at the account. All best, (GitHub employee name redacted) GitHub is listening. Please consider reporting this account, which can be done via the link above. Look for Block or report user link under the user descripti…

How does that non-response (the same one they pasted to me) give you the impression they're listening? For one, they have done nothing to address the issue of flagrant DMCA abuse. For two, the account is still active. For three, the commit hasn't been reverted.

This is not the first time this has happened.[0] GitHub's response has been woefully inadequate and OSS maintainers should consider using another platform. Everyone using GitHub is vulnerable to suddenly and arbitrarily losing their repository.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5331766

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#516

Post by cyphar »

Animats wrote: post #339
cyphar wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From all the current summaries on this, DMCA does not apply to a line entry in easylist. A domain can be trademarked. I believe you can trademark a domain, but trademarks are irrelevant to this discussion. The DMCA is a copyright law. The key questions are: a) Can you have copyright over a domain? (According to https://copyright.gov , no) b) If you could, would having a list of them constitute fair use? (Almost cer…

It's not clear how trademarks would apply here. I can write "General Motors". I can write about General Motors. I just can't impersonate General Motors or their products. That's trademark.

That was my point. GP mentioned trademarks for no reason and I said that the DMCA is a copyright law (that's what the C stands for), and that trademark law is irrelevant to this discussion. I also agree that even if trademarks mattered in this case, it still wouldn't be infringement.

On the other hand, it looks like it was an improper use of the DMCA because they're claiming that EasyList is an anti-circumvention tool (effectively arguing that it breaks DRM).

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#517

Post by srcmap »

ascorbic wrote: post #467
jfoutz wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim is about copyrighted material thus DMCA, right? the only reason that string appears is for matching. The intent is for identification, not stealing someone else's copyrighted material. If there's a better way to match than comparing to a literal copy then we should do that. Ideally, one regex that matches all offending domains and no others.

They're not claiming copyright on the domain name. They're saying that by blocking it, they're violating the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA.

We wish they claiming copyright on the domain name.

In that case, we are legally require to update all DNS servers' entries to remove that name permanently. :-)

Or alias it to 0.0.0.0 !!!

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#518

Post by sjwright »

ascorbic wrote: post #467
jfoutz wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim is about copyrighted material thus DMCA, right? the only reason that string appears is for matching. The intent is for identification, not stealing someone else's copyrighted material. If there's a better way to match than comparing to a literal copy then we should do that. Ideally, one regex that matches all offending domains and no others.

They're not claiming copyright on the domain name. They're saying that by blocking it, they're violating the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA.

Except it's not the list which is blocking it, it's the browser plugin...

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#519

Post by warcher »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #495
warcher wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument would be that, say, the New York Times wrote an article, and that article included ads for their sponsor. This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material. I'm a hardline free speech dude, but I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." If you don't like ads, pay up or go elsewhere…

> I'm a hardline free speech dude, but I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." How? How can that possibly be hard to justify for anyone that even believes vaguely in the notion of freedom, much less someone "hardline"? Do you think I break the law (or ethics) if I take the ads insert out of a newspaper I buy without reading them? How about if…

I get in a lot of arguments with dudes who believe they have a right to stuff other people made without payment or consequence. The last one I remember is a bunch of DJs who didn't want to get permission to use samples.

I find the arguments pretty spurious and it's best not to engage.

It's their website. If you don't like their website, we got a whole other internet to enjoy.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#520

Post by [deleted] »

notyourday wrote: post #363
dangrossman wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Github take on unlimited liability for someone else's code? If a judge agrees that blocking this anti-circumvention technology is illegal (something the DMCA does prohibit), and Github had refused to take it down (which means they don't get safe harbor), then Github is the first-party that is liable for distributing that illegal technology, probably many millions of times. When you start taking statutory f…

Because it does not accept unlimited liability by following DMCA takedown procedure. Following it places Github into the DMCA safe-harbor. Not following it opens Github to liability. This is what should have happened: 1. Github is served with a DMCA Takedown notice 2. Github validates that the notice is valid 3. Github takes down the $FILE or $REPO 4. Owner of the Repo contacts Github 5. Github notifies the owner of…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN