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

Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 377 posts

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#91

Post by saguro »

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #67

I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.

I use an ad blocker for a much simpler reason. I do not consent to having my behavior analyzed. Calling these things `ads` is deliberately misleading. The primary purpose of these things isn't to show you an ad, its to record everything you do on every site you visit, so then that data can be correlated to your credit history and other real world sources to profile you and optimally manipulate your behavior to sell you shit.

Just wondering how many people here noticed that pornhub injects google analytics, and gives google unscrutinized access to your sexual preferences and habits? They don't even bother showing a google ad, they just let them inject their arbitrary js payload.

I do not consent. They can fuck right off.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#92

Post by rc_bhg »

nerdponx wrote: post #79

I've started noticing this from Google, among others. Tracking scripts are no longer explicitly named as such, or they're prefixed with some slug or GUID alongside the legitimate "functional" scripts. It's getting to a point where you need to actively monitor every network request the site makes. It's despicable and I have nothing but ill will for the data scientists, software engineers, and product managers who part…

.. I mean, they would not have jobs if they did not participate in it.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#93

Post by dghughes »

paulcole wrote: post #76
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #67

I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.

>I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. This is extremely hyperbolic. Why not just, you know, not visit those websites if their business model is so abhorrent to you? Do you feel entitled to something for nothing?

After seeing the same damn advertisement 100 times what is the point? It becomes tedious and pointless for me and the advertiser. So I block ads.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#94

Post by nojvek »

rc_bhg wrote: post #92
nerdponx wrote: post #79

I've started noticing this from Google, among others. Tracking scripts are no longer explicitly named as such, or they're prefixed with some slug or GUID alongside the legitimate "functional" scripts. It's getting to a point where you need to actively monitor every network request the site makes. It's despicable and I have nothing but ill will for the data scientists, software engineers, and product managers who part…

.. I mean, they would not have jobs if they did not participate in it.

Google + FB, the worlds largest online advertising companies lose probably billions to ad blockers.

I’m sure quite a number of people got nice bonuses and promos for bringing some of that revenue back.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#95

Post by r00fus »

nojvek wrote: post #94
rc_bhg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. I mean, they would not have jobs if they did not participate in it.

Google + FB, the worlds largest online advertising companies lose probably billions to ad blockers. I’m sure quite a number of people got nice bonuses and promos for bringing some of that revenue back.

Lose? They have monopoly positions in their respective markets and we have little choice.

While I personally avoid FB and use DDG, most folks can't or aren't allowed to (no extensions).

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#96

Post by PhantomGremlin »

joering2 wrote: post #77
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #67

I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.

It wasn't that it was slow for me; I got i9 with 64 ram and things speed up tremendously from my last i7... the huge problem is insecurity! Lots of website have no control over what ads are popping up! Drudge Report is probably the most frightening! All the time popups of "outdated" Adobe Flash (that I dont have at all), installation of recent updates of Windows 7 (even tho Im on Win 10)... recently I had some sort o…

Drudge Report is probably the most frightening!

That particular site is highly functional without allowing any JavaScript at all. All links work. All non-advertising images load.

By default I just don't allow JS. Thank you NoScript. Many sites that won't display anything without JS can be viewed by View -> Page Style -> No Style.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#97

Post by imgabe »

ISL wrote: post #57
sharpercoder wrote: post #56

I wish content suppliers would listen more to clients. Clients want more content without ads, so why not invest more into offering content without ads?

Content suppliers would like to eat. Many clients don't want to pay for content, and nobody has yet figured out how to make micropayments blossom.

Here's a hint: if nobody wants to pay for what you're selling, sell something else.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#98

Post by ljk »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #75
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #67

I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.

"I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable" What sites are unusable? Aside from some click-bait destinations like BuzzFeed I've found the web without ad blockers works well enough.

most local news websites are loaded with 30+ scripts running in the background

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#99

Post by PhantomGremlin »

leeoniya wrote: post #42

the irony on full display (at the linked article) in chrome devtools / record perf timeline and network log. incognito: 4.4mb, 7000ms scripting, 365 requests, onload: 7600ms with uMatrix (no third party shit): 612kb, 190ms of scripting, 56 requests, onload: 500ms this is on a 300MBit connection

The linked article is highly readable and loads very quickly simply by disabling all JavaScript on the site. Which I do by default. Thank you NoScript.

Re: Many major websites are taking silent anti-ad-blocking measures

#100

Post by seepel »

paulcole wrote: post #76
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #67

I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.

>I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. This is extremely hyperbolic. Why not just, you know, not visit those websites if their business model is so abhorrent to you? Do you feel entitled to something for nothing?

I honestly used to browse the web without an adblocker and bounce from the site if it was too bad. About a year ago I ended up getting so fed up with not being able to visit pretty much any site that I installed one. I’m totally fine with being served ads, and recognize that it will even come with some not so friendly user tracking. Surely it must be possible to both serve me your content and ads at the same time. My only explanation is that it is pure laziness on all sides. The content maker gets paid if they display ads, the ad network gets paid if they fill ad slots, and the advertiser somehow sells more product (this I’m more skeptical of). So no one in that chain ever bothers to think of the end user.
Post reply on HN