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

131–140 of 377 posts

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

#131

Post by yeahsure »

BoorishBears wrote: post #117
saguro wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

If you don’t consent why view their content? And I’d like an answer for once other than the super literal “Because their server returned the status code 200” Because sure, it did, but if we’re turning this into an ideological discussion of how you feel you haven’t given permission, why even feed the system with your view. Even using an ad blocked you’re still adding views to the page, and the powers that be will simp…

Going through the trouble of clicking/closing a few ads is not the same as having your information being added to an ever-growing file that major corporations have on everyone.

And you can't say "just don't visit the site" because pretty much every site does this. You might as well say "just quit the internet" which obviously is not a solution.

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

#132

Post by saguro »

BoorishBears wrote: post #130
saguro wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me you are consenting the moment you decide to use services and websites that cost millions of dollars to maintain and expecting and paying little to nothing compared to the real cost of those services. That's not how consent works, if it was then I would just claim that by establishing a connection to my computer, the remote website consents to my rules including ad blocking. My computer is mine, I have the rig…

I guess my point is you’re also not obliged to use their services. I don’t understand the entitlement of “I shouldn’t have to play ball by their rules but I also want to use the ball until it deflates” Your response is just a variation of the “They returned status code 200” argument which I explain as really just supporting the system albeit half-heartedly. If you really hate them so much (I mean, you’re fine with th…

If anyone is wondering what greater harm comes from the advertising industry than just showing obnoxious images, it's this.

Consumers becoming so brain washed, so accepting of the advertising status quo that they actually defend it even though everything about it is against their personal interests.

> I don’t understand the entitlement

There is no entitlement, it's a right. I am exercising my right as the operator of this PC to connect to content providers and display their content however the fuck I want within the confines of the law. The law doesn't give them any right to extract revenue from me if I choose to opt out. If they have a problem with that, they have the right try to block me within the confines of the law. And I have the right to bypass that block within the confines of the law.

Let me put it another way. Your sentiment is way more pliant and ethical than the sentiment of the guys who run the ad industry. Your job history, drinking habits, sex habits, food preferences, mental health, personal aspirations, etc - all of this stuff is up for sale to anyone in the advertising circles. The only thing missing is your credit card number and name/address so it's not 'technically' PIA even though correlating all of it back to you is trivial and everyone knows it. I thought I was paranoid about ads, and then I landed a job in the ad industry and realized my worst paranoia was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what actually goes on.

Don't defend the guys who are fucking you, stand up for your rights.

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

#136

Post by doesnt_know »

I'd be happy to install an extension that blocks all sites/content that consider viewing ads a prerequisite for accessing their content.

I run an ad/analytic blocker, and I will never turn it off. I also understand that content creation and hosting costs money. If you're not a company that I already give money to (bank, insurance, other meat space service) then I accept the ad-for-content relationship and choose not to view the content.

The biggest problems are that I can't scale randomly adding domains to a host file, and it's difficult to know the intent of content creators/owners regarding ads.

It would be nice to have a signal, maybe a html tag in the header or something to state the intent regarding ads. I would set my browser/an extension to honor it and block access to content instead of accepting ads.

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

#137

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

lousken wrote: post #16

Disabling javascript is the best anti-anti-adblock solution. I wish chrome added an option for tampermonkey scripts to be run with disabled js, that would make this solution perfect.

I've found Policy Control [0] to generally be a better choice than completely disabling JavaScript. Way fewer sites break with my defaults: disabling third-party resources and requests prevent most ads and trackers.

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

#138

Post by BoorishBears »

yeahsure wrote: post #131
BoorishBears wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t consent why view their content? And I’d like an answer for once other than the super literal “Because their server returned the status code 200” Because sure, it did, but if we’re turning this into an ideological discussion of how you feel you haven’t given permission, why even feed the system with your view. Even using an ad blocked you’re still adding views to the page, and the powers that be will simp…

Going through the trouble of clicking/closing a few ads is not the same as having your information being added to an ever-growing file that major corporations have on everyone. And you can't say "just don't visit the site" because pretty much every site does this. You might as well say "just quit the internet" which obviously is not a solution.

Why isn’t it a solution?

It’s not true that every site does this, but yes, most are funded by the model that relies on your information being sold and used to build a profile of you.

If you don’t support that model why buy into the system? After all, the content minus ads was still written and designed to drive ad revenue. Any conflict of interest between driving ad revenue and conveying information (ie. uninformative clickbait) in the content is still affecting the end result even if you never see the ads.

Why not compile a list of sites that don’t track you and offer paid services that can provide what you’re looking for?

Will you be limited? Very! Will you be feeding the system you apparently have deep seated qualms about? No! And if it means that much to you, I think you should be very happy.

If the system is broken enough that enough people go that route, companies will chase the money. If users are willing to pay enough to cover the real, un-intrusive-ad-tracking-subsidized cost of content, companies will jump for joy at not having to deal with ad networks and pay people to optimize for ads and just take your money directly.

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

#139

Post by Thorncorona »

imgabe wrote: post #97
ISL wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If anybody listened to your advice then search engines, stack overflow, web forums, news agencies, and Reddit would simply disappear.

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

#140

Post by leeoniya »

true_religion wrote: post #128
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 article took 7.8 seconds to "fully" load for me, however the text was readable in under 300ms. Loading ads of screen doesn't bother me. Also, I'm not sure where the irony is here. They're talking about anti-adblocking, so it's hardly ironic that they use advertisements themselves.

> Loading ads of screen doesn't bother me.

congratulations!

    - you now have 70 new tracking cookies
    - a degraded battery
    - have exceeded your bandwidth allotment
    - probably some malware payload that exfiltrated your contacts via a 0-day XSS
    - almost certainly slower UI/scrolling performance
> Also, I'm not sure where the irony is here.

the irony of degrading people's experience [via popups, countdowns, etc] who refuse to load slow and annoying ads.

Post reply on HN