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

141–150 of 377 posts

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

#141

Post by briffle »

Washuu wrote: post #82
username223 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like how many YouTube channels take 30 seconds out of a 10 minute video to talk about some company's product that might be of interest to their audience. I like how many podcasts have ads with predictable lengths, so I can skip them with the "fast forward" button without hearing them. NPR is 4 skips; Slate is 8-10. It seems like "deep learning" should have figured this out by now.

TV scene pirates use machine learning to automatically cut advertisement breaks from ripped shows before they get uploaded.

The newest version of Plex DVR software can cut commercials out of your recorded video too

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

#142

Post by threatofrain »

I find that ad blocking is a must for older relatives, and I think anyone managing technological access for the elderly ought to also be installing ad block.

Advertisers love to scare old people in every way, and then peddling them scam solutions and pills.

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

#143

Post by nasredin »

lwansbrough wrote: post #22
makecheck wrote: post #2

Interesting how the response of sites with terrible user experiences caused by ad tech is not to say “oh, how can we change our ads so people will accept them?” but rather to find ways to make their user experiences even more horrible, e.g. popping up new unwanted interruptions accusing you of having an ad-blocker. Hey big web sites, here is the solution, and I won’t even charge you for it: stop making terrible user…

> Interesting how the response of sites with terrible user experiences caused by ad tech is not to say “oh, how can we change our ads so people will accept them?” but rather to find ways to make their user experiences even more horrible, e.g. popping up new unwanted interruptions accusing you of having an ad-blocker. That's not how online advertising works. If a user doesn't like ads, they block all ads indiscriminat…

>But the onus of correcting the problem lies in the hands of BOTH adblocker developers AND the online ads industry (including publishers, exchanges, and advertisers.)

Disagree.

Adblock developers should block ads.

Advertising-surveillance companies should die.

Website owners should personally vet AND HOST ads on their sites.

It's all very simple in my opinion.

---

Why do you think adblocking is such a "problem" for some? Because almost all ads are hosted on third party servers.

I know a couple small blogs that host image ads on the side of the page and it's not blocked in any default ABP lists.

The "adbros" brought this upon themselves. This war on our minds is so pervasive they got fanboys on most major tech forums always defending them. These people are either in the industry themselves or suffering from the Battered Wife Syndrome:

"If only adblock developers weren't so mean... maybe these adbros would stop pushing malware and spying on us".

Also "gorhill" is an asshole.

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

#144

Post by paulie_a »

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.

I've noticed recently that every Google news links to major publications are 70 percent ads 30 percent content. (That is a rough guess) but my point is, the web has increasingly aggressive and largely pointless ads. I will aggressively block them, or click them to ruin metrics one ad at a time

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

#145

Post by BoorishBears »

saguro wrote: post #132
BoorishBears wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’d argue you’re pretty much just ignoring my larger points and nitpicking very specific excerpts and ignoring the context of them to make a point that’s not entirely new in the thread then appealing to emotion with what was supposed to be jarring commentary but just comes across as ranting. I mean you spent something like 70% if your commenting trying to dissect half of a sentence in my comment.

And, I don’t appreciate being called brainwashed... this is barely a step above ranting about sheeple.

You points about my profile I guess are supposed to be alarming but are not news to me. I’m fine with all of that being for sale. Correlating it back to a person is trivial... until you try and do it at scale and evaluate the risk vs reward. Risk is very very high and gets exponentially higher at scale, and reward is almost nonexistent until you do it at scale. And are guards that add enough friction to make it not worthwhile often.

Sure there are cracks in the system, but seeing as I can’t pay what the content I consume is worth, I accept the risk gladly.

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

#146

Post by themistocle »

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…

Individual choices are insignificant. The future of advertising is being planned by Facebook and Google. Blocking advertisments is a workaround for a broken web. Surfing the web has always been about discovery. Are we supposed to intuit whether or not to visit a site for the first time based on how we predict it will align to some kind of ad rubric? The fact that many websites have bad business models is noone’s fault but their own. In fact, tools like AdNauseum[0] show how broken this moralistic consumer thinking is:

Block all ads?

> That’s robbing sites of needed advertising click-dollars!

Click all ads?

> That’s robbing advertising companies of needed attention!

This is totalitarian capitalism: it’s not good enough to accept being tracked everywhere, spied on, and burdened with processing advertising. Not good enough even to click every ad. You must love the ads in your heart. It’s your duty, citizen!

0. https://adnauseam.io/

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

#147

Post by michaelmrose »

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 choose what runs on my machine.It is bizaarly entitled in fact to believe that viewing a website obligates me to run software of your choosing on my machine.

If operators want something from me they can ask for it. They can ask for money and I'll decide whether to provide it or they can demand I look at ads by refusing to work without ads.

If they want to connect to 37 different domains, ruin my battery life, unexpectedly play sound and video, or mine bitcoin the answer is probably no.

If the resource is valuable enough or If they simply want to load a singular resource that doesn't itself consume much compute or bandwidth I might consent to let them.

How many other industries rely on adversarial relationships with the people that ultimately keep their business running.

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

#148

Post by stewbrew »

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.

They don't lose billions because some people hide annoying stuff that makes their pages esesstially unusable and have no extra benefit because ... I personally don't think this kind of online marketing actually works. I cannot imagine someone actually buying something because of some meaningless text snippet, a stupid blinking image or a video clip.

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

#149

Post by BoorishBears »

themistocle wrote: post #146
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…

Individual choices are insignificant. The future of advertising is being planned by Facebook and Google. Blocking advertisments is a workaround for a broken web. Surfing the web has always been about discovery. Are we supposed to intuit whether or not to visit a site for the first time based on how we predict it will align to some kind of ad rubric? The fact that many websites have bad business models is noone’s faul…

I think you’re playing up a false dichotomy here.

Block all the ads?

That’s robbing sites of needed dollars.

Click all the ads?

That’s robbing advertisers of needed dollars.

The end game in both cases is ads become worth less, or worthless. It doesn’t matter which side of the scale you tip to cause that.

It’s so easy to understand what’s wrong with AdNauseam if you look into the spirit of the tool. The problem isn’t clicking every ad, it’s clicking every ad with the intent to throw a wrench in advertising.

If it worked well enough the end result would just be ads are worthless and sites lose money, just like if you block their ads.

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

#150

Post by nasredin »

x0x0 wrote: post #106
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes down to control and trust. Right now advertisers can run all sorts of crazy stuff without reproach, they don't want to give that up. Having ads served by the first-party would also require the advertiser to trust them to report all data accurately. Perhaps another reason is that you lose the ability to track users through third-party cookies?

3rd party is executing inside your first party context Lack of independent impression counting

>Lack of independent impression counting

AKA

Advertising companies are afraid website owners (and everybody else who can do it) are going to steal from them.

Post reply on HN