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

151–160 of 377 posts

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

#151

Post by sattoshi »

Buge wrote: post #123
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…

>to profile you and optimally manipulate your behavior to sell you shit. ...by showing you ads.

Not limited to showing ads

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

#152

Post by edanm »

stewbrew wrote: post #148
nojvek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you really trust your personal opinion on this, versus literally an entire billion dollar industry which has an enormous incentive to get this right, and which thinks this as business DOES work?

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

#153

Post by berbec »

themistocle wrote: post #81
paulcole wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

When reading we’re free to skip and skim. Vinyl, VHS, Cassette, CD, and DVD allow us to seek or rewind as we like. When I buy a PC, I can install any software I choose to. When browsing the web, I can accept or reject any served content. That’s not entitlement. Entitlement is the sentiment that users somehow owe advertising or web firms anything.

Ever notice Candy Crush and Minecraft getting installed by Microsoft during Windows Updates?

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

#154

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

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…

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that and ultimately comes down to a lack of regulation of what third party advertisement companies should be allowed to do without full disclosure.

It is reasonable to expect a free lemonade stand to print ads on the cups and have sales people around trying to initiate conversations with you while you consume your free beverage. Peeling off the ads and yelling at the sales people would make you an entitled hypocrite. However, if the same sales people would also secretly take a creep photo of you, write down your preference of lemonade and take note of your clothing and body type and compile all of it into a personal file on you to be sold and shared with other businesses in the whole world? Wouldn't you start to question whether they take a bit too much in exchange of that free lemonade?

I would accept it if they wrote the conditions on a sign before entering, but that is not how most free sites today operate. The fact that the tracking is completely automated somehow makes it seem less intrusive to many people, but it is just as creepy as someone spying on you in person.

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

#155

Post by zzleeper »

gorhill wrote: post #90

In the paper, this excerpt: > We choose Adblock as it is one of the most popular. It is also possible to use Adblock Plus or uBlock, as the way they operate is exactly the same — HTTP filters and HTML element hiding. AdBlock in the Chrome store uses Adblock Plus filtering engine[1], so to say the way these two "operate is exactly the same" makes sense. However uBlock Origin uses its own code base, and is far better e…

What would you recommend for mobile? Browsing on Android with Chrome is a nightmare, and the last time I tried FF it was a bit sluggish (although it did allowed me to install extensions!)

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

#156

Post by whoopdedo »

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 probably will never not use an ad blocker just because that's my form of white-collar anarchism. But I tell everyone in my family to also use them and that will not change until ad vendors do a better job vetting the quality of the ads they sell. That means no deceptive "buttons", claims that "your computer is infected", or "people in _insert_geolocated_city_" type deceptive ads. And if the site owners complain about lost money, well it's your fault for cooperating with these con artists. If you can't promise that my grandmother won't be tricked into downloading malware when she visits your site then you don't deserve to earn anything from her.

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

#157

Post by borplk »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #27
eeereerews wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they're getting paid per unit of user suffering.

Or maybe they were using a cryptocurrency miner during those 10 seconds as a substitute for ads.

That kind of setup doesn't work.

They will keep it honest for the first 24 hours of rolling it out.

Then it will creep from "during those 10 seconds" to "the entire time".

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

#158

Post by BoorishBears »

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #154
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…

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that and ultimately comes down to a lack of regulation of what third party advertisement companies should be allowed to do without full disclosure. It is reasonable to expect a free lemonade stand to print ads on the cups and have sales people around trying to initiate conversations with you while you consume your free beverage. Peeling off the ads and yelling at the sales people…

I agree that sites should be more direct with what they're tracking, and would support regulation around that, but this thread is really about people claiming they're fully aware of what is being tracked and just don't want it to be tracked.

I think your analogy makes it easy to see why people support it if you take it a little further.

For free lemonade? A layperson would say of "Of course that's too far!". But now imagine a mall where everything is free. Everything. Suddenly laypeople start asking "Well can they at least tell me they're taking the picture?", "Can they write down the answers after I checkout instead of holding up the lines to do that?"

I think we need to sit down and seriously evaluate what content is worth. I feel like we reached our current predicament because people just seriously undervalue content, and advertising became the last bastion of value generation. It's similar to how IAP became the only smart way to generate revenue since people feel 5$ for a solid app with indefinite support is just too much. yet IAP ends up being a lot more intrusive than upfront payment.

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

#160

Post by strken »

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…

I like some content. I am willing to pay ten times[0] the revenue ads would generate, potentially more, to see the content without ads. I want to pay for only the content I read, and not a monthly sum. Why am I unable to pay, and what incentives would change the system so that I can pay, other than using an ad blocker?

[0] Say a website has a CPM of $5 and displays 10 ads to each user, such that a single impression from a user without an ad blocker earns 5c. 50c is entirely reasonable, particularly if a user can refund clickbait.

Post reply on HN