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

211–220 of 377 posts

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

#211

Post by shandor »

zzleeper wrote: post #155
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!)

Firefox for Android is wonderful after Quantum. uBlock Origin works fine with it, and you can even use the custom filters to purge the scourge of the so called "dickbars" from your browsing experience. It's not as streamlined to use as with a mouse, but never having to see those Medium banners again makes my Internet life so much better.

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

#212

Post by marklgr »

BoorishBears wrote: post #203
marklgr wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your points, people don't want to pay (enough) for content, so content provider have little choice. I'd say it's the content-provider responsibility to market its content in such a way that people are willing to pay for it. That's what all businesses do. If they can't make it, then it's no excuse to resort to creepy stuff like tracking and profiling people without their consent, or with them ignoring the…

I thinks we need to remember the context of this conversation, I’m not against blocking tracking and not wanting to be tracked. I’m just against blocking ads then saying it’s taking the moral high ground and vilifying content creators who offer ads. I’m not even against blocking ads period, so long as we’re accepting the fact that it’s for personal benefit and definitely not “sticking it to the man” The problem is we…

> At that point, to me, neither side has done anything wrong.

Well, tracking my mother who doesn't know enough about ad-blockers or the implications of being tracked is already wrong, to me. Collecting detailed personal information on people for commercial purposes should be strictly regulated, at the very least when it's done automatically.

> That sends the message that you won’t support the model.

We should send the most effective and unambiguous kind of messages: I like that content, but not the ad/tracking that you put on your site. That's much clearer than not visiting the site altogether (they might think they just have to change their content, or their marketing or sth). Some media are not fully aware of the crap they run, because it's run by a third-party, and the decision was made by another department etc. I don't necessarily want to send a bad signal to everyone there.

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

#213

Post by eps »

BoorishBears wrote: post #203
marklgr wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your points, people don't want to pay (enough) for content, so content provider have little choice. I'd say it's the content-provider responsibility to market its content in such a way that people are willing to pay for it. That's what all businesses do. If they can't make it, then it's no excuse to resort to creepy stuff like tracking and profiling people without their consent, or with them ignoring the…

I thinks we need to remember the context of this conversation, I’m not against blocking tracking and not wanting to be tracked. I’m just against blocking ads then saying it’s taking the moral high ground and vilifying content creators who offer ads. I’m not even against blocking ads period, so long as we’re accepting the fact that it’s for personal benefit and definitely not “sticking it to the man” The problem is we…

> vilifying content creators who offer ads

Not the OP, but the "brainwashed" angle applies to more than just ads.

Anyone with a Gmail account is effectively selling my communication with them to Google for a free service. And you bet that when told about this very few would see it that way. Consumers _are_ as guillable as they are ignorant. These new "established" online norms - be it tracking, profiling, ads, what have you - would've never flown in their physical form, but here we are in a world where Gmail, WhatsApp, Android phones, Google Analytics, etc. are considered gold standards of modern tech.

No sane person, if explained the exact ramifications of these "free services", would've agreed to any of them just 15 years ago. But they do now, giddily at that. Pray tell how this is anything but a brainwashing.

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

#214

Post by ascorbic »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #204
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…

> If you don’t consent why view their content? Ever since newspapers, the social contract has been that they serve content and I become a reader they can sell advertising space for me to look at. They can't suddenly change that contract and expect everyone to automatically agree.

In what way are they changing it? Surely by using ad blockers it is us that are changing the contract, by removing the ability for the publisher to show us ads.

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

#215

Post by ascorbic »

sametmax wrote: post #179
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…

When you arrive on most sites with ads, they don't make you to accept anything. They don't give you a term of service to read. You just click, and download the code, and it executes. It's an implicit contract, which means they sell your data without your consent, as most people don't understand what's going on. Actually, even when you understand what's going on, the sheer number of things to check to get the full pic…

I take from this that you're happy for sites to then use these anti-ad-blocker scripts to deny access to users that won't view the ads? I certainly think that's a more honest approach than using them to get around the blockers to display ads anyway, but it's probably less popular.

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

#216

Post by crdoconnor »

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 you really hate them so much (I mean, you’re fine with them going out of business so at least, you don’t love them or rely on them) why even make the request?

Because you like the content?

If it's genuinely decent content it should encourage the middleman who owns the delivery system to look for more honest and up front sources of income. If it's crap, bottom feeder content then it's no great loss if adblockers drive it out of business is it?

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

#217

Post by ascorbic »

baddox wrote: post #180
duncan-donuts wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to be that guy, but I'm going to guess you probably _do_ consent just by accessing certain sites. I'm sure if you read the terms they disclose that. I'm not saying that's right, and I also have a similar stance of trying not to be profiled, but don't delude yourself thinking your ad blocker is stopping organizations from gathering your metadata.

It is literally nonsensical to tell someone who is explicitly not consenting that they are in fact implicitly consenting.

If you are explicitly not consenting, then surely the correct way to do this is to not visit the site. If I go to a shop and want a product but don't like the price I am within my rights to refuse the contract and not buy the item. What I am not entitled to do is unilaterally change the contract, and walk out with the item without paying full price. I use an ad blocker because so many sites are barely usable without it, but I don't pretend it's a morally justifiable thing to do, and I try to disable it for sites that I use a lot, unless I pay for them.

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

#218

Post by KozmoNau7 »

tdb7893 wrote: post #189
_ph_ wrote: post #181

I wish, instead of fighting Ad Blockers, they would try as hard to fix they way they run ads. Not to mention the sites, which only exist to display ads and practically don't have their own content except for clickbait headlines. A side comment: while blocking ads might reduce revenue for sites, it also means the advertiser has to pay for views by people who wouldn't click on the ads anyway.

The thing is that ad blockers don't often don't discriminate between acceptable ads and unacceptable ads and just block everything. Even if you put a lot of effort to make your ads better most people will just block them regardless.

Doesn't matter. Advertising is a scam and a blight on humanity.

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

#219

Post by sebazzz »

zzleeper wrote: post #155
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!)

Not exactly an adblocker, but on your local network you could use pi-hole.

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

#220

Post by Matheus28 »

doesnt_know wrote: post #136

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…

Honorable, but 99% of the people don't care. They just want their free content with no ads.

(numbers completely made up on the spot)

Post reply on HN