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

271–280 of 377 posts

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

#271

Post by Karunamon »

aleksei wrote: post #248
ascorbic wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The actual analogy is walking into a store and being forced to buy something for walking in. I don't feel the store owner should be entitled to do that. As for moral justifiability, I find it unacceptable that a website operator can sell data about me without my consent just for following a link to their site.

Data about you is not necessarily owned by you.

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

#272

Post by dhimes »

shandor wrote: post #211
zzleeper wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"dickbars:"

https://twitter.com/gruber/status/874304779622785024

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

#273

Post by aethertron »

mikequinlan wrote: post #244

Ad blocking seems like a possible application for machine learning, to distinguish between ads and content. Anti-ad blocking also seems like a possible application for machine learning, to distinguish clients that are blocking ads and those that are not. In a battle between the two it seems like the anti-ad blocking side will win. They have resources (big companies with lots of money and server farms, versus small de…

If anti-ad-blocking countermeasures compel ads to become undetectable as ads, then they would, it seems, become non-popups, non-animated, silent, and not mess with webpage layouts. So, less annoying. That outcome looks like a significant victory to me.

I am still optimistic about ad-blocking. Because the client system has the final say for how websites are displayed.

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

#274

Post by hollander »

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 of course! I've been using it since the day it came out on Android. It means less phoning home to Google, and you can install Privacy Badger. Works for me like on the desktop.

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

#275

Post by nsebban »

globcal wrote: post #254

I have always been against ads and misguiding Internet users. Ads should be strictly regulated and the Internet should be completely free and open, it is that simple.

>Ads should be strictly regulated and the Internet should be completely free and open

While I completely agree with you on both points, I'm afraid both things that are mutually exclusive :(

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

#276

Post by hollander »

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 wouldn't call it despicable. It's their job in a more or less free market. I've been waiting for this, and I wondered why this didn't happen sooner.

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

#277

Post by distances »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #269
abhishek0318 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though Firefox on Android has improved a lot with the recent quantum update, you can still feel it's a little laggy as compared to Chrome. Specifically, scrolling on Firefox feels very laggy. Also, Firefox doesn't play videos on same tab. That becomes very frustrating.

Are you sure you're using Quantum? Quantum isn't in Firefox 57 for mobile, you need the beta 58 for Quantum.

Huh, I didn't know this. I felt Firefox 56 -> 57 was a major improvement in Android too, and was sure this was due to Quantum. I wonder now if that was just placebo.

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

#278

Post by betterunix2 »

antimatter wrote: post #89
LeoPanthera wrote: post #31

Oh, the irony. https://i.imgur.com/uplpnxv.png

Can someone explain to me why they want to show you the ad even when they don't care if you look at it, let alone click on it? Are advertisers still paying for just showing the ad?

Yes, because just seeing the ad is effective in many cases; for example, brand advertising.

(Edit: note that even though you may not look at it directly, it is still effective)

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

#279

Post by pmlnr »

Buge wrote: post #124
freedomben wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to think there's enough legitimate work out there for data scientists (especially these days) without resorting to this.

How will search engines make money if not by ads? How will free webmail providers exist? Ad supported content provides a wealth of information for people who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.

Maybe that's the source of the problem: "free", the assumption getting a service without paying somehow.

I'm old enough to remember a service, which added a footer into your IE5 and showed ads constantly, and in exchange, you got paid, with actual money. (Pocket money level, of course; unfortunately I can't recall service names, this was pre-2000.)

Getting a service for viewing ads - that is fine.

Telling me it's free then showing me ads - that's just plain dishonestly and/or lying, so don't tell me not to block ads: I never agreed to them explicitly.

And as for information access: Wikipedia, one of the most well known source of information, is running on donations - subscriptions, really. It is viable. Makes no money for investors though and serves and actual purpose, like a library.

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

#280

Post by supergreg »

mobilemidget wrote: post #194
bradknowles wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL that the author of uBlock Origin reads HN. Cool! And thank you for your service to the Internet!

They all suck. Period. Block any outgoing connection you don't trust instead of simply taking some 3rd party list with URLs, unverified, no quality control etc, and only blacklist these KNOWN bad urls. Ad parties don't sit still, they don't keep their ads on the same url when they found out they are blocked or maybe already preventive rotate through new urls etc. In the end you'll end up with some bizar long list whi…

I'll trust the block lists from my internet neighbors. Thank you for your concern but the people who build those lists take sufficient care and most use a transparent process to add rules to them, like GitHub pull requests, and if there's ever a rule that wrongly blocks a site I can whitelist it myself with ease.

They might burn some CPU cycles but surely the ads themselves burn much more.

Post reply on HN