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

291–300 of 377 posts

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

#291

Post by scaryclam »

PrimHelios wrote: post #68
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.

Animated ads actually give me sensory overload. If a site could promise non-moving ads, I'd gladly whitelist them. It's amazing how many sites think you'll just accept incredibly intrusive and annoying banners.

I'll tend to whitelist sites that I find useful, but the moment a distracting ad shows, the ad blocker goes back on. I understand the reason some sites rely on ad revenue, and I sympathise when theyre not given a chance, but if they can't be civil to their users then I see no reason for their users to put up with it.

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

#292

Post by _ph_ »

tcd wrote: post #260
_ph_ wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the collateral damage inflicted by participating at the current ad model far to long. However, for sites who really want to change, this isn't a real problem. First of all, if you don't serve ads via "ad networks" but as part of your hostet content, I don't think the ads are getting blocked by default. Also, if a site with true content and regular readers has a proper ad model, they can just ask their re…

Yeah, any site that pops-up "pls whitelist us!!" gets an instant X on the tab from me. It sucks, but I will never tolerate ads of any kind, no matter how good or bad. To me, they are done, along with tracking on the web (including mobile). Oh, and before you scream at me, what about people that simply disable JS, which is basically how all of this works anyway. I'm not entitled to a free web, I get that, but ads are…

I would accept ads as the price of a web without paywalls, if they behaved like printed ads: being static, without user tracking, just selected by the relevance of the content they are placed in. Then ads might not only bring revenue to the publication but might be genuinely interesting to me.

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

#294

Post by jayess »

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!)

Brave browser. I switched from Firefox a few months ago and I love it.

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

#295

Post by ascorbic »

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.

Do you read the content on the website? Because in that case yes it is fair for the "store owner" to force you to pay the price.

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

#296

Post by dhimes »

As I've said many times I don't mind ads, but I block trackers. What these websites need to understand is that this is the market in action. We can bemoan trackers. We can legislate against them (at least in principle). But if WEBSITES were to LOSE MONEY if as a result of using trackers and therefore NOT USE THEM then the companies hoarding our data would have to find another business model or go out of business.

Using ad/tracking blockers is the morally correct choice if you want the market to handle this.

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

#297

Post by stinkytaco »

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.

To extend this analogy, it's more like they have cameras in the store and you are covering them up.

Where this analogy breaks down is when those cameras start following you from store to store.

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

#298

Post by bryanlarsen »

distances wrote: post #277
bryanlarsen wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It wasn't just placebo, some parts of Quantum made it in to 57 mobile, just not everything.

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

#299

Post by jasonkostempski »

user5994461 wrote: post #46
jasonkostempski wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I came to a site, liked what it was about, noticed it didn't get any hits by uBO and saw an affiliate link with text (no images hosted elsewhere) like "Do you need AAA batteries and would like to support our site? Click Here", it's very likely I would click the link if I will need the thing any time soon. It doesn't have to be related to the content of the page or fit the genre of the site, it doesn't need to try…

To be fair, some contextual amazon recommendations would probably fare better than most stupid ads.

Thats exactly the edge of the cliff everyone jumped off so many years ago. Even if they don't have to drop in a third-party JS snippet on their site to get that feature, now you have to question the motives of the author.

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

#300

Post by elorant »

mobilemidget wrote: post #200
joaodlf wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way too negative. I have been using uBlock Origin for years and it's one of those things that just works. Turning it off in those rare moments it needs to be off is a bleak reminder of the state of the internet. Why would I want to go through the hassle of managing all of this work by myself? A massive THANK YOU to the individuals behind uBlock - You literally make the internet tolerable for me.

I don't know why you call it negative, I call it realistic. It's like putting all _caught_ pedofiles in a jail, and then saying children can roam the streets free and in safety...

It might be realistic for you, or me or anyone in here, but it definitely isn't realistic for the average user. And it's them we try to protect by blocking ads. Technical savvy people have an armada of options at their disposal, for example we could just block JavaScript. But the average Joe relies heavily on ad blockers for a smoother and safer experience browsing the web. You can't expect non technical users to do any of the things you propose.
Post reply on HN