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

301–310 of 377 posts

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

#301

Post by dreen »

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! Chrome engine, built in Adblock, some interesting ideas about paying content creators

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

#302

Post by yellow_postit »

jonahx wrote: post #169
BoorishBears wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 appreci…

The answer to your question is: Because of hyperlinks (ie, the way the web works), it's not practical to tell people "hey, you clicked on the link, you agreed to pay them via advertising". A publicly accessible page is like a public space in that way. If a company doesn't want to offer free access to content that costs them money to produce, they can create a login system and a paywall.

They can also implement ad block detection. Not every site is going to implement a paywall, they should have the option of business model and ad supported is a valid choice though I do hope more variety comes along to more sites.

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

#303

Post by dbmikus »

nickjj wrote: post #283

I've been using uBlock since it came out and I just immediately leave those sites that don't function unless I disable it. Whatever content they have, someone else likely has a "good enough" alternative. I also happen to run a blog (no where near a major website) but my thought process is, you should write because you want to spread what you've learned with others, not create a platform for the sole purpose of making…

Should everyone do their job for free? It's reasonable to try to make money writing.

A site can disable access to those using adblock, and it's reasonable to choose to avoid those websites.

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

#304

Post by hutzlibu »

nickjj wrote: post #283

I've been using uBlock since it came out and I just immediately leave those sites that don't function unless I disable it. Whatever content they have, someone else likely has a "good enough" alternative. I also happen to run a blog (no where near a major website) but my thought process is, you should write because you want to spread what you've learned with others, not create a platform for the sole purpose of making…

But you are not writing for a living, so it is easy to say, just doing it for the joy and not for money. But there are people which profession is writing - and they need to get money.

The normal way, unfortunately is with ads, even though nobody likes them.

My preferred solution of voluntarily pay what you want ... probably takes a bit more time, to become established.

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

#305

Post by pixl97 »

mythrwy wrote: post #62
nimbius wrote: post #49

Ads are inherently psychologically abusive, targeting your insecurities and exploiting sex and basic instinct to move product. There needs to be a fundamental shift from the old tv and radio model of advertisers targeting everyone through inescapable ham fisted and manipulative ads, to a system that is all but dormant until I query it for a service. Show me nothing, nothing at all, until I make the effort to ask the…

"Ads are inherently psychologically abusive" Only the really good ones though. Most are just annoying and boring.

Annoyance is a type of abuse, just one we more readily accept.

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

#306

Post by nickjj »

hutzlibu wrote: post #304
nickjj wrote: post #283

I've been using uBlock since it came out and I just immediately leave those sites that don't function unless I disable it. Whatever content they have, someone else likely has a "good enough" alternative. I also happen to run a blog (no where near a major website) but my thought process is, you should write because you want to spread what you've learned with others, not create a platform for the sole purpose of making…

But you are not writing for a living, so it is easy to say, just doing it for the joy and not for money. But there are people which profession is writing - and they need to get money. The normal way, unfortunately is with ads, even though nobody likes them. My preferred solution of voluntarily pay what you want ... probably takes a bit more time, to become established.

I do write for a living, but instead of basing my business model around selling ads I went with a different approach (doing freelance work and training).

I know that's not applicable to every writing industry, but those other industries have different ways to generate income too.

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

#307

Post by rplnt »

dhimes wrote: post #296

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. Usi…

> As I've said many times I don't mind ads

Have you seen the web without an ad blocker though?

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

#308

Post by barrkel »

stinkytaco wrote: post #297
aleksei wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even for in-store cameras, the store owner doesn't have free reign over what they can do with that footage, certainly under EU data protection laws.

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

#309

Post by executesorder66 »

IronKettle wrote: post #266
executesorder66 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or be replaced by open source alternatives. And if you are wondering why they haven't already, it's because google/stackoverflow/reddit etc. are already providing the service for 'free'. So as soon as they shut down, someone else will make an alternative.

> So as soon as they shut down, someone else will make an alternative. They exist already. They're mostly horrible. I pretty religiously use DDG, but even then I probably use the !g operator every third search or so. Reddit's already almost entirely open-source IIRC. People have used it to make alternatives. Check out Voat, you can see the alternative in action (you might not like what you find, though).

They're horrible becuase not a lot of effort goes into them. If there's no alternative, then they will drastically improve.

Voat is bad becuase of the users. Not becuase it is an alternative to Reddit. If all Reddit users switched to coat, it would have a pretty similar culture and content, becuase it will have the same users.

I also use ddg but I haven't used a !g in over a year.

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

#310

Post by rplnt »

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…

One local news website I sometimes use was covering elections - news reports, partial results, the usual. It's a very high traffic day for any news outlet like this, so it would be a shame not to monetize it.

They had this huge background ad covering my whole screen with a bit of conent in the middle (which also has inlined ads of course). They served the background image from the root of their main domain, new url was generated with each request (there seemed to be no pattern that I could match), scripts requesting and displaying the ad were inlined, and the ad itself couldn't be easily hidden as it was attached directly to the somehow. I played with blocking it for a few minutes and then just gave up and used different website.

They went back to regular ads after the election, but I know they are saving this crap for later. Oh, and they also do pop-up asking you to disable the ad blocker.

Post reply on HN