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

331–340 of 377 posts

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

#331

Post by kstrauser »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #48

I was reading the news with Safari on iOS 11.2 with a new iPhone X recently. As I was browsing different sites I noticed I was getting redirected to those scammy "You've won a cruise" style websites. I had no idea ads were so out of control. I've been using ad blocking technology for 10+ years and never see it first hand. It's pretty crazy that website operators have to create such a terrible user experience to survi…

I've been using 1Blocker on iOS for ages now and can't tolerate the mobile web without it. There are several other good blockers, too, including Firefox Focus. I highly, highly recommend using one.

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

#332

Post by donatj »

MikkoFinell wrote: post #104
paulryanrogers wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable" What sites are unusable? Aside from some click-bait destinations like BuzzFeed I've found the web without ad blockers works well enough.

>What sites are unusable? Youtube.

I paid for Red a long time ago just to get rid of the ads. I forget they even have ads.

Particularly nice for the app.

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

#333

Post by marcosdumay »

saguro wrote: post #241
Buge wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How about by manipulating your facebook news feed and exposing you to a carefully selected series of images and headlines to sway your opinion on political topics without you even realizing. How about identifying which youtubers your children are impressionable to, and then approaching them to push unhealthy food products? How about using your porn browsing habits and location history to figure out when you start che…

That might be because I'm odd... But all I can catch them doing is trying to predict the next thing I'll consume and inserting themselves as a middle-men in any possible channel I can use to buy it.

Yes, they leak data like a sieve. But I don't see they using that data, except for defrauding people I buy stuff from.

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

#334

Post by donatj »

rplnt wrote: post #307
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?

Unpopular opinion, but I more often than not find the sites plastered with ads to be things I’m better off not having in my life. Junk news, clickbait lists, I just don’t bother.

There is a single site I use regularly that is ad ridden, and I use Brave for it basically exclusively. I can see that they accept Brave Payments as well, so I don’t feel too bad about it.

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

#335

Post by pdkl95 »

Improvotter wrote: post #256
etatoby wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. As a positive example, I like how many YouTube channels take 30 seconds out of a 10 minute video to talk about some company's product that might be of interest to their audience. Not an annoying video ad that has nothing to do with what I'm reading / watching, just the host talking about a product or service that their audience has a chance to be interested in.

I completely agree. I cannot stand some random YouTube ad that YouTube itself plays before videos because it's not relevant and I do not trust the people that are marketing it. When I see someone I trust on YouTube recommend a product in a pre-roll ad or the like, then I don't really skip it and I do really keep those companies in mind in case I ever am looking for a product that they might offer.

If-and-only-if the sponsorship or product recommendation is properly disclosed as a paid promotion[1], this is a great way to handle product promotion.

> trust

This is the key feature. The advertiser risks trusting that the promoter will show their product in a positive light. The promoter risks their own reputation on the quality of their endorsements.

This element of risk hopefully serves as an incentive to maintain a high quality of both the product and the endorsement. Bad manufacturers and poor quality (or scandalous) services should lose access to trustworthy endorsers with (hopefully) large audiences. Good manufacturers and high quality services won't want to associate with cheap shills.

The only problem I see is that places like YouTube are not optimizing for quality endorsers. Their focus on engagement is driving away people that try to create quality; may have already left. Those that remain are becoming increasingly formulaic, uninspired, risk-adverse, and "advertiser safe".

[1] Which is required by law![2] This probably also means disclosing if you got a free copy for review purposes[3] of a product that would otherwise cost money or have a non-monetary value. The disclosure must also be "clear and conspicuous"[4].

[2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/04/ftc-s...

[3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

[4] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

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

#336

Post by donatj »

HN in the same breath:

- We miss the old internet of independent creators.

- We love ad blockers.

The rise of the second has in no small part injured the first. Money is a big incentive for independent creators, and removing it from the equation has a chilling effect.

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

#337

Post by marcosdumay »

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.

It is more like they require you to place cameras all over yourself, and the cameras are yours, not theirs.

I don't really know if one could require this. Seems complex. But add that the cameras are hidden (you don't know they are cameras) and it becomes a very simple issue.

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

#338

Post by notatoad »

wdn wrote: post #318

Without adblocking, the web is unusable for most sites. Full page ads, video ads that follow you while you scrolling, popup, malwares, bitcoin mining, tracking, etc... TBH, the only solution is browser makers put out an ad acceptable standard. However, with Google's revenue base on ads, I doubt there will be any change to it until someone come along and disrupted the browsers.

>the only solution is browser makers put out an ad acceptable standard. However, with Google's revenue base on ads...

funny you should call out google for this, as in february chrome will start blocking ads (including google's) on websites that violate the policies defined here: https://www.betterads.org/standards/

https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/12/better-ads

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

#339

Post by aleksei »

ascorbic wrote: post #295
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.

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.

I would agree, if only I were given the choice. As it is, I have no way to know what the terms of a website are until I visit. The intent of the ads are also usually not made clear. If I don't view the ad am I allowed to read the content?

I guess it boils down to what you think the Internet is. I feel I should be in control of my computer, and thus I get to decide which bits I allow onto my network and which of those bits are then rendered on my screen. If you've made content publicly available, it's mine to consume in the way I see fit. I don't see why I shouldn't, for example, be allowed to use a text based browser to view content or browse with JavaScript disabled.

Payment for content is of course difficult for websites, but I just don't feel an ad based revenue is feasible on an open web, precisely because the web is open. The platform does not support the notion of content creators implicitly dictating terms.

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

#340

Post by nkrisc »

At this point use of an ad-blocker for me is no longer a question about ethics or business models or the like, but about security.

I use an ad blocker because ad networks serve malware. I'm sure they don't mean to, but they do, so I block them. I'm no longer concerned with their intent, but concerned with what is actually happening.

Post reply on HN