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

341–350 of 377 posts

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

#341

Post by marcosdumay »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #84
intrasight wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously the right solution. It's what print newspapers and magazines do. Why isn't there a quality first-party ad platform? Is there a business opportunity here?

I think it comes down to control and trust. Right now advertisers can run all sorts of crazy stuff without reproach, they don't want to give that up. Having ads served by the first-party would also require the advertiser to trust them to report all data accurately. Perhaps another reason is that you lose the ability to track users through third-party cookies?

You can't track exhibitions, but you can surely track clicks. It's not like it's the end of the world, it's only that advertisers want it all, and some more.

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

#342

Post by aembleton »

borplk wrote: post #15

I recently saw one site that said "It looks like you are using an ad-blocker. So you must wait 10 seconds.". And had an overlay with a countdown.

What happens if you block javascript? What about finding just the javascript file that was causing this to happen and blocking that?

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

#343

Post by programbreeding »

dreen wrote: post #301
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!)

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

I've tried countless browsers on Android, as well as various adblocking plugins and services. I always found myself going back to Chrome because it just worked.

I started using Brave about a year ago and I love it. The only thing I'm missing is syncing my bookmarks between Brave on my phone and Chrome on my computer, but a year later and it hasn't bothered me enough to find a fix.

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

#344

Post by nerdponx »

danmaz74 wrote: post #288
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…

Honestly, if you despise them so much, you should just stop using their services for free. I really don't understand this sense of entitlement.

If I had some guarantee that if I paid for Youtube and Google Maps they'd stop spying on me, I'd buy a subscription in a heartbeat. Likewise for online news sources.

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

#345

Post by donatj »

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…

I don’t believe people are as easily manipulated as you do.

I don’t buy things I don’t have a pre existing need for based on advertising, or really in general. If anything ads make me less likely to buy something based on the associated irritation.

My political beliefs have not been swayed by my Facebook feed. I think if anything Facebook has made people more hardline to their existing beliefs by feeding them that there is mass agreement with them.

You rolled off into unsupported tinfoil hat land for a bit. Soon to be divorced men isn’t a big enough market to go after.

And if your kid wants gummy bears, that’s on you for buying them.

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

#346

Post by username223 »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #165

Advertisers need to fuck off. Ads are never going to work on the web - the ad bubble needs to pop already! Advertising on the web is a horrifying web of fraud, psuedoscience, and invasive tracking and sensitive data hoarding. Frankly, it should have been outlawed by now.

> the ad bubble needs to pop already!

I agree, but it will be ugly. These "ad" companies are really surveillance companies who can currently print money by selling ads. When the bubble pops, they'll still have all of their surveillance data, but will be forced to sell it in different and sleazier ways. Think credit reporting that is technically not "credit reporting," job applicant screening based on web histories, reporting on political dissidents, etc. FB/GOOG will get seriously evil as they collapse.

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

#347

Post by baddox »

ascorbic wrote: post #217
baddox wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Societal norms for theft of physical property have been fairly clear for a long time, and shared across nearly every culture (every one I’m aware of). It’s a huge leap to apply those norms to downloading and running software on your own computer.

You’re claiming that, by choosing to visit a website, I have implicitly agreed to and am obligated to download every resource and execute all code that website’s maintainers decide to include, and to do that recursively for each downloaded resource. That is preposterous. It could, for instance, obligate me to download a literally endless amount of data, which might be very expensive for me. It might also obligate me to perform limitless computation on my machine, if for instance the website includes a script to mine Bitcoins.

I try to avoid making moral arguments, but I will certainly point out logical consequences of other people’s moral arguments that to me seem absolutely ludicrous.

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

#348

Post by baddox »

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.

In any other situation in society, the content owner is responsible for controlling access to the content until a price is explicitly agreed upon. An artist can’t display a painting in a public place and charge everyone whatever they want after they happen to view the painting.

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

#349

Post by dwild »

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…

I apply the same logic but to website that has annoying ads. You annoy me, I go somewhere else.

I have the privilege to have content creators to visit, not the other way around. There is 8 billions potential visitors, there's can only be less than that potential content creator. Visiting takes no time, creating takes so much more time (if it wouldn't, well I wouldn't even read your stuff, I would do it myself).

> There's other ways to make money rather than tormenting your users.

Sure, but what does it have to do with me visiting your website? I'm there for a single reason, read what you got. Except if you directly sell me what you write using a paywall, if you have a sideline, than what you do is ADVERTISING, which let me remind you, you don't like (I don't either). At least using advertising on the side of what you read, the text is no longer an advertisement, just what's beside it (which is clearly labeled and clearly ads).

Since the explosion of adblocker and the effect was increased after the Youtube Adpocalypse, there is so much more sponsored content produced, it's disgusting. I can live with some of it but currently, it just becomes worse and worse.

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

#350

Post by AlexMax »

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…

> I just immediately leave those sites that don't function unless I disable it

"Your terms are acceptable."

I think that is precisely what those sites want. They would probably prefer not to waste bandwidth on a user they can't monetize.

Post reply on HN